Of Wendy Kaminer's Article 'Trading Liberties For Illusions'

The debate between where to draw the line between allowing government surveillance and keeping society’s members privacy will never be completely clear. It is important to keep a part of an individual’s life private and once the Untied States voted the Patriot Act in privacy went from limited to microscopic. Widening the scope of government surveillance slowly but surely pushes privacy out of the

In society today many citizens feel violated with the security methods taken by homeland security. “On September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States marked the beginning of the global war on terrorism. The methods used are justifiable as they provide protection against possible threats or attacks. This attack on U.S. soil increased surveillance of both American citizens and foreign nationals” (Andrew, C., & Walter,

A Surveillance Society by Thompson and Hickey is about how public surveillance is everywhere, looking at everything, and is never turned off. First, the PATRIOT Act was passed by Congress shortly after 9/11, and has allowed the government to start watching people. Ever since then the U.S. has increased its use of cameras in public places. Today, just about everywhere businesses and shoppers are, there are cameras. High-tech surveillance devices are more prevalent across populated areas. Corporations, agencies and even individuals monitor social areas with surveillance. With today’s technology, cameras are able to scan images and identify people. Organizations regularly share databases, swapping personal information. Some are opposed

“Antarctic penguins detect the precise call of their chicks among the 150,000 families in the nesting site” (Christin 96). If only it were this easy to know who you were talking to online. This leads me to Peter Singer’s “Visible Man: Ethics in a World Without Secrets” which he explains that being watched through surveillance increases our morals. And Brian Christians “Authenticating” discusses the importance of artificial intelligence and what makes us human. Both of the articles listed describes how technology continues to transform into a more modern web and gives the citizens, who use it, less security, which results in chaos within the government and society. Consequently, new technology does not make it harder to be

Surveillance is not a new thing. In fact, espionage, tracking, and sleuthing were part of society ever since 5000 B.C. But in the rise of the modern era, the idea of surveillance in the public eye serves as a controversial topic of discussion. People everywhere complain about the existence of security cameras, government tracking, and the right to privacy. Such problems, however, are not due to the sudden discovery of surveillance, but the modern abuse of it. Seeing the disastrous effects of over surveillance from George Orwell’s 1984, the public rightfully fears societal deterioration through modern surveillance abuse portrayed in Matthew Hutson’s “Even Bugs Will Be Bugged” and the effects of such in Jennifer Golbeck’s “All Eyes On You”. The abuse of surveillance induces the fear of discovery through the invasion of privacy, and ensures the omnipresence of one’s past that haunt future endeavors, to ultimately obstruct human development and the progress of society overall.

Security will take most of our rights away. It will also go against our constitutional rights (The Fourth amendment), an example of this is now they had recently found out that the smart T.V’s are watching us. People asked is this to keep us safe or an invasion of our privacy. The irony and exaggeration of these acts, so called “laws” have also captured the attention of political cartoonists. Say you're in a room full of strangers and you’re living there for security, but are you actually safe? Is that what you want to be provided with for the rest of your life? Our constitution, specifically our fourth amendment states that “people are to be secure in their persons, houses and papers.” Recent news have demonstrated that some of the smart T.V’s contain material that are

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.

When I think of public safety versus personal privacy, I think of a constant shifting teeter-totter. The balance between the two is extremely difficult when deciding “Is this a violation of privacy?” or “Am I doing enough to ensure public safety?” Often times, the teeter-totter is never in a perfect, straight line. In fact, in most situations, the teeter-totter is weighed down on the public safety side or the privacy side. Whether the teeter-totter is weighed down on either side, we must make a sacrifice. As citizens, we put our trust in the government to ensure safety among us, meaning we must give up some of our privacy. In other situations our privacy is more important, so we have to give up a stronger sense of public safety. For instance,

Reason to Listen: As Daniel Sarewitz writes in Defending Democracy,“The time to start thinking about the impact of security technologies on democratic rights is during R&D.” Now, more than ever before should we as a country be worried about government surveillance. The government claims it is for our protection and sure they’re are some benefits. Terrorist attacks stopped, crime prevention, and leads to murders, rapes, and drug trafficking. But, where is the line drawn, how democratic is it really, and whose best interest is really in mind? Should stipulations be set? This topic is a hot discussion in newsrooms, classrooms and political institutions across the nation.

Everyday, many people are unknowing victims of domestic surveillance, a controversial topic about government watch over people. This type of surveillance is when the government keeps U.S. citizens under great scrutiny through a variety of methods to protect the citizens. The supervision causes dissent because the system may save some people, but also violates other’s privacy. Either way, domestic surveillance should still be ended because the usage of non-stop recording police body cameras, hacked webcams and microphones in devices, and increase in biometric monitoring for security.

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.

pp.745. Daniel J. Solove is the Associate Professor, George Washington University Law School; J.D., Yale Law School. Solove has an in-depth understanding of surveillance and privacy. In the article, he focuses on analyzing “What exactly is “privacy?” “How valuable is privacy and how do we assess its value?” and “How do we weigh privacy against countervailing values?” He points out that the main problem with surveillance is not that someone’s privacy is invaded; instead, government surveillance creates a power imbalance, putting people in danger in a way that they have all the power to collect everything they want; you have no idea how your private information will be processed. This article will be used as evidence to support the part of “power

Possibly the technological feature creating the most controversy is surveillance cameras. What is seemingly there for public safety could also inhibit safety by exposing the public’s private life. Every move made under the hawk-like vision of the camera is observed and judged by someone sitting behind the scenes. Women risk being stalked by sexual predators, and assailants have been known to memorize the schedule of a subject in order to time the perfect attack (Stead). “Bad cops” may gain insight to a personal life that allows for the watcher to blackmail the victim. In recent studies it has been proven that an increase in surveillance cameras does not decrease the crime rate; it

Privacy is something that is valuable, and gives trust to both sides. Everyone is endowed with some degree of privacy, right? The debate of the topic privacy versus security has been going on for a while. Most people believe privacy is more important, giving people the chance to be relaxed without anyone watching them, literally or figuratively speaking. Governments believe that security is more important, claiming it will help with terrorism and lower the crime rate. If we allow this to happen, then as an example, the government could monitor our phones conversations, what websites we visit, the games or programs we download, even where we go throughout our day by tracking us on the GPS unit in our smartphones.

Thesis Statement: “Citizens of this country should value the national security more than their privacy since it is concerned with a much larger group of people in order to protect our country from invaders, to maintain the survival of our country and to prevent airing of criticism of government.”