In the recent year and a half, citizens of almost every nation were exposed to information

Is the price of safety worth the loss of privacy? In June of 2013 civil rights lawyer and journalist Glenn Greenwald published on The Guardian the first of numerous articles containing files he’d received from former NSA sub contractor Edward Snowden. These files revealed unbeknownst to the American public details about multiple global surveillance programs currently being used by the United States NSA to collect their private data. Greenwald’s speech on “Why Privacy Matters,” during the TEDGlobal 2014 conference was compelling & deeply insightful. By providing the audience with credible knowledge of his research in addition to the use persuasive emotional and logical reasoning, Glenn Greenwald effectively argues the importance of privacy.

Imagine someone living in a country that turns surveillance equipment on its own citizens to monitor their locations, behavior, and phone calls. Probably no one is willing to live in such place where privacy is being undermined by the authorities. For people living in the U.S., their private information has been more vulnerable than ever before because the government is able to use various kinds of surveillance equipment and technology to monitor and analyze their activities, conversations, and behaviors without their permission, in the name of homeland security. Mass surveillance has jeopardized people’s privacy and deprived individuals of their freedom, which is associated with dignity, trust, and autonomy. In the

The National Security Agency has caused much controversy over the manner in which they protect the nation. It was revealed that the NSA has been reaching necessary lengths to keep citizens safe from the threats of terrorism, bombings, and murders, amongst others. But many citizens are angry and concerned about how far the NSA has gone to protect everyone. The NSA has analyzed private information of billions of phones, computers, and surveillance cameras. The N.S.A. watches and records Americans’ phone calls and internet data, following and intercepting in the lives of people in the most remote parts. The situation clearly makes American citizens uncomfortable, and some argue that the NSA has crossed the line by invading the “privacy” of

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.

In June 2013, Edward Snowden—a former agent for the Central Intelligence Agency—leaked confidential government information to the public through The Guardian by journalists that consequently published it on the Internet. In doing so, Snowden exposed the National Security Agency’s (NSA) spy programs that infringe upon the rights of American citizens, which has catalyzed legal controversy and skepticism towards the United States government due to the violation of privacy (Liu 2014). The Internet is a vast host for a plethora of information and communication between people; private activities and messages between people are not protected under United States laws, which can be exploited. The problem is seen in the NSA’s unwarranted

There are two values conflicting each other: national security and privacy of human rights. A controversial issue with those two values has got a lot of attention from the world. We found a case reflecting our topic; Snowden case. In that case indiscriminate surveillance were revealed by a man from inside. Some criticize him, but some support him. Through debates we have been at against indiscriminate surveillance. Surveillance by intelligence agencies violates human rights because of over-controlling, intended fear by government, and privacy as noble value.

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.

What is the relation between freedom vs. security? Should the public sacrifice liberty in the name of security? What is the role of the government in providing that security? In recent years, the notion of freedom and security has been reignited as a forefront of American debate in perhaps the most emphatic fashion. On June 5, 2013, Edward Snowden began perhaps the most significant classified documentation leaks in American history. His disclosures revealed how the U.S. government was collecting metadata from millions of Americans through mass surveillance programs such as PRISM. His reveal sparked a prominent discussion on the proper balance of freedom and security in the American government. In particular, three prominent concepts are illustrated

This introductory chapter will explore the reasoning behind the UK Government’s support for mass surveillance of its citizens. It is evident that communications technology can be exploited for nefarious purposes. The principal reasons for the introduction of RIPA 2000 can be found within the act itself, these are; upholding national security, preventing or detecting serious crime, and to ensure the nation’s economic well-being. These driving factors shall be explored further to see how they shaped RIPA 2000. Additionally, This chapter will consider how the meaning of the term ‘national security’ has been extended in the 21st Century, and how this helped to facilitate the enactment of RIPA 2000.

Like every debate or dilemma there are two sides, the positive and the negative; the advocates and the opponents. In the dilemma of privacy verses surveillance, those in favour of government surveillance believe the government should be allowed to monitor and observe all public and private matters in order to gather security data, because they “believe in the primacy of security over privacy” (McNeil, 2016). Advocates also favour more government surveillance technologies and systems in order to target and prevent terrorist attacks, as many governments say that their surveillance technology “can be used to counter espionage efforts, hinder the spread of weapons of mass destruction and attacks-through terrorism” (McNeil, 2016). However those

This is dangerous because the American government can gain access to this information, and thus can potentially infringe upon the public’s privacy. Interfaces such as Google and Microsoft allocate customized advertisements through the correlations of individuals’ search trends (Privacy Policy – Privacy & Terms – Google). Microsoft’s Hotmail system employs the same method by monitoring their consumers’ emails (Pender 2010). This trend is also popular among the workplace as some companies are starting to watch their employees email and web browsing habits, and through surveillance devices (Workplace Cameras and Surveillance: Rules for Employers). Counteracting the invasive effects of surveillance on individuals civil liberties, many positive outcomes have derived from these installations. For instance, surveillance devices have aided in crime conviction and terrorism prevention, because they provide facial recognition through the usage of closed-circuit television cameras (Harris), and high-tech systems like the Echelon are able to detect communications between electronic devices, so the plans and activities of terrorists are nipped in the bud before terrorist attacks occur– if their networks are be revealed by analyzing the patterns of their communication with the Echelon system (Poole). Although there are positive aspects to surveillance, the intrinsic inequalities in the distribution of surveillance still exists and can only be eradicated through the establishment of transparent society (Brin

The debate about security and liberty has been a very tricky subject for a long time. The government should not be able to spy on us to the extent they are now even if it is for our safety. There are many ways the government is able to spy on the citizens. These include” “body scanners and shoe searches at airports, video surveillance cameras on many buildings, streets, and more intrusive questions at border crossings.” But is this all too much? Many people say yes. The government should not be able to invade our privacy especially when they are not gaining much of anything.

Current advances in government surveillance practices are in evident violation of the fourth amendment. It is lawful, and understandable to varying degrees among the public, that “warrantless wiretapping” under special circumstances, such as the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks can be deemed necessary if the said practice was conducted strictly temporarily (Landau 55). In fact, this very excuse was used to justify and serve as the initial rationale behind these surveillance practices. Following the claims of whistleblowers Thomas Drake and Edward Snowden, it has now come to public attention that the National Security Agency (NSA) has assumed permanence of this granted liberty and now continues this practice even targeting everyday law-abiding citizens.

When most people leave the house everyday they are not considering the multiple ways they are being monitored. They are not contemplating whether the personal e-mail they just sent using their company’s seemingly secure private e-mail service is being screened by their employers or whether their banking activity is being monitored for patterns aligned with terrorism. Many would assume that simply having a password to access your e-mail would keep out unwelcome eyes. With technology becoming such an increasingly important aspect of our daily lives, personal and work related, many are starting to debate whether or not it is correct for an employer or the government to be able to access someone’s personal information. This includes, but is not limited to, as outlined in Charles J. Sykes essay, medical information, personal e-mail correspondence, social media account information, a person’s voice mail, what you have stored on your computer, and your credit reports (Sykes 19). Some argue that this is an infringement on a person’s right to privacy while others argue that businesses and government officials have the right and need to monitor personal information.

Nearly every major international agreement on human rights protects the right of individuals to be free from unwarranted surveillance. This guarantee has trickled down into national constitutional or legal provisions,