Mass Surveillance and Its Role in Promoting National Security

Citizens do not always fully understand legislation before becoming angry at someone. Who better to point a finger at than their government (Zuckerman para 7)? Despite the actual legal terms on surveillance, innocent citizens feel that they have had their rights violated and wonder why the government needs their information if they have nothing to hide. The supreme court declared in the third party doctrine that “anyone turning over information to a third party, such as a bank or Internet service provider, has no right to object if that information is later shared with the government” (Timberg para 11). Whether they understand the law or not, most people feel that their information should not be unnecessarily subjected to the government without their voiced approval (Zuckerman para 6). “Quite simply, the administration could have done a much better job of explaining both the potential and the limits of data mining. It should have made it clear

Snowden’s leaked information prompted debates all over and it brought major concerns about personal privacy and the security of citizens. His actions to risk his personal freedom to bring controversial information to the public domain is an act of great patriotism, it upholds the virtues contained in the US constitution. (Gurnow, 2014) Nonetheless, ever since the events of terrorism in 2001, the NSA has given spy agencies mandates to carry out surveillance on suspicious persons, thus reducing acts of

The Patriot Act was hastily passed just a month later October and it severely limited the privacy of Americans and gave unprecedented power to the government and private agencies to track innocent Americans, turning regular citizens into suspects.5 In addition, the great technological evolution and emerged of social media that occurred round the same time, and shortly thereafter, created the perfect storm for the emergence of the largely unregulated surveillance society that we live in today.6 The result is digitization of people’s personal and professional lives so that every single digital trace that people leave can be identified, stored, and aggregated to constitute a composite sketch of ourselves and its only getting worse. In 2008, passed the FISA Amendments Act, which expands the government’s authority to monitor Americans’ international communications, in addition to domestic communications.7 In short, after 9/11 the U.S is left with a national surveillance state, in which “the proliferation of government technology and bureaucracies that are able to acquire vast and detailed amounts of digital information about individuals with minimal or no judicial supervision and often in complete secrecy,” giving the government and corporations with access to the data that the government compiles the ability to single

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

Just as the freedom of the press is backed up by the first amendment, our right to privacy is also protected by the fourth amendment- at least that was what I thought. In his book, “Privacy Lost,” David Holtzman elucidates that many Americans are under the impression that the law protects their right to privacy; when in fact, “the word privacy doesn’t even appear in the Constitution-not once” (93). This is what the Fourth Amendment actually states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,

Many Americans are being watched, in great detail, by the government. In its ongoing battle against crime and terrorism, the U.S. has ramped up its surveillance on individuals over the years. As in the book, 1984, by George Orwell, "Big Brother Is Watching You". Many people feel that this surveillance is a major invasion of privacy and a violation of their rights.

After the disclosures by Edward Snowden turned a critical eye to the NSA many people questioned the legality of the acts. The NSA claimed that their work was legal and had prevented many terrorist plots. However, evidence of only four plots was ever found. Even if the acts were founded in law, they still angered large numbers of citizens. Many citizens do not care if the spying is legal, believing that it is morally wrong. Government surveillance organizations have grown to be extremely powerful and are capable of accessing large swaths of personal information; these abilities intrude into the private lives of citizens and need to be curtailed.

Mass surveillance is a word that has been thrown around every so often in the last few decades, especially ever since George Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four. Although this book was released over 60 years ago, some aspects of the book are seeming to become true in the United States, and other parts of the world today. The idea of mass surveillance isn’t so taboo anymore, as there are several programs ran by sovereign countries around the world which monitor their domestic citizens, as well as citizens and leaders of other foreign countries. With all of our technological communication advances since 1949, this age of information is only going to get more severe, and more tracking and monitoring will be done. The biggest offender of doing

The quest for privacy and security has always been a long and arduous one, as America’s citizens “no longer care” about the lack of integrity which the American government is showing towards its citizens (Sullivan). “When you have it, you don’t notice it. Only when it’s gone do you wish you’d done more to protect it.” Sullivan explains in Privacy under attack, but does anybody care?. After the National Security Agency was accused of “systematically collecting information” on citizens’ phone calls, emails, and countless other sources, “the news media treated it as a complete revelation” (Whitehead). People throughout the country protested and condemned the government—all while they failed to realize that we have consciously permitted the government to collect and secure our private information by “giving our personal information” to companies who ask for it, and by “allowing our personal lives to be posted on media sources such as Facebook and Twitter” (Washington). Ironically enough, we ourselves have

Lately, in the United States, the controversial topic of privacy has been rekindled by several occurrences, including the recent NSA surveillance scandal. When government actions are questioned, the

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 “How the NSA’s Domestic Spying Program Works,” the author reveals that many of “aspects of the (NSA) Program were aimed not just at targeted individuals, but perhaps millions of innocent Americans never suspected of a crime.” The author develops his thesis by detailing a few examples of major telecommunication companies that share customer’s call records to the NSA (AT&T, Sprint) and explaining that programs were implemented to monitor the emails of citizens (“amounted to at least 1.7 billion emails a day”). The author uses examples of how NSA decisions were made without a “warrant or any judicial oversight,” in order to increase citizen awareness of how the NSA functions. The author uses a erudite tone to address the audience of Americans

The National Security Agency can find out much more about someone than you think. The NSA must stop its intrusion of our privacy. This is a direct violation of our fourth amendment, which states that citizens should be allowed their confidentiality. Not only is it a blatant attack on our liberty, but also just unorganised. Just like weapons left overseas, in the same way Al-Qaeda repurposed the Afghans’ weapons, the software the NSA uses can be collected by any evildoer. When Edward Snowden released information of the mass NSA surveillance Americans felt betrayed. The NSA’s illegal conduct must come to an end.

Keeping the United States of America safe from foreign threats is far from an easy task. However, preventing domestic threats is a much more complicated and delicate one. Government organizations such as the National Security Agency [NSA] are known to have invaded our privacy through our connection to technology. The NSA has publicly admitted to the surveillance. Due to media coverage, the NSA is often viewed as the main agency that bulk collects data. Emails, phone calls, and even our text messages have been surveilled under an NSA program known as “PRISM” (“Domestic Surveillance Techniques”). Everyday government organizations invade our privacy for the sake of national security in an attempt to defend us from domestic threats, but it seems they often take surveillance a step too far. United States citizens should understand legality of these actions, as well as the purpose this data collection serves.

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.