If Looks Kill By Kaminer

The general public gives an problem with the government surveillance as a media for invading others privacy. With the government monitoring, collecting, and retaining people's personal data, one side would claim that it is an infringement of their freedom to the rights to privacy. While the National security associations justifies the reason for monitoring would be to maintain order. Their ways to maintain order would be to monitor criminal and terrorist activity and to detect incoming threats, terrorists, or problems that would harm their country. This issue shows that freedom cannot exist without order. Although the general public wants their freedom of their privacy, they can not achieve their most of their desires because it puts their lives at risk without protection. Order is necessary in order to have freedom. It is impossible to attain entire freedom for a cause, however, it is possible to attain freedom to a certain

I will then analyze the 3rd recommendation of the paper “Liberty and Security”, which demands that “surveillance must not be directed at illicit or illegitimate ends, such as the theft of trade secrets or obtaining commercial gain for domestic industries,” and argue that even if this motive may not be the main reason why foreign surveillance is conducted, it can be an unintended but useful – or rather unfair – consequence of easy collection of foreign intelligence, especially when considering the difference in technological capabilities between countries in the world. Finally, I am going to argue that, for the socio-economic benefit of globalization and international trade, it should be made equally harder for US intelligence agencies to collect information on non-US persons as it is to collect US-persons’ private information. Otherwise, this double standard can have – or maybe already has – negative consequences on trust between nations.

Daniel also introduces an example for Britain, having to do with the government’s surveillance cameras. In Britain, there is thousands of cameras that are set up all over towns and cities-it is to be monitored by the officials. A circuit televisions’ slogan is “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. Most of the people’s response due to their slogan is that they don’t care if they get profiled at all, because they really don’t have anything to hide at all. Although, some do support the surveillance cameras

To figure out whether domestic surveillance of citizens is moral from a demonstration utilitarian point of view, we should take a look at both the positives and the negative outcomes that may come about as a result being monitored by the government. It is possible that as a consequence of government surveillance, potential terrorists that desire to do hurt against the United States and against its residents of the United States will be revealed and ceased. It is likewise possible that this legislative observation will prompt the capture of persons included in real wrongdoings inside of the United States. These are a few illustrations of the positive things that happen as an aftereffect of the legislative checking. In any case, there are potential negatives outcomes that can and have happened in the United States as a consequence of governmental monitoring. In order to determine if governmental monitoring and surveillance is ethical as indicated by the Utilitarianism theory, we should determine the positive and negative outcomes that may happen as an aftereffect of the monitoring and afterward figure which has the most impact. Weighing the pros and cons of Patriot Act and which has more impact will help determine if this type of domestic surveillance is ethical or not in accordance to the Utilitarian theory. From the perspective of subjective relativism, domestic surveillance is considered to be both ethical and unethical. Surveillance is moral from the point of view of those that trust that the utilization of domestic surveillance is justified in order to prevent any future terrorist attacks. On the other hand, the governmental monitoring was observed to be unethical from the viewpoint of those that believe that the surveillance is not supported and is an

Fear is inevitably tied to the common saying “I am watching you”. When one’s actions are constantly monitored and privacy being relentlessly invaded, the individual soon will possess a sort of fear. In the novel Little Brother by Cory Doctorow, the government uses surveillance as a tool for exploiting the privacy of the people which then engages their fear.

George Orwell’s novel 1984 reflects on the society of dystopian city Airstrip 1 where main character Winston Smith lives. Along with the many other citizens, Winston is controlled by the Inner Party by constantly being monitored via telescreens that keep sight of everybody and their actions. Besides using telescreens the government also easily arrests people in any case of “thoughtcrime” which consists of any thoughts that regard disobedience towards the government. Thoughtcrime and telescreens are two of the several factors that reflect the extreme surveillance in 1984. Orwell uses surveillance as the central theme of the novel to spread his idea that the usage of more extreme surveillance could eventually lead to a totalitarian society. On a less extreme scale, today’s society also has a significant amount of surveillance but many question whether or not more surveillance is necessary. With the many current text sources, it is certain that we need less surveillance in order to keep a stable society that does not take away the individualism of people.

With today’s technological surveillance capabilities, our actions are observable, recordable and traceable. Surveillance is more intrusive than it has been in the past. For numerous years countries such as the United State and the United Kingdom have been actively monitoring their citizens through the use of surveillance technology. This state surveillance has been increasing with each passing year, consequently invading the citizen’s fundamental constitutional right to privacy,. This has lead to the ethical issues from the use or misuse of technology, one such ethical issue is should a government have the right to use technology to monitor its citizens without their knowledge or approval? For this reason this paper will

It has been more than seventy years since the release of George Orwell’s 1984, a novel that imparts a lesson on the consequences of government overreach. However, today that novel reads like an exposé of government surveillance. Privacy and national security are two ideas competing for value on a balance; if one is more highly valued, the other carries less weight. Government desire to bolster national security by spying on its own citizens-- even the law abiding ones-- is what leads to the inverse relationship between civil liberties and security. In times of a perceived threat to the nation, national security becomes highly prized and people lose privacy. One case is terrorist attacks. 9/11 caused an understandable kneejerk reaction in Americans to bolster protection. Some of the the measures taken were observable, like greater security at airports, but others attempted to increase national security in a more intrusive way. Privacy should be more highly valued than national security, and America has reached a point where that is no longer true.

In support of privacy, Daniel J. Solove wrote, Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have ‘Nothing to Hide.’ Solove begins his argument by introducing the nothing-to-hide argument. In general, the argument for surveillance is ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear:’ hence people’s support for government efforts and regulations to ‘protect’ citizens by decreasing privacy. Those who object this argument target its most extreme cases. For example, if you have nothing to hide, could I take a nude picture of you, own all entitlements to the photo, and share it with anyone? Absolutely not, most would say, but this objection is not exceptionally compelling according to Solove. In order to understand privacy, we must not reduce it to one single definition. Privacy is extremely complex and involves a range of different things that share common characteristics. For instance, one’s privacy can be invaded by the expose of your innermost secrets, but it may also be invaded if a peeping Tom (without the reveal of any secrets) is observing you. Your privacy may also be invaded if the government seeks extensive information about you. All of these examples cause harm related to an invasion of privacy, thus making the definition of privacy not applicable for a “one size fits all” conclusion. The underlying and most significant harm that comes from surveillance is the problem of information processing. Solove uses The Trial example to demonstrate this effect. Here, the

The only difference is that while the thought police in the fictional 1984 society employed surveillance to limit the freedom of speech and expression for the citizens so that they stay loyal to the Big Brother (46), surveillance used in the current American society purports to curb insecurity. In some selected instances, however, the gathered information is used discriminately especially when people such as innocent Muslims are targeted (Rigoglioso, n.p).

Successful Bernard would previously get taunted at by Willy Loman because he was book smart, Loman’s disbelief in Bernard contradicted him because in the future Bernard turned out to be a successful lawyer. “ (an arm on Bernard’s shoulder): How do you like this kid? Gonna argue a case in front of the Supreme Court” (Miller Act II:69), the portrayal of Bernard proves Willy’s opinion wrong, Willy always told his sons that Bernard would not make it in the business world because he lacks personality. On the contrary, Bernard has succeeded vast success more Willy's sons will ever get. Before Bernard departure off to Washington to attend court Charley had to tell Willy what his son Bernard was doing, “ Knock ‘em dead, Bernard!” (Miller Act II:69),

Although modern societies such as the United States today do not surveil its citizen to this extent, Orwell accurately described the role and importance of surveillance in today’s society. Orwell’s ominous warnings about government round-the-clock surveillance were not far

Tactical takedown is a process that uses certain tactics to safely take an individual down to the ground in order to perform police action (62:9-15). The tactics taught involve an officer holding the wrist, applying the arm, and rolling the individual to the point of submission (62: 14-22; 63:1). Tactical takedown is used to deal with an aggressive suspect or a suspect that is actively resisting arrest and not compliant with verbal tactics (63:5-10; 66:9-19). Officers may use tactical takedown after he has informed an individual that they are under arrest and the individual decides to actively resist or flee. After exhausting all verbal tactics, the officer must physically place a suspect under arrest by using tactical

Surveillance is not a new thing. In fact, espionage, tracking, and sleuthing were part of society ever since 5000 B.C. But in the rise of the modern era, the idea of surveillance in the public eye serves as a controversial topic of discussion. People everywhere complain about the existence of security cameras, government tracking, and the right to privacy. Such problems, however, are not due to the sudden discovery of surveillance, but the modern abuse of it. Seeing the disastrous effects of over surveillance from George Orwell’s 1984, the public rightfully fears societal deterioration through modern surveillance abuse portrayed in Matthew Hutson’s “Even Bugs Will Be Bugged” and the effects of such in Jennifer Golbeck’s “All Eyes On You”. The abuse of surveillance induces the fear of discovery through the invasion of privacy, and ensures the omnipresence of one’s past that haunt future endeavors, to ultimately obstruct human development and the progress of society overall.

This theory analyzes the issue by looking at the dominant and the subordinate groups, or the “haves” and the “have-nots.” The dominant group is the government since they are the ones who know the full information on the surveillance happening and have the ability to modify surveillance policies, while the subordinate group is the people against government surveillance. The conflicting values that this theory is analyzing are whether or not warrantless surveillance should be used. Government agencies support the use of surveillance by saying that as the use of technology increases, the government needs to monitor electronic communications for the security of the nations. Chief of U.K. spy agency GCHQ, Robert Hannigan, states that ISIS uses self-censoring to attract and recruit people. He also further states, “Today mobile technology and smartphones have increased the options available exponentially. Techniques for encrypting messages or making them anonymous which were once the preserve of the most sophisticated criminals or nation states now come as standard. These are supplemented by freely available programs and apps adding extra layers of security... There is no doubt that young foreign fighters have learnt and benefited from the leaks of the past two years” (Lomas, 2014). Anti-surveillance advocates say that privacy and security are not two different things and one