What kind of policy would you make for the national security without invading peoplefs privacy?

Protecting both people's privacy and the national security at the same time is a very difficult problem to be solved. There must be frictions and contradictions between two sides, people want privacy and a country needs their information.
Therefor it is a question of how much privacy violation people can be tolerate in the name of national security. I don't have any specific ideas,this is a very controversial topic. but I only persist that the surveillance organization such as N.S.A. must have strict rules for monitoring people's privacy. And all of private information that obtained from investigation must be kept strictly in the certain organization.



Protecting people's privacy and the national security, *standing them together, is a very difficult problem to solve. And it is also a question of how much privacy violation, people can be tolerate in the name of national security. I don't have any specific ideas, [but] I only *2hope that the surveillance organization such as N.S.A. must have strict rules for monitoring people's privacy and any private information leaking from them mustn't happen.

*: standing them together
  Good attempt of "bunshi kobun"! But there are a couple of problems here.
  1.) The verb "stand" in most cases is intransitive verb. When the verb "stand" takes an object, that usually means "cannot tolerate". For example, "I cannot stand her." (= I cannot tolerate her.)

  2.) I understand what you are trying to say here: "ryoritsu saseru." However, you cannot use the verb "stand" for this meaning. Unfortunately, I've never heard of any similar expression in English (they usually say "have both work (out)").

  In this particular case, you can use the phrase "hand in hand"(it means 2 things are in a good relationship to each other. Roughly, it is the same as "(go) together".) For example,
"having them go hand in hand"(= have both of the privacy and national security go together = have both be in a good relationship.)


*2: "hope" and "must" (and "mustn't)
   These are two different concepts.
   When you "hope", you cannot have an imperative sentence after that. This can be regarded as a type of 'belief (your wish for something to be in a different way from the actual situation).' When you "hope", you usually use "will" for a modal verb.
   "Must" in this case contains some 'belief (imperative suggestion from your perspective)', and you cannot have 2 different types of "belief" in the same sentence because it is not logical. You usually use "believe", "think", or "feel" to contain a sentence that contains "must".