Increasing Government Surveillance

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

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.

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 Internet powers our country. Not only do hundreds of millions of Americans use it daily, our government and states use it to do important national and international business. Our government already utilizes it to monitor the activity of its people. This monitoring has especially risen after events such as the Boston Bombing and the attacks of 9/11. The main reason that the government does this is to keep us safe. If the government puts more slack on this matter, then it will give a chance for terrorists to complete their objective. The normal person does not know how many terrorist attacks may have been stopped in the past years due to this surveillance, and how many lives it may have saved. Therefore, we cannot let our government halt

For years the government has been secretly committing surveillance. The FBI places wiretaps, monitors calls, and reads emails of millions of people. Whether they are trying to catch thieves or prevent terrorism, spying is a part of everyday life for the people of the United States. Before, this surveillance was committed in secret, with no one but the governments knowing what, and why it is happening. Then, in the 20th and 21st centuries, people began to find out. From the Pentagon Papers in the 1970’s, or recently Edward Snowden publishing papers about NSA surveillance, people are shocked and outraged by the new knowledge that we are not as anonymous as we think (Vilines, 1). Government surveillance has lowered citizen trust, increased

Privacy is what allows people to feel secure in their surroundings. With privacy, one is allowed to withhold or distribute the information they want by choice, but the ability to have that choice is being violated in today’s society. Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who sacrifices freedom or liberty will eventually have neither.” And that’s the unfortunate truth that is and has occurred in recent years. Privacy, especially in such a fast paced moving world, is extremely vital yet is extremely violated, as recently discovered the NSA has been spying on U.S. citizens for quite a while now; based on the Fourth Amendment, the risk of leaked and distorted individual information, as well as vulnerability to lack of anonymity.

Over the past few years, government surveillance in the United States has become a widely debated issue with two completely different sides. The National Security Agency, a government agency known for it’s efforts in spying and surveillance, has been at the center of this issue since it’s founding in the 1950’s. The Cold War had just begun and the United States government was doing anything they could to find potential terrorists and communists. In fact, many famous people including Einstein were being spied on by the government to find citizens with potential ties to the Soviet Union. (New York Times - New Details Emerge from the Einstein Files; How the FBI Tracked His Phone Calls and His Trash) As the cold war came to an end in the early 90’s, NSA spying seemed to come to an end as well.

The presence of national surveillance in the United States is a widely debated topic, and there are many positives and negatives to both sides. Although it has been operating for such a lengthy time, the true actions of the NSA were revealed recently in the Snowden Leaks of 2013. Many state that the NSA is good and necessary because they “have nothing to hide” and because it will prevent future terrorist attacks. However, others argue that the surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment and is useless. Even though there appear to be many pros of having the NSA operate as they currently do, they should be disregarded because such intrusive surveillance is unlawful, racist, and ineffective.

Thesis statement: Government surveillance should be stopped because it is an invasion of privacy and gives the government control that is not enumerated in the constitution.

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.

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 today’s society, the subject of government surveillance is one of the nation’s most controversial topic. Since Snowden’s leakage of confidential National Security Agency (NSA) information, the United States citizens have confirmation the government is “spying” on them through phone, internet, and public communications. Government officials have spoken to the people, saying it is for safety measures; to protect citizens from potential terrorism and catastrophes like the bombing attack of 9/11. However, I have come to believe that the surveillance at the magnitude the NSA is going to is not safe nor ethic.

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.

In an age of what appears to be increasing insecurity, Americans have to make a choice between being secure and maintaining civil liberties, or leaving it up to the government to decide. The privacy of Americans should be taken into more consideration when using surveillance and other methods to watch the people. Privacy today faces growing threats from a developing surveillance apparatus that is repeatedly justified in the name of the national security. Security is privileged over values, such as civil liberties after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Due to this horrendous event, the national government commenced its surveillance attack in hopes of stopping another terrorist outbreak from happening, but it only created a divide within the American people. The government is trying to rebuild the security that was lost (“Money”). Their plan involves increasing the surveillance, listening to phone calls, and monitoring people’s searches for keywords, and using the law to their advantage. These measurements are exaggerated and unnecessary in order to protect Americans. The government divided the nation through this act. In order to restore the nation to its proper standing, the first step to fix the nation should have been the Patriot Act, which was put into place after 9/1l, but it is the Patriot Act that actually started the divide of the people and government.

Every day, nearly every single person communicates with each other electronically whether it is via email, text or phone call. It is quite nearly impossible to go a day without using a cell phone or personal computer; some cannot live without our internet-connected devices. Through all of this communication, there is a lot of very personal information is revealed without thinking about whether or not there can or will be an impact of doing this. In June of 2013, the impact became apparent when Edward Snowden, a former CIA employee, became a whistleblower and revealed mass surveillance programs happening in the United States and other countries where the communications of all citizens, and all the data therein, are being recorded and collected at all times (Snowden). While some have been suspecting that this has been happening for years, this is the first time that concrete evidence has been revealed to prove that government surveillance occurs in the modern era. This revelation no doubt was controversial with many citizens feeling many different ways about it. The popular street artist Banksy decided to do a piece about government surveillance where there are three men with various recording equipment surrounding a phone booth and recording what is happening within the phone booth. I believe that this art piece effectively points out the underlying problems with both the very idea of government surveillance.