Reforms in the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) of 1996

Today, electronic surveillance remains one of the most effective tools the United States has to protect against foreign powers and groups seeking to inflict harm on the nation, but it does not go without a few possessing a few negative aspects either. Electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence has likely saved the lives of many innocent people through prevention of potential acts of aggression towards the United States. There are many pros to the actions authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pertaining to electronic surveillance, but there are also cons. Looking at both the pros and cons of electronic surveillance is important in understanding the overall effectiveness of FISA. [1]

Before World War One, people were allowed to watch, write, or say anything they wanted to as long as they weren’t harming anyone. However, the Republicans and Democrats were arguing over whether or not we should have more censorship. The Democrats wanted more censorship, but Republicans didn’t want more censorship. As it was stated in document 1, they didn’t want the president to be able to block himself from getting criticism. The Espionage and Sedition Acts were put in place so that people couldn’t interfere with the success of the army, it was to help find people who were disloyal to the army.

The Espionage Act of 1917 was a federal law passed after World War I to ensure nobody had the choice to voice their opinion on what the Military was doing to “protect themselves” against what the german military was giving them. This is historical as if it was not enacted the world would probably be a lot worse off than it is now.

In 1917 the United States government enacted a much disputed law entitled the Espionage Act. It had been debated in the years leading up to the United States involvement in World War I. Faced with outspoken citizens who were critical of any direct participation in the war and with a growing fear that any public dissent would make it difficult to conscript the needed man power for U.S. involvement, President Woodrow Wilson’s administration looked to make such actions criminal. Throughout the almost 100 year history of the Espionage Act it has come to blows with the United States Constitution, particularly the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, on many occasions. Thousands of American’s have been charged under the Espionage Act’s

Decisions: The ones convicted were given sentences of $ 10 fine up to five days in jail or $100 fine up to thirty days in jail.

The government's success in preventing another catastrophic attack on the American homeland since September 11, 2001, would have been much more difficult, if not impossible, without the USA Patriot Act. The authorities Congress provided have substantially enhanced our ability to prevent, investigate, and prosecute acts of terror.

The penalties consist of civil and criminal for civil violations it can cost up to 100.00 each violation, and 25,000 a year. Criminal penalties range up to 50,000 and one year in prison for some offences. So there are some penalties the Office for Civil Rights can impose. Numbers show that many

The U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania ruled that the pamphlets were designed to cause men to resist the draft. Therefore, the court decided, Schenck had violated the Espionage Act. Schenck claimed there was not enough evidence to convict him of the charges that had been brought against him. He said that his actions were a form of free speech and claimed that the Espionage Act cut the rights of free speech. According to Schenck, the act was unconstitutional. He was convicted in the district court, and then he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue before the Court was the following: Does the Espionage Act violate the First Amendment in respect to Schenck’s freedom of speech? The Supreme Court ruled unanimously to affirm the decision

George Zimmerman committed murder, and was acquitted of charges by a jury, as there was not enough evidence to prove that Zimmerman had not acted in self-defense. Zimmerman walked away from the trial without any repercussion, and much of the country was outraged. But what if Zimmerman had been wearing Google Glasses, or what if Martin had been using his phone? Both devices have the capability to record events. Either of those could have been used as evidence against Zimmerman, and might have been enough for the jury to find him guilty of murder. Many Americans find flaws with the NSA's (National Security Agency) cell phone, satellite and camera monitoring. Though most people despise the program, the NSA's monitoring power needs to be raised. With the ability to more thoroughly investigate crime scenes though electronic methods, the NSA could help catch local criminals, and could also investigate terrorist attacks on the country more thoroughly. In the end, it comes down to a simple choice, privacy or safety. Which is more important, a small amount of privacy on electronic devices, or the safety of the entire country?

For the business, the first offence is a warning and a $100 fine. The second time is a $500 fine and the third time is a $1,000 fine. Each time the fine will double and more actions will be put in place. For an individual, the first offence is a $100 fine, double each time from there. If this becomes a recurring problem then law enforcement will step in with a different punishment for the individual.

The problem with this type of bribe is that it is normally being done in secret among certain custom agents and they ask for relatively small amounts. They also tend to sabotage the shipment, make sure it will not enter the country or they make the entering process extremely long if the manager does not respond positively to their “tip” request.

The ECPA was envisioned to create “a fair balance between the privacy expectations of citizens and the legitimate needs of law enforcement” (Alburene, 2001). The Electronic Communication Act of 1986 contains three basic provisions which are referred to as Title I: The Wiretap Act, Title II: The Stored Communication Act and Title III: the Pen Register Act. The first provision deals with the interception of communication, the second protects the privacy of stored communication, and the third addresses pen register devices. Emails in the Electronic Privacy Act are protected by different sections of the act depending on the purpose of the email at that particular moment. A message that is first being sent from one party to another is protected

The Patriot Act (Title II, Sec. 213) allows for the delayed notification of the execution of a search warrant. Under what circumstances can the notification be delayed?

In modern society, where the use of technology drives businesses into new areas of extreme pressure of competition, there has become an increasing trend of implementing trade secret laws. Companies as famous as Coca-Cola rely on trade secret law, and support acts such as the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which would make misappropriate use of trade secrets a “federal civil cause of action”, (Frazer, 2016). Coca-Cola is not the only company partaking in implementing trade secret law either. Other organizations such as Kentucky Fried Chicken also make use of such tactics (Halan, 2006). Thus, before continuing on it is important to have a concrete definition of what exactly a trade secret is. As defined by attorney Jeanne Di Grazio, a trade secret

In the late 18th century, Jeremy Bentham designed the panopticon – a prison system which was designed in a manner that the jailer or guard can view all the inmates in their cells without being seen himself. Ideally, inmates were given the psychological impression that they were watched at all times from the inspection house situated at the center of the prison. In the late 20th century, Michel Foucault elaborate on this idea, with the advancement in technology which informs how the state seeks to provide `security’ to its citizens through surveillance. More recently, with the formation of various intercontinental and transnational organizations, the world has now witnessed the rise of the surveillance as accompanied by globalization. This paper describes the rise of the surveillant state in the era of globalization and its implications for individual and collective human right and freedoms, with particular reference to Western societies.