Is increasing government surveillance ethical in regards to exchanging consumer privacy for public safety?
This question popped up immediately when I heard the prompt, as I'm sure some others have said too. Of course, it didn’t come out right off the bat, but instead I asked myself what would be an easy yet interesting topic to write about. Originally I was only going to focus on recent events such as the FBI v. Apple case, but then I noticed I can delve deeper into the subject with past events such as recent leaks from whistleblowers and the growing concern of one’s personal privacy. You can talk about the NSA and post-9/11 U.S security measures for government surveillance and various other things, it doesn’t solely revolve around leaks and
…show more content…
Brookman’s article ranges from how efforts to improve privacy laws have been futile and how privacy protections have actually diminished. Throughout the article, Brookman concludes that although the motions for privacy are far from actualization, the issue of privacy is slowly evolving and becoming more recognized. Brookman provides a solution for those concerned with protecting their privacy, but the main goal seems to be suggesting the reader to observe the real situation regarding privacy laws and protections and taking actions to protect their own privacy. This text is essential because of its truthful view and its suggestive manner. Parts of this article can easily be used in discussions regarding the privacy and protections. Several subsections of the articles address the dwindling control of consumers and their privacy and would serve to provide arguments for and against consumer …show more content…
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
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 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
During the past decade, an issue has arisen from the minds of people, on which is more important? Privacy or national security? The problem with the privacy is that people do not feel they have enough of it and national security is increasing causing the government to be less worried about the people. National security is growing out of control which has led to the decrease in people’s privacy and has created fear in the eyes of U.S. citizens. “Twelve years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and amid a summer of revelations about the extent of the surveillance state built up to prevent others, leaders, experts and average Americans alike are searching for the right balance between security and privacy” (Noble). Americans should be able to live their daily lives without fear of an overpowered government or a “big brother” figure taking over. “According to a CBS News poll released Tuesday evening, nearly 6 in 10 Americans said they disapproved of the federal government’s collecting phone records of ordinary Americans in order to reduce terrorism” (Gonchar). While it is good to keep our country safe with security, American’s privacy should be more important because there is a substantial amount of national security, the people 's rights should matter first.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
The Chicago state government’s decision of closing over 61 school buildings and 54 public schools, mostly attended by children of color from low-income families is an example of the contemporary practice of “Newspeak” - making as may as 30,000 youths uneducated. Of the 61 schools closed, 49 served elementary school students, 90 percent of whom are African American.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.