Pros And Cons Of NSA Surveillance

Government officials try to put people’s concerns to rest with these statements, but the resentment toward the “snooping” continues (Zuckerman para 4) The government does, without a doubt have reason for the NSA’s surveillance.

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

To figure out whether domestic surveillance of citizens is moral from a demonstration utilitarian point of view, we should take a look at both the positives and the negative outcomes that may come about as a result being monitored by the government. It is possible that as a consequence of government surveillance, potential terrorists that desire to do hurt against the United States and against its residents of the United States will be revealed and ceased. It is likewise possible that this legislative observation will prompt the capture of persons included in real wrongdoings inside of the United States. These are a few illustrations of the positive things that happen as an aftereffect of the legislative checking. In any case, there are potential negatives outcomes that can and have happened in the United States as a consequence of governmental monitoring. In order to determine if governmental monitoring and surveillance is ethical as indicated by the Utilitarianism theory, we should determine the positive and negative outcomes that may happen as an aftereffect of the monitoring and afterward figure which has the most impact. Weighing the pros and cons of Patriot Act and which has more impact will help determine if this type of domestic surveillance is ethical or not in accordance to the Utilitarian theory. From the perspective of subjective relativism, domestic surveillance is considered to be both ethical and unethical. Surveillance is moral from the point of view of those that trust that the utilization of domestic surveillance is justified in order to prevent any future terrorist attacks. On the other hand, the governmental monitoring was observed to be unethical from the viewpoint of those that believe that the surveillance is not supported and is an

The NSA, or National Security Agency, is an American government intelligence agency responsible for collecting data on other countries and sometimes on American citizens in order to protect the country from outside risks. They can collect anything from the people’s phone data to their browser history and use it against them in the court of law. Since the catastrophes of September 11 attacks, the NSA’s surveillance capabilities have grown with the benefit of George W. Bush and the Executive Branch (Haugen 153). This decision has left a country divided for fifteen years, with people who agree that the NSA should be strengthened and others who think their powers should be limited or terminated. Although strengthening NSA surveillance may help the

National Security Agency (NSA) regulations and tactics’ is an invasion of privacy, an infringement on the Constitutional Amendments, and fails to keep the private or confidential data of Americans safe from hackers.

The National Security Agency (NSA) has been an information gathering arm of the Executive branch since the Cold War and continues to be an essential part of ensuring the security of the United States. The public issue that involves the NSA is the spying of U.S citizens which can be seen as a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This was revealed to the public by the whistleblower Edward Snowden who released classified documents of activities that the NSA had been conducting in conjuncture with telecommunication companies, which angered many U.S citizens and received media coverage with a call for the U.S Government to restrict the NSA’s activities or at least for there to be Congressional oversight. This debate revolves around how much the NSA’s surveillance activities are actually used for national security as well as the constitutionality of the NSA’s surveillance. This all began after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 when there was a call for the attacks to never happen again and the adoption of the Patriot Act in that same year which increased the power of the NSA.

The NSA has also acquired many people’s addresses and buddy list connected from their phones.

There is a possibility that evidence the NSA might have uncovered, could be used against you years later. Next to invading our privacy, another argument is, the NSA is unable to prevent attacks with monitoring the internet. Look at the Boston bombing for example. We know the NSA was monitoring suspicious individuals and that one of the bombers was on a CIA watchlist. That didn’t stop them from killing 3 people and injuring

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.

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.

On September 11, 2001, tragedy struck in the United States; 2,977 people died in the iconic terrorist attacks (“September 11th Fast Facts”). In New York, New York, two planes crashed into the World Trade Center towers, and another crashed into the Pentagon, which is the military command center located in Washington D.C. Along with those three planes, there was a fourth plane that was hijacked, but the passengers overthrew the terrorist, and downed the plane in Pennsylvania. These attacks resulted in racism against the Muslim community and government agencies that changed their goal to preventing another terrorist attack on the United States and its allies (Gould, Eric D., and Klor). One of these agencies is the NSA; NSA employee, Edward Snowden leaked top-secret information in 2013, regarding their spying program (Greenwald, Glenn). This caused great commotion all across the United States about people’s rights. However, the NSA is here to protect the United States and other countries from potential terrorist attacks. The NSA should be allowed to collect people’s communication records to bring home more troops and prevent terrorist attacks.

After 9/11, people lined up for miles to get gas and raided grocery stores for supplies. But as a matter of fact, a recent survey has found that 65% of Americans believe that the NSA monitoring search histories has prevented several attacks (Sherfinski). Further on in another study, it showed that 56% of americans were worried that the NSA and the United States Government has not gone far enough with its anti-terror policies (Rainie and Maniam). This shows the majority of America thinks the U.S. is on its way to a safe nation but we are not there yet. Monitoring the searches will help get us closer, but it takes the whole nation’s help. Sometimes people just have to make a sacrifice for freedom. What the NSA is doing is trying to create a good balance of social order in the United States. This is very tough to do; they are trying to give people their social equality but at the same time, keep the peace. Social order can be defined as a society that is stable and accepted by its members. A stable society is one free from attacks and that is self sufficient. That is the ultimate goal of the NSA: to make the country stable. A woman from New Jersey who was in Manhattan on 9/11 said, "Do whatever's necessary. We've got nothing to hide. Giving up privacy is the price we pay" (Noble). What this is saying is people have to make sacrifices everyday in America in order to get freedom, whether it’s a policeman, a soldier, or a TSA officer. President Trump once said, "a lot of bad dudes out there," (“Donald Trump Defends. . .”). There are people all over the world that don’t believe in America’s views and will go to histrionic lengths to make sure America is not free, and it’s our job to fight back. So help the NSA restore social order in the country and as Trump says, “make America great

“The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival” (Orwell). The world today is full of many dangers domestic and abroad. It has become a routine in the news to report on the daily mass shooting or update with the war on terror. We live in a world where being worried is justified; however, we should not give up our constitutional rights in the face of fear. The NSA’s dragnet surveillance programs, such as PRISM, are both ineffective and are surpassed by less questionable national security programs. The FISA court's’ approval of NSA actions are not only illegal, but exist as an embarrassing formality. Surveillance is a necessary

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