Pros And Cons Of Surveillance

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

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was originally enacted to protect entities from abuse of surveillance for national security reasons. FISA contains policies associated with the process of gathering foreign intelligence by the intelligence community for national security reasons (Addicott & McCaul, 2008, p. 46-47). FISA also consisted of a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which had eleven unnamed federal judges who issued warrants regarding surveillance or searches for the intelligence community, and a court review board, which consisted of three federal judges who reviewed the actions of the secret court. After the passing of the Patriot Act by the Bush Administration, the NSA was essentially given full authority to collect information on citizens without a warrant, thereby circumventing the FISC, and Bush fully defended the NSA, stating “‘The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time.’” (Schwartz 2009

When the colonist were drafting the constitution they couldn’t have imagined the tremendous growth we have achieved today. With innovation comes conflict. Many citizens feel the United States gives an illusion of freedom. Today the biggest conflicts are centered on basic rights spelled out in the constitution. It’s no secret the National Association of Surveillance illegally obtains information from the electronic devices of United States citizens. The actions of the NSA violate the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendment rights. The NSA’s use of information impedes on the first amendment in terms of freedom of press. For a journalist the source is the key, and the key stays confidential. With the NSA collecting digital trails there is a higher risk for whistle blowers to be charged with criminal act or even assassinated. The courts stand by the NSA, for

The PATRIOT Act abuses the privacy of American citizens. It has denied the nationals of this nation of a portion of the essential rights that were guaranteed to them in the Constitution. The rights that the PATRIOT Act puts into jeopardy are intrinsic and it is the responsibility to secure our inherent rights. The USA PATRIOT Act is an Act of Congress that was marked into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. Its title is a ten-letter acronym (USA PATRIOT) that stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. After the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon the United States has created relief controls

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.

The FISA Act was formed to limit the power and capabilities of spies, but it is merely inadequate. This court created outrage and controversies with the subjective ways it deals with NSA warrants. The FISA court rejects only about .03 percent of warrants each year, which are mostly the local intelligence they leave to the local police (Cothran 164). The 99.97 percent of warrants accepted are based off of the heritage and nationality of a person rather than his activities. Consequently, this ethnic profiling creates a false sense of safety in the eyes of most Americans because it displays that the FISA court dishonestly accepts the false intelligence the NSA produces (Cothron 172). Although the NSA and FISA court is taking away civil liberties, the government has been doing the same all these years. Just like the FISA court falsely identifies someone, airport officials do the same when they see a “dangerous” ethnicity by inspecting them more thoroughly. Much like the biased actions of the FISA court, the NSA also conducts their research in an inappropriate

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.

The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (USA PATRIOT Act) is one of the most controversial pieces of legislation to ever pass through the US Senate. Its critics use fear mongering tactics to scare people into opposition of an intrusive police state which they believe is inevitable given the government’s new powers. They consider the Act an assault on civil liberties and an invasion of the privacy of innocent American citizens. Yet the real issue is not that the government now has new powers, it’s that the American people do not trust our intelligence agencies to handle these new powers properly while still respecting their rights.

The Patriot Act was introduced as a response to the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11th. It has radically changed the way in which the government operates in the investigations of people in and out of our country. It has broadened the powers of the federal government in the way in which they can obtain information on people. In this paper I will be discussing the ethical and moral issues of the expanded ability of wiretapping, search and seizure, the establishment of the FISA court, and end with the transparency of these practices.

Up until this point, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, applied to surveillance for domestic threats (Surveillance). However, this act now “stipulated that government officials have the authority to ‘intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism, computer fraud, abuse offenses’” (Ambrose and Brinkley, 498). For the first time the “CIA could spy on American citizens within the U.S. borders” (Ambrose and Brinkley, 498), and for the first time, Americans were forced to trade their liberty for some sense of

After the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, an American public was shocked, flabbergasted, and lost for words for the first time since Pearl Harbor. Out of these fears the PATRIOT act was conceived; promising to help stop future terrorist plots the bill was initially met with high praise from the public and media. It was not for another decade that the side-effects of the patriot act were revealed to the world. The American public was appalled at the circumvention of their fourth Amendment rights. Still there is a clear divide between those who believe that the National Security Agency Is not violating the constitution and what they are doing is good for the betterment of the country and those who believe that their privacy and undeniable American freedoms were violated in part of the NSA spying with both parties bringing their own views and ideals to the field. The September eleventh attacks were the beginning of the end of privacy for American citizens the PATRIOT act which was signed a month later granted full access to the phones and computers of the people. It took over a decade for the public to become aware of the illegal spying that the NSA had conducted. The NSA spying is a complicated and controversial matter while there have been several judicial courts that have ruled against the spying there has also been just as many cases of the court 's finding the spying constitutional.

On June 6, 2013, The Guardian published a story about the National Security Agency's (NSA) secret Internet surveillance program, PRISM (Greenwald and MacAskill 2013). The story was based on documents leaked by one of the most successful whistle-blowers in American history, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. The documents that Snowden has released up to this time have shown the NSA to be heavily engaged in the collection of personal Internet activity, bulk collection of telephone "metadata," and other forms of surveillance that have brought U.S. intelligence practices into question.

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.

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

The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator