Acceptable Use Policy

Another pro of FISA, and the applicable amendments that followed, is the ability for electronic surveillance to be conducted without a court order for a designated length of time to better facilitate collection and streamline the process under USC. 1802, Sec 102. There are, of course, steps required by high ranking officials, the President and Attorney General, which must be taken to conduct such surveillance without a court order. Also, the criteria to conduct the surveillance is restricted specifically to communications exclusively between foreign powers and must not include “substantial likelihood” that the surveillance will acquire communications pertaining to a United States Person. [4] While the appropriate legal process should always be followed, this provision is necessary at times to bypass the lengthy legal process for obtaining a court order when time restrictions apply.

Court, many people think the surveillance programs are unconstitutional. They argue that it breaks the First and Fourth Amendments set in the constitution. The reasoning is that they are not protected against unreasonable search and seizure (Donohue). Critics contend that it is also an invasion of privacy in the lives of United States citizens and has shown little about preventing terrorist attacks (Brown). There have been arguments about freedom of speech and press in this case too. Google had filed a court petition saying that the gag order barring disclosure was a violation of its freedom of speech. Google had wanted to release the number of user accounts that were associated with the PRISM program because the reports about the program were misleading (Pepitone). In one case, Judge Richard Leon ruled the collection of phone records unconstitutional. He stated, “I cannot imagine a more ‘indiscriminate’ and ‘arbitrary invasion’ than this systematic and high-tech collection and retention of personal data on virtually every citizen for purposes of querying and analyzing it without prior judicial approval.” (Mears and Perez). Even though it was ruled unconstitutional by Judge Leon, the surveillance programs are constitutional according to the U.S. Court.

This article specifically explains the legal constraints that go hand in hand with information sharing while being monitored through the Patriot act. Showing how the Patriot Act itself monitors specific agencies with respect to national security. Its main subject areas deal with information sharing amongst U.S. citizens through cyber space such as internet, social networks, emails etc… But most importantly this article is a reflection of the United states government’s precautionary measures taking by our U.S. Government in order to up hold not only the safety of our citizens but our national security as

Spying on American citizens is now a common method employed by the government striving to protect the nation from terrorist attacks. Nonetheless, since its incorporation, the Act has been controversial as politicians and citizens alike have argued between the need to keep society safe and abusive powers of the government over its citizens. Although, mandated to serve as

The National Security Agency’s (NSA) warrantless collection of metadata has been questioned on constitutional grounds. Specifically, the NSA’s program has been argued to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which states that all citizens are to be free from any unreasonable search or seizure. Proponents of the NSA’s collection of metadata believe that it is a crucial tool in preventing terrorist attacks, while opponents of the program believe that its questionable constitutional validity, along with its lack of clear success in preventing a single terrorist attack, leaves the NSA’s metadata collection program in desperate need of reform or outright abolishment.

In many criminal cases, there is some type of surveillance used on suspects, whether it be of their phone calls, location, or their online activity. Phone calls and text messages, specifically, are collected at all times by phone carriers, and the NSA has the ability to query this data for specific records under the USA Freedom Act, which came into effect after the end of Section 215 of the Patriot Act; the primary difference is that, before, the NSA collected this data themselves and stored it within their own database while the data is now stored by phone companies, though the NSA can still access it. This is done with the goal of giving a constant means of tracking terrorist and similar threats, but this data can also be used in court cases. Similar provisions allow them to collect other data such as e-mails, though data is only supposed to be collected on communications

205). This is an example of how the federal government can declare the collection of certain information of individuals if the courts decide if warrantless searches are unreasonable. Administrative agencies can also keep and collect information of businesses and individuals through the use of delegation of power, this do not infringes the fifth amendment of individuals since it pertains to records and not oral evidence. The problem with this, is that individuals may believe that agencies want to keep records to sanction the violation of standards, such as the case of Oklahoma press case and the use of subpoenas to investigate wage and hour provisions to determine if there were violations to the labor standards. The dangers to private parties and businesses is that the release of information may put in danger the welfare of the individual or businesses. A great example of this is when the businesses fear to give information to agencies since they suspect that they might turn it into the FOIA, and then be obtained by its competitors. There are privacy concerns among members of society fearing that their privacy may be put at risk if the release of certain information is

In his VICE interview, Greenwald responded to the question on privacy from the U.S. spying by saying, “Privacy is essential to who we are as human beings. Having your privacy eroded are sometimes elusive for some people and yet incredibly profound. A society that thinks or knows they are always being watched will breed conformity” (2016).

People make phone calls, and send emails all the time. These things are usually private and involve small groups of people. However, we have discovered that phone calls and emails are not as private as one may think. The government and the National Security Agency (NSA), have been spying on citizens and collecting data from the calls made and text messages and emails sent. Though they say they are doing this for our safety and to detect terrorists, the NSA has not caught many terrorists with the methods of surveillance they are using. NSA methods are ineffective and have not produced adequate results to justify their damage to civil liberties.

NSA spying is U.S government's most extensive electronic and online surveillance programs. They keep records electronic and online surveillance programs. They keep records of Americans from phone companies, internet providers and other resources. They keep data to protect Americans from terrorist attack. It address 4th Amendment. It’s

A letter from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Supreme Judicial Court reflects on the constitutionality of the NSA along with the vulnerability of our national and cyber security. Within this letter lies a plethora of rational reasons on why we should further improve encryptions, have strong back-door access, and not allow any mandates that would require technology companies to retain private information. Surveillance acts such as the Communication

One undeniable right that all Americans possess is the right to prohibit unreasonable searches and seizures, and by accessing civilian’s personal digital documents, the Government is violating that right. When it comes down to a debate between personal privacy and national security, the Government chooses to undermine the constitutional standards through overly invasive surveillance of civilian’s personal documents (Paul/Yoho paragraph 4). This statement hereby implies that the government is

Government’s demands would be for the policy. Obviously, the U.S. Government needs information to protect the nation; however, there must be some restrictions for those who have “personal” information to hide. A possible compromise would be to allow the government to have access to information that would allow the government to prevent, suppress, and investigate criminal activities; fight against terrorist activities; maintain social security and order; and fight against behaviors jeopardizing social order, while restricting the government from “personal” information that has nothing to do with the protection of the public (certain types of pornography- not including child porn).

the NSA expansive power to spy on Americans’ international email and telephone calls. But in

Countless United States citizens have been in an uproar over their right to privacy over the course of the last decade. This is due to the recent discovery of government agencies such as the NSA (National Security Agency) using methods such the recording, screening, and/ or intercepting of private phone calls without the caller's consent. For obvious reasons, people are upset with this practice, as it is undoubtedly a breach of privacy, but after the events of September 11, 2001, there is no denying that such practices are effective and completely justifiable in the case of homeland security.