Government Survecy : The Invasion Of Privacy

With the seemingly exponential propagation of inexpensive digital communications technologies over recent years, the general public is becoming more aware of the issues surrounding information privacy and government surveillance in the digital age. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a smart-phone has to be wary of how they use their private information for fear of that information being collected and used in a way contrary to their wishes. "Leaky" smartphone apps that transmit private information across the internet can be unethically used by government agencies. The issue of privacy is a balancing act; the public usually wants increased privacy and the government usually wants increased access.

Government surveillance is beneficial in moderation, but can quite easily become excessive. A well-known example of this is the controversy regarding the NSA monitoring U.S. citizens discreetly on American soil. This unwarranted watch crosses the fine line between monitoring criminal suspects for security, and blatant overreach of authority in spying common citizens. The personal infringement of information has been commonly associated with the NSA’s PRISM, but their MUSCULAR program is much more disconcerting. According to Harry Bruinius in “Why Tech Giants Are Now Uniting Against U.S. Surveillance”:

According to the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Yet, in the United States at this very moment, the government is collecting information on everyone who makes a call, sends an email, plays a video game, or even owns a computer. They are in people’s houses without actually having to be there. This collection of information is unlawful, and unconstitutional, violating exactly what the government

Government surveillance is made with the intent to keep American society safe, usually made in response to major terrorist attacks to prevent future terrorist attacks. After the tragic events of 9/11 the Us government took measures to prevent future terrorist attacks from happening. One major act enacted was the Patriot act.

People might not think about being watched when they’re posting personal experiences in their life on social media. The government has the ability and justification to go through a person’s social media site, listen to phone calls, and read text messages as a way of narrowing down possible suspects for terrorism. The privacy laws in America are what allows the U.S. government to search the digital world for possible threats to the country. Although some say that privacy laws help American citizens keep their confidentiality for medical reasons, also as benefits for social security, I still maintain that privacy laws gives the government undeserved power and can give the impression of being watched .

Many Americans are being watched, in great detail, by the government. In its ongoing battle against crime and terrorism, the U.S. has ramped up its surveillance on individuals over the years. As in the book, 1984, by George Orwell, "Big Brother Is Watching You". Many people feel that this surveillance is a major invasion of privacy and a violation of their rights.

Surveillance and the right to privacy have far reaching consequences and implications. In fact, both involve even more topics such as encryption, hacking, and leaks of sensitive information. Sure it is easy to conclude from the sources included in this piece that surveillance does diminish personal privacy to a certain extent, but it’s better to deduce that more people should understand and be aware of how serious of an issue this really is. There are people who seek to promote and diminish surveillance and consumer’s control of their own information and that contributes to the complexity of this growing problem. The research done so far only touches the surface of why it is important for people to learn about protecting themselves from unwanted spying, yet it still needs to expand into explaining more in depth the goals of the government agencies that encourage surveillance programs. As of now, after reviewing all these sources, I think it is important to stress that this issue is not simple. Moreover, is it worth it for an individual to sacrifice personal liberties such as privacy for "safety" through increased surveillance? Consumer privacy should not be sacrificed to ensure public safety since this would undermine the personal liberties of millions of

Every day, the government believes it is acceptable to continue invading and searching our personal e-mails, messages, accounts, etc. Although they have the authority as a government, they do not have the right to invade our privacy as the 4th amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution does not allow unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and is required to be supported by a reason. When the government spies on citizens internet there is no individual warrant and the inspection is not supported by a reason. The people have not agreed to their information being looked amongst and it is their individual choice if they want to share it with someone. The fourth amendment protects Americans from this unreasonable search due to its private information being accessed without a

The Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure, states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches, and seizures… “. This has been violated by the NSA. They have searched citizens’ personal emails and phone records without warrants under the protection of the Protect America Act and it has gone too far! Invasion of privacy is a big problem; and it is allowed! For example, in 2003, Charles S. Cole Jr., a bar owner, was paranoid that his bathrooms and restaurant were being destroyed by customers.

The constitution was created to provide the people with their rights. The amendment that protects one’s privacy, the fourth, is just like the right of free speech and the right to bear arms. It should be equally respected, not infringed upon. The 4th amendment isn’t the only idea that protects our rights. Unlawful surveillance is also a key to breaking article I, section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.” The NSA’s illegal surveillance is unabashedly insulting to our

Privacy is defined by Dictionary.com as “freedom from damaging publicity, public scrutiny, secret surveillance, or unauthorized disclosure of one’s personal data or information”. This is something that most people value extremely highly. From everyday civilians to government officials, everybody wants some level of privacy. Many say surveillance technology denies them the right to privacy that they are given at birth as American citizens. However, there should be a small amount of wiggle room when it comes to this technology, in order to protect the country and its people. In “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets”, Peter Singer gives us an insight into privacy in the government. He discusses the

Imagine a world where your every move was being monitored. A dark world where it is no secret who you are, where you have been and who you associate with; now include who you love, who you pray to and what you just ate for dinner. The word privacy doesn’t exist in such world and it is such world that we are heading to.“Big Brother is watching you!” This quote by George Orwell couldn’t have been truer. Every aspect of our lives is being sorted through as Big Data this very moment. Government surveillance has prevailed by the name of security. But, is government surveillance of internet digital communications like social networks, cell phone calls, text messages, and emails really a public service of security? Or

Government surveillance has not contributed to a decrease of percentage in crimes, but has created a controversial topic instead. Online surveillance has been an invasion of privacy, because everything the users access is seen without their consent. Due to the fact the stored data is not used, government surveillance in the united states has not been very impactful. Crimes and terrorist attacks were not stopped, and the mass storage of personal data within the last year has violated privacy laws 2,776 times (Government Surveillance 722). Surveillance online is not only unsuccessful in America, but in UK, and Canada as well. Out of every 1000 security cameras, only one camera is actually used to catch a criminal (Government Surveillance 722). However, there are several solutions that can be made to allow the usage of government surveillance without the violating the rights of Americans. Some of the solutions have already taken action, and will give users more freedom online.

Americans have the right to know what personal information of theirs is being monitored by the government and if the government is operating in a constitutional manner. Although the top priority of government should be to protect Americans from international threats, it must do so without infringing on basic human rights. I believe that the Supreme Court rulings and laws regarding privacy are a good balance of protection and respect to privacy. However, government agencies such as the NSA have certainly overstepped their ground in many cases and abused clauses within the