NSA Argument Essay

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.

As the late Frank Herbert once said, “Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.” Federal electronic wiretapping and supervision dates to the Wiretap Act of 1968, and has only increased in the following decades. Organizations such as the National Security Agency have been empowered by FISA (United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts) to bypass the authority of the Supreme Court in determining constitutional validity on searches. Government Surveillance is unjustified because it infringes upon personal freedoms, does not guarantee safety, and is not a vital necessity.

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.

Edward Snowden’s disclosures about the National Intelligence Agency surveillance extension is some of the most comprehensive news in recent history. It has incited a ferocious debate over national security and information privacy. As the U.S government deliberates various reform proposals, arguments continue on whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor (Simcox, 2015).

On June 28th 2015, the U.S Senate failed to reapprove the already expired Patriot Act, resulting in at least a temporary fear of national security. The senate entered into a debate in regards to this expiring act late Sunday night, without coming to a conclusion by midnight the Patriot Act expired, pushing against three laws such as the National Security Agency bulk data collection program. “The lapse was a huge victory for privacy hawks who have called for changes to that program and others under the Patriot Act since Edward Snowden first blew the lid off the NSA's domestic surveillance programs in 2013” (Diamond 1). On the brighter side, the Senate is expecting to restore the Patriot Act during the end of this week. The expiring of the Patriot

On June 6, 2013 the details of the National Security Agency’s (NSA) surveillance activities where given by Edward Snowden to the public; raising concerns of Americans about their privacy. Edward Snowden, a former employee of the NSA, gave the alarming details of surveillance programs in his interview on how the NSA accesses our emails, calls, internet activity, and anything else that is related to technology. In this system of surveillance the NSA can gather data from companies and tap the cables that are vital for moving around information from technological devices, they may also use their relationships with technology companies to get emails or information straight from U.S. servers. (Cawley, Kiss, Boyd, Ball) Nevertheless, the claim is

Several weeks after the horrible terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act was rushed through Congress by Attorney General, John Ashcroft. This particular Act, however, was established with a ruling hand of fear. Life for Americans changed dramatically in those immediate days, weeks, and months after the attack. America had been spoiled with luxury for so long, that the illusion of control had ingrained itself into our very nature as Americans. That act of terror, on September 11, 2001, brought that belief crashing down, almost immediately. Fear and anger were rampant though out America; a dangerous

     In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks US Congress passed legislation known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 commonly known as the USA Patriot Act. This paper will attempt to prove that not only is the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional but many of its provisions do nothing at all to protect Americans from the dangers of terrorism.

Thomas Jefferson said, “My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” The National Security Agency (NSA), established by the National Security Act of 1947, exists to safeguard American citizens against terror threats and foreign intelligence.(National Archives) Since the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, the NSA, through the guise of the Patriot Act, has been investigating American citizens who are not suspect of law breaking. President George W. Bush enacted the Patriot Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 [Britannica]) in October 2001, but current President Barack Obama furthered its parameters via Executive Orders such as EO’s 13526 and 13549 (Federal Register). The Agency’s private investigations have caused public suspicion. This concern was validated by the revelation of the government’s collection of metadata (phone history), storage of text messages, possession of spy programs, and proof of the wire tapping of two-country related phone calls after Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, leaked private information to the public in May/June of 2013. (Britannica)

The USA FREEDOM Act, the acronymic title for H.R. 2048, Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act of 2015, replaced the USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001), which expired on May 31, 2015. The USA FREEDOM Act was created in response to public backlash against the PATRIOT Act and the NSA, particularly in the wake of Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing release of information about massive surveillance and data gathering.

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.

Based on the information in the article, and what I know about the Patriot Act. I believe my rights have been imposed upon by the FBI, but I also believe they are trying to protect the Amercian citizens. The Patriot Act, which is an act of Congress, was signed into law by President George W. Bush this law was intended to halt terrorism and preserve life and liberty. This act was passed after the 9/11 incident. As with any bills or laws passed there are some glitches. Many Americans citizens and critics argue that the patriot act was passed before being introduced to the people. Most provisions of this act are considered invalid or unenforceable by its terms. Some optimist in major cities and communities are criticizing the patriot act as an

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.

Privacy has endured throughout human history as the pillar upon which our authentic nature rests. Yet, in an age darkened by the looming shadow of terrorism, another force threatens to dominate the skyline and obscure the light of liberty behind promises of safety and security: government surveillance. As an employee of the NSA, Edward Snowden broke his vow of secrecy to inform the public of our government’s furtive surveillance acts, but does this render him traitorous? To answer this, we must first ask ourselves, traitorous to whom? When the very institution established to protect our fundamental liberties intrudes on our privacy from behind a veil of secrecy, should such informed individuals resign from judicious autonomy and

Edward Snowden is a United States citizen and former employee of the National Security Agency (NSA). Snowden leaked information about the NSA to the media in 2013 and is now in Russia where he was recently granted three years of asylum. The NSA uses cryptology and others forms of information gathering to enable various networks to make advantageous decisions for the Nation and our allies under all circumstances. The NSA operates undetected by civilians, and uses global monitoring so broadly defined that it has allowed for unscrupulous behavior that was witnessed by contracted employee, Edward Snowden. Snowden believed that as the public gained knowledge of the illegal intelligence gathering by the government of domestic citizens, and abroad, he would gain protection from the public. Snowden did receive protection from people including powerful lawyers, journalists, and privacy advocates. Analysis of the Edward Snowden case