Privacy Is Utterly Dead By Peter Singer

Though the consequences of citizen’s actions through technology today are not as severe or are non punishable, they do not take the government’s surveillance as seriously as the citizens of Oceania did in 1984. One NSA system can reach about 75% of all US Internet traffic, communications by foreigners and Americans (Gorman n. pag.). The US government's defense to surveillance claims is that the justification is National Security (Calamur n. pag.)., and this may be true, but the question of the freedom to privacy ratio, as a free nation, is still undecided. One way surveillance is now even more accessible is due to Google Glass. "With Google Glass, nobody's pointing a camera... phone. You no longer know if you're being filmed... an unspoken social rule is being violated" (Brown 42). and gives the government the ability to see from the point of view of anyone. With most every person you meet having quick access to some sort of recordable technology, it is easy to have your actions recorded or documented without your knowledge. The information can be easily spread around the world without your knowing or permission with just a simple touch. As said before, “.....an unspoken social rule is being violated” (Brown 42), taking away the sense of privacy and security felt by many Americans. Another form of surveillance, used by specifically the NYPD, is the use of undercover cops. Since The Occupy Wall Street

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.

With new technology rolling out onto the market seemingly everyday, the privacy of many is disappearing and has even become nonexistent. With many scandals over the past few years, government agencies have been accused of using these new communication resources as means to keep a watchful eye over their citizens. This is the very topic discussed by Peter Singer in his essay “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets”. Singer discusses the benefits and pitfalls that have come from these communication innovations, going in depth on the tactics and resources used by civilians as well as governments to keep track of each other. Singer presents strong premises that argue for the conservation of the individual privacy rights while also arguing for governments to become more transparent, creating an overall controversial element to his essay, as he is only half invested in transparency as a whole between civilians and the body that governs them, that comes off as somewhat unconvincing as the two arguments contradict each other.

Technology has come a long way since the early 90’s. With modern advances, technology is just about incorporated in everything we do in our day-to-day lives. Since technology has been incorporated into our everyday lives, it may raise some concerns about what may be happening in the background. One of these concerns would be privacy, we all may take it for granted but it is our constitutional rights as Americans. But this all changed after the September 2001 attack on the twin towers.

In today’s society, the word “privacy” has become ubiquitous. When discussing whether government surveillance and data collection pose a threat to privacy, the most common retort against privacy advocates – by those in favor of databases, video surveillance, spyware, data mining and other modern surveillance measures – is this line: "If I’m not doing anything wrong, what would I have to hide?" The allowance of the government’s gathering and analysis of our personal information stems from an inadequate definition of what privacy is and the eternal value that privacy possesses. The adherents of the “nothing-to-hide” argument say that because the information will never be disclosed to the public, the “privacy interest is minimal, and the security interest in preventing terrorism is much more important.” 1 In an era where the patterns we leave behind will inevitably become the focus for whatever authority, the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. In this essay, I will explore the state of online privacy in wake of the government’s warrantless data collection. Respectively, the nothing-to-hide argument and its key variants in more depth.

With these recent situations the government has started to dig deeper into citizens personal lives by keeping track of every phone call that is made and received, emails that are sent and received and even what we search on the internet. The most common defense to this invasion is claiming to collect data on terrorist threats. This is all being done through the NSA (National Security Agency) Surveillance Program. Many American citizens’ support the government’s unwarranted involvement in technology and Internet privacy. Arguments that the government has complete right to invade our personal lives in order to protect us have been made. This fifty or so percent of people find it acceptable for the National Security Agency to listen in on phone calls, also saying that they should take it one step further than that. The fifty percent of people who have sided with the government argue that this is the only way the government can protect us from terrorist attacks, because this is the largest outlet for information since we have become so dependent on technology to get us through our daily lives. While many may find this reasoning to be an acceptable excuse to violate one’s personal lives, it is an unacceptable act, and a bad example and message for them to violate the rights that they have sworn to protect and keep in tact. In 2014, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice stated,

True privacy in our modern age is nearly impossible. Although we have freedom of mobility (to travel nearly anywhere in the world), we are constantly watched. In Laura Poitras’s 2014 documentary Citizenfour, which takes place in 2013 when whistleblower and former infrastructure analyst for the NSA (National Security Agency), Edward Snowden released information that revealed the mass state surveillance of American citizens by the NSA after the September 11 terrorist attacks (or 9/11) as a method to detect terrorists. During an interview with American journalist Glenn Greenwald, Snowden states that

The 21st century has brought with it a great number of technological advancements all designed to make our lives much easier, faster, and more enjoyable. but these advancements have come at a cost. the loss of privacy associated with these new devices, is a great price people are having to pay. Many people are not aware of the severity invasive government surveillance has gotten to. According to heidi boghosian, “domestic surveillance” has been around almost as long “as the nation itself”. When did government spying on Americans become excessive and invasive of American’s privacy?

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.

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

Medine’s piece, Choice Between Security and Liberty a False One, focuses on the delicate balance between privacy and security. The central theme presented is about the methodology of information gathering. First off, Medine explains that a knee jerk reaction to tragic events, such as the attacks in Paris, shouldn’t be the catalyst to end or change existing surveillance programs. Following the Paris attacks, there were appeals requesting that the National Security Agency increase their phone records collection program known as Section 215.

In this paper I will be talking about government surveillance. The government pries through social media sites to gain information about United States citizens. I have become reliant and careless on social media. My birthdays is posted on social media, location, and school. Cell phones calls have been invaded by NASA as well. Internet searches are one of the governments way of tracking habits and patterns of potential suspects. I use technology for almost every school assignment, so avoiding technology in this generation is practically inevitable. Since the release of the government being guilty of surveilling its citizens, many citizens vocalized their stance or opinion. While some citizens claim they cannot function with knowing that they

According to our literature, privacy is a common value, a public value, a collective value, and to some extent, a positive and negative right. However, in times of national security, the relationship and broader value are the sum of all three values. For instance, in the aftermath of the September 11, 20001 terrorist attacks, the idea that civil liberties had to be reduced in favor of national security emerged with renewed vigor. Many have noted the paradox that security measures intended to protect a liberal democracy can end up eroding the civil liberties at the heart of liberal democracies ( ). Because of this, it is common to view this problem as a juxtaposition dealing with the appropriate

“How much freedom should Americans be willing to sacrifice in the name of National Security?” (CITE). Privacy rights have been a topic of discussion with the American government since “World War II concerning the issue of Communists and German Spies being present in the United States of America (USA),” (CITE). However, ever since the attacks on the USA on September 11th, 2001, the “sacrifice Americans had to make of their basic liberties has increased,” (CITE). It all began with the USA Patriot Act of 2001; this act takes “privacy depleting measures” and “uses National Security letters to demand information about anyone the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) finds suspicious in terms of terrorism,” (CITE). This act serves as a problem to

In the recent year and a half, citizens of almost every nation were exposed to information regarding the mass surveillance used by many governments to spy on their citizens. This information, released by Edward Snowden, confirms the long held theory that mass amounts of data regarding the personal habits and communications of individuals were being collected and stored. This revelation has given rise to a serious new debate: just how many civil liberties and rights should citizens allow their government to ignore in the name of “security”?