Public Challenges Of The Australian Public Faces

3. What kind of invasion of privacy exist in Oceania? The two-way telescreen, the Police Patrol swooping down in helicopters to peer in people’s windows, the constant fear of being targeted as an enemy by the Thought Police, the posters of Big Brother with reminders the “Big Brother is Watching You.”

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

In the world we live in today, the general populous is being spied on constantly. In the name of national security, our government is turning our electronic devices against us. This precedent was started in 1992 with the DEA collecting the metadata from all US calls to countries linked to drug trafficking (Heath 1). The DEA gathered the information without the approval of the courts, analyzed the data and put them into large databases and investigative reports. This arm of the DEA was only shut down in 2013 due to turmoil from documents leaked by Edward Snowden. From this point on many legislations have been passed authorizing the bulk collection of americans' data, which is a direct violation of our

With today’s technological surveillance capabilities, our actions are observable, recordable and traceable. Surveillance is more intrusive than it has been in the past. For numerous years countries such as the United State and the United Kingdom have been actively monitoring their citizens through the use of surveillance technology. This state surveillance has been increasing with each passing year, consequently invading the citizen’s fundamental constitutional right to privacy,. This has lead to the ethical issues from the use or misuse of technology, one such ethical issue is should a government have the right to use technology to monitor its citizens without their knowledge or approval? For this reason this paper will

Since 9/11, the Australian government has enacted over 60 counter-terrorism laws to assist in the fight against the rising threat of terrorism in Australia. This legislation has recently been brought into question given the rise of extremist groups such as Islamic State and the lifting of Australia’s terror level to “High”. Prior to 9/11 there were no specific laws in order to combat terrorism specifically in the Criminal Code. Australia’s national anti-terror laws are alarming not just in their volume, but also in their widespread scope. They include powers for warrantless searches, the banning of organisations, preventive detention, and the undisclosed detention and interrogation of non-suspect citizens by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). The progress of these laws though parliament was eased by Australia’s absence of a national bill or charter of rights. The fast enactment of the laws was also aided by an apprehensive atmosphere and a feeling of urgency. This quick enactment has raised concerns over the many years since the legislation passed regarding the facilitation of the rule of law given the extensive powers that the Commonwealth has in regards to national defence and security. One such example of legislation that has proven to be controversial and has drawn supporters and critics alike are control orders under Division 104 of the Criminal Code. The paper will assess whether or not

Many will argue that the security measurements the government are taking are going too far, so far that it is being questioned whether privacy is being invaded, Bailey Nunn investigates. T he on-going intractable nature of the “privacy vs. security” debate has, for numerous years, been unresolved. Those who believe in security over privacy intend to make a safer city, whilst others believe that their privacy is being unnecessarily invaded, nevertheless, this topic is argued globally. In many countries, the use of surveillance cameras has become very prevalent, inevitably leading to more privacy issues being raised by citizens. The use of surveillance devices has become so common that it has affected our way of living, we are no longer able

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.

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.

The National Security Agency of the United States has created a confidential surveillance program named PRISM, operating as the world’s largest “Planning Tool for Resource Integration, Synchronization, and Management”. This program is designed to gather and process “foreign intelligence” that travels through the United States, by extracting data from some of the world’s largest tech companies and its users. The United States describes itself as the “Worlds telecommunications backbone”, which was explicitly listed in the leaked PowerPoint presentation of PRISM’s operation. By going undercover and secretively accessing file transfers, e-mails, videos, call logs and numerous other types of data, the United States government is enabling a watch dog on its citizens and creating the largest terrorist regime. These PowerPoint slides behold some very disturbing information in how U.S citizens are being deprived of privacy, leading to loss of agency. Restricting individuals to be watched all the time turns the human race into robots, as individuality is lost, and liberty and freedom begins to diminish. America’s justification for surveillance and spy activity since 9/11 was to fight terrorism and protect the population, but these documents have nothing to do with capturing foreign terrorists or improving national security. They are a means of control, and instead of indicating those as the elected and the elector, meaning that congress and this government was only created through the

Just weeks after 9/11, the executive branch of the government began a massive expansion of domestic surveillance with very little debate or transparency (Lichtblau, 2008). This apparatus was left to grown in secret, almost completely unchecked by the other 2 branches of government for the last 15 years. In that time, the National Security Administration (NSA) grew from tapping a few phones, to effectively spying on an entire planet by infiltrating the infrastructure of worldwide communications networks. The facts that have come to light about the extensive domestic surveillance and storage capabilities of our Information and Data Systems (IDS) raise very important fundamental questions of the ability of the governed and the constitution

Surveillance is defined as any form of concentrated attention or observation to personal information for the purposes of influence, management, or control (Lyon, 2009, p.1). While privacy is defined as a state of being free from others attention and from being observed. The two terms together form a contradiction, as they oppose each other and relate to the major inconsistency of equality (everyone being under surveillance) verses freedom (people’s right to privacy), since the enlightenment. Ever since reading George Orwell’s 1984, with ‘Big Brother’, I have been interested in the topic of privacy verses surveillance in terms of fighting crime and preventing terrorism. In my unexamined opinion, it is apparent that it is a continuous issue in

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.

(Cyber-privacy? or cyber-surveillance? Legal responses to fear in cyberspace, 2014) There are two kinds of surveillance, one military-security. It mindset leads to the perception of cyberspace as militarised space and application of notions such as cyber-war. Another one is liberal-security; mindset generates a more balance approach to the needs of national security, versus the privacy of individual. Also, it illustrates an issue which is taking children's photography at school could cause danger. Citizens have rights to protect their privacy, nobody wants their information lost. Surveillance make citizens sleep with eyes open, they fear about governments steal their privacy. This threat is not easy to deal with, either real world and

A Surveillance Society” By William E. Thompson and Joseph V. Hickey states a serious dramatic of an event of consequential conflicts concerns the security of every individual’s inhabiting in the general public; Moreover, it addresses how Surveillance technologies are intervening in peoples' lives and the Government has an enormous part in it. Farther more when the United States had a terrorist attack they had to enforce surveillance upon the humanity; It was called the USA Patriot Act. The USA Patriot Act is an act of Congress that was signed into the law by President George W. Bush on October 26,2001 It allowed appropriate tools required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. Essentially the citizens were being spied on to ensure security for

Although the media is furious about Orwell’s nightmare seemingly coming true, the general public outcry on both sides of the Atlantic is rather muted. In fact, according to YouGov, a British market research firm, only 31 percent of Brits actually opposed that “phone and internet companies should be required to retain everyone's data…for 12 months. Police and intelligence agencies would have access to this information for anti-terrorism purposes.” In fact, over half of the UK citizens that were interviewed stated that they had no issue with it. Mendes attempts to use this perceived fear of mass surveillance to connect with his audience. He doesn’t take valuable screen time to explain why the concept of mass surveillance is bad because he believes his audience already understands. However, I think he is wrong. The media, whether conservative or liberal, seem to be very much against mass surveillance. Proponents of this extreme case of government oversight are few and far between. Because of this disparity in advocation, it is easy to assume that the vast majority of people strongly despise mass