Government Surveillance On Social Media

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

However, despite its unpopularity amongst many citizens, government surveillance still has many benefits to the society. In this essay we will discuss the advantages of government surveillance and espionage in detail. The following essay will discuss how government surveillance will counter terrorism and reduce crime rate which will lead to greater diplomacy, freedom, and increased sense of safety. In addition, the essay will discuss how government surveillance can help improve public health care system in Canada by allowing greater access to scientific data that may not be easily accessed. Last but not least, the essay will discuss how government surveillance may also be advantageous to Canadian economy by helping domestic businesses prosper and grow by increasing the efficiency of their business model.

Over the years, there has always been a lot of controversy surrounding the topic of whether or not the government should be able to monitor our activity on the internet. This especially become a huge debate more recently simply because of the many terrorist attacks and dangerous events that we’ve encountered. Many believe that if the government was given more insight to what the people of this country looked at on the internet, then they would be able to prevent many horrible things from happening. On the other hand, however, others feel that this is a violation of personal privacy and therefore should not be allowed. The government already monitors our internet usage but they are thinking of increasing what they monitory which has lead to many differing opinions among the people of the United States of America.

In this text will help explain my thesis statement by showing how surveillance is taking away the freedom of the people of the united state of america. Surveillance in the book is used to keep people in cheak with the rules of big brother. This will cause the people to be to scared to act against the rules of big brother so in return they will lose apart of them

As a growing topic of discussion, privacy in our society has stirred quite some concern. With the increase of technology and social networking our standards for privacy have been altered and the boundary between privacy and government has been blurred. In the article, Visible Man: Ethics in a World Without Secrets, Peter Singer addresses the different aspects of privacy that are being affected through the use of technology. The role of privacy in a democratic society is a tricky endeavor, however, each individual has a right to privacy. In our society, surveillance undermines privacy and without privacy there can be no democracy.

The advanced technology makes it possible that our government can have access to any individuals’ private information, including their daily schedules, emails, friend cycles, social network accounts, eating habits, buying behaviors, and the places they frequently visit. Solove finds that the government often uses the way of surveillance to imperceptibly control people’s lives (345). It means that the government has deprived individuals of their freedom in a way that monitors their every move. For instance, people may avoid talking about ISIS on the phone with others under the surveillance because they are afraid of whether their conversation will be taken out of context and misinterpreted by the authorities. Being watched by the government, people may choose to change their behaviors to adapt to the government’s value and interest. Living in a democratic society, people should freely choose what they want to share and what they need to hide. Thus, the government’s surveillance deprives people of their right to live their lives and share their opinions at will, keeping them being controlled by those in power.

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

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.

The primary goal of the government since its founding has been to ensure the safety of citizens. It has developed an array of methods, procedures, and systems to achieve that goal. Throughout the years there has been some form of criticism regarding its methods. The most recent cause for public disapproval and concern stems from government surveillance brought to the light by former contractor of the National Security Agency (NSA), Edward Snowden. Snowden has brought attention to the surveillance being performed by the government that involves the United States. Surveillance could significantly deteriorate relations with other countries and destroy the trust that is held between the citizens and government leading to the collapse in stability and possibly the country itself. The potential for surveillance being used as a tool for the protection of citizens can prove to be monumental, but is vastly outweighed by the negative repercussions it could inflict if misused.

The controversy on government surveillance is very controversial. Should the government have unlimited access to citizen’s personal information, conversations, and text in order to protect the country? Or should the government have more of a laissez-faire-type role in citizen’s private lifestyles? Across the world, there are different approaches on the government’s surveillance on people. Iceland’s policies are the least intrusive in the world, with almost no surveillance and laws protecting the people’s freedom of speech. On the other end of the spectrum is China, which is in the process of creating a constant surveillance system of all its citizens. Somewhere in the middle of this scale is the United States of America. Influences by other

In 1984 the Party gains its power by controlling citizens and invading their privacy. The government today does similar things through social media. In today’s society, everyone shares their life through social media. Whether it is through Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, or other platforms, everyone’s pictures, relationship status, and thoughts are on the internet. Many government organizations, like the CIA, invest in social media monitoring software (SMMS) technology. This technology can “geographically track us as we communicate. It can chart out our relationships, networks, and associations. It can monitor protests, identify the leaders of political and social movements, and measure our influence” (McCullough). As soon as the government starts monitoring everyone with SMMS technology, people lose the ability to openly speak their minds for fear of being

The complex relationship between technology and the social sphere of human privacy becomes a major concern in modern society. Privacy is an imprescriptible right, and enjoyable. Even between family members, they all can have some secrets, which helps to build personality and makes them to be more like themselves. Instead, if everything about a person has exposed to public, and the personality might change with public opinion. Peter Singer discusses in his essay “Visible Man: Ethics in a world without secrets” that social networking makes the living circumstance becomes a Panopticon, which is no privacy in daily life and this surveillance technology helps government stifling dissent for a more secure country.

Privacy and the conflicts associated with it that citizens face are some of the most controversial topics in the world today. One of the main conflicts that citizens deal with is if the government is spying on us all the time and that if people feel that this it is an invasion of their privacy. Peter Singer evaluates on this topic of the good and bad of privacy in his essay, “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets”. He explains how technology has changed the way people think about privacy. People know and share all kinds of information about themselves through social media.

In present day society the concept of surveillance has become a frequently discussed topic as it has evolved into a catastrophic jumble. Numerous criminals have been convicted of charges where the court has used surveillance information to prove that the subject is guilty. While there have been some positives from the use of surveillance, there must be a limit or America may become overwhelmed by the severe amounts of surveillance. For our safety and security it is ideal to allow government officials access to surveillance programs within regulations. For example, unless the person is wholly suspicious for a criminal act there should be no reason for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to gather personal data. Also, the surveillance must be utterly legal and the FBI may never attack the convict ergo feeling completely powerless. Lastly, the information gathered from the surveillance must effectively prove the person guilty of their charges. Without the few of these regulations in America’s court system may become insane and constantly charge us of criminal actions without the knowledge of personal data being sucked out of us.

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.