An Inquisition Of Privacy And The United States

The debate between where to draw the line between allowing government surveillance and keeping society’s members privacy will never be completely clear. It is important to keep a part of an individual’s life private and once the Untied States voted the Patriot Act in privacy went from limited to microscopic. Widening the scope of government surveillance slowly but surely pushes privacy out of the

The NSA, or National Security Agency, is an American government intelligence agency responsible for collecting data on other countries and sometimes on American citizens in order to protect the country from outside risks. They can collect anything from the people’s phone data to their browser history and use it against them in the court of law. Since the catastrophes of September 11 attacks, the NSA’s surveillance capabilities have grown with the benefit of George W. Bush and the Executive Branch (Haugen 153). This decision has left a country divided for fifteen years, with people who agree that the NSA should be strengthened and others who think their powers should be limited or terminated. Although strengthening NSA surveillance may help the

In 1787, the constitution was born. The constitution has been America’s guideline to the American way of life. Our US constitution has many points in it to protect America and it’s people from an overpowered government, our economy, and ourselves. The only thing the constitution doesn’t directly give us, is our right to privacy, and our right to privacy has been a big concern lately courtesy of the National Security Agency (NSA).(#7) Although our constitution doesn’t necessarily cover the privacy topic, it does suggest that privacy is a given right. Some people say that the right to privacy was so obvious, that our founding fathers didn’t even feel the need to make a point about it.(#9) It also didn’t help

Ever since the American public was made aware of the United States government’s surveillance policies, it has been a hotly debated issue across the nation. In 2013, it was revealed that the NSA had, for some time, been collecting data on American citizens, in terms of everything from their Internet history to their phone records. When the story broke, it was a huge talking point, not only across the country, but also throughout the world. The man who introduced Americans to this idea was Edward Snowden.

Dingwen Zhang English 3 12 August 2016 NSA Surveillance NSA Surveillance: Is safety worth losing freedom? Recently there is debate about if it is okay for the United States government to spy on citizens using NSA and FBI. This became common knowledge when Edward Snowden leaked millions of documents that show the government is spying on the public. The United States government should not keep the NSA surveillance going because it hurts the public more than it keeps the public safe.

Government surveillance in the past was not a big threat due to the limitations on technology; however, in the current day, it has become an immense power for the government. Taylor, author of a book on Electronic Surveillance supports, "A generation ago, when records were tucked away on paper in manila folders, there was some assurance that such information wouldn 't be spread everywhere. Now, however, our life stories are available at the push of a button" (Taylor 111). With more and more Americans logging into social media cites and using text-messaging devices, the more providers of metadata the government has. In her journal “The Virtuous Spy: Privacy as an Ethical Limit”, Anita L. Allen, an expert on privacy law, writes, “Contemporary technologies of data collection make secret, privacy invading surveillance easy and nearly irresistible. For every technology of confidential personal communication…there are one or more counter-technologies of eavesdropping” (Allen 1). Being in the middle of the Digital Age, we have to be much more careful of the kinds of information we put in our digital devices.

In George Orwell’s 1984, Big Brother uses surveillance to spy on everything from people’s everyday actions to thoughts in their mind’s privacy. The government controls much of the citizens, and this book has left a horrifying image to its readers for the future of government surveillance. As much as it sounds extreme, this could be the near future of Americans if surveillance programs continue to grow. Due to the many findings of Edward Snowden on the flaws of surveillance programs, changes must be made to the NSA Domestic Surveillance Programs.

More and more people fight back against NSA surveillance. They are on the opinion that their personal information should be kept in secret. Moreover, a fair bit of organizations and even individuals unite together in order to react against such actions of NSA as they are afraid that vital information about them might become known for everyone and those NSA’s actions disturb privacy of organizations as well as ordinary people.

“How much freedom should Americans be willing to sacrifice in the name of National Security?” (CITE). Privacy rights have been a topic of discussion with the American government since “World War II concerning the issue of Communists and German Spies being present in the United States of America (USA),” (CITE). However, ever since the attacks on the USA on September 11th, 2001, the “sacrifice Americans had to make of their basic liberties has increased,” (CITE). It all began with the USA Patriot Act of 2001; this act takes “privacy depleting measures” and “uses National Security letters to demand information about anyone the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) finds suspicious in terms of terrorism,” (CITE). This act serves as a problem to

Have you ever pondered on the fact that the government could be observing that text message you just sent to your best friend or what you just looked up on your computer? American citizens were puzzled when they first heard Edward Snowden address the media on the astonishing truths of the NSA and their surveillance. Today, I will undertake both sides of this troubling wrangle, the debate between the supporters and the critics of the NSA. My position on this riveting topic is that I support the NSA and its involvement in our everyday lives. This agency is for the better good, and its main goal is not to eavesdrop on citizens, but to protect America from any harmful acts of terrorism.

Privacy is essential to a democratic society and it is far more important than national security. Why should one of the most intrinsic rights be revoked? On the most rudimentary level, privacy represents freedom. Therefore, the eradication of a citizen’s right to privacy signifies a loss of freedom. The United States of America was founded to be a free and democratic nation, not one ruled under a totalitarian-like state that watches its citizen’s every move.

Are our governments worthy of the authority that we entrust them? America is known as the land of liberty and freedom but is it worth the name when our governments are engaged in surveillance activities against its own people? To make a statement about the government's surveillance activities each individual has to choose whether they value their right to privacy or national security. After consideration I decided to argue my paper from the reasoning of secrecy of the program, then state the problem of transparency in the program, and end the paper with a legal argument of violating constitutional rights. Therefore, I argue that my right to privacy is more important than national security and that the program is unconstitutional.

MOORE, M. (2014). RIP RIPA? Snowden, Surveillance, and the Inadequacies of our Existing Legal Framework. Political Quarterly, 85(2), 125-132.

Considering these different perspectives, the best way to continue the comparison in between them is by collecting several pros and cons on each ideology. The United State has not a uniform or standard law that promotes the concept of a right to privacy; instead, they introduced the concept through intellectual articles and was established by the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, it is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, thus it is often considered as secondary to other rights. This situation mainly occurs because the country does not want a law to interfere with the technology development process. This means that companies need to adapt to costumers’ data protection desires, and at the same time protects company’s economy interests. This brings a regulatory balance in between consumers and the company, in order to stabilize and to get into an acceptable level. Unfortunately, for the reason mentioned above, that the right of privacy is take a secondary law, the companies protect themselves under the First Amendment that allows them to manage or sell personal information.

In this paper, we will look at exactly how these mass surveillance programs are affecting us as U.S. citizens. Are they are violating our right to privacy? Is it possible for our country to protect us from a terrorist attack, while maintaining everyone’s right to privacy? To what extent