Research Paper On Domestic Surveillance

Domestic Surveillance in the Unites States has been going on for decades without the public 's knowledge. Domestic Surveillance didn 't seem important in the eye of the American government. After the September attacks (9/11) congress started to treat Domestic Surveillance as a number one priority. After September 11th Congress passed a law to use military force for those responsible for the attacks in New York, NY. The go ahead with using military force did not give the President to use surveillance without a warrant. Congress started to pass legislation against counterterrorism efforts. The most controversial measures, including the 2001 USA Patriot Act that gave the US federal government the ability to collect and analyze private information that has identified itself with the United States of America.

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

Today, Canadian’s lives today are as translucent as ever. Most organizations especially the government constantly watches each and every one of our moves. By definition, surveillance is any systematic focus on any information in order to influence, manage, entitle, or control those whose information is collected. (Bennet et Al, 6). From driving to the shopping mall to withdrawing money from the ATM machine, Canadians are being watched constantly. With Canada’s commitment to advance technology and infrastructure in the 1960s, government surveillance is much easier and much more prevalent than it was hundreds of years ago. Even as early as 1940s, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics used punch cards and machines to determine who is available

Government Surveillance shows two contradicting constitutional values, freedom and security; although, it is the governments job to protect its citizens, which is ideally what these programs are for, many people believe that these programs infringe on their 1st and 4th amendment rights. Our currentl government surveillance programs are operating with in the law because the USA Patriot Act gave the government “sweeping new surveillance powers,” along

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 government offered the domestic surveillance programs to reinstate a feeling of safety. Although comforting shell shocked citizens, current programs are becoming unnecessarily invasive, financially costly, and controversially uneffective. Many people believe that these programs undermine the fourth amendment of the Constitution of our nation. It is certain that we need domestic surveillance with jihadist groups continually growing but it is obvious that systems in place today are not working.

High police surveillance among communities of color enables black and brown bodies to be criminalized at higher rates than whites increasing the rate of incarceration of African American and Latino communities. Historical conditions as slavery and the development of policing in America have had an effect on the communities targeted by police forces. The police forces came from a history of slave patrolling which primary goal was to patrol slaves and catch the “bad” runaway slaves. In the article “What is the difference between slave Patrol and modern day policing? Institutional Violence in a community of color” Marlese Durr writes, “Davis and Melissa Barlow (199) note that by 1837, the Charleston Police Department had 100 officers whose primary

Ever since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and an area in Pennsylvania, in which nearly 3,000 helpless individuals were killed, the U.S. Congress began to pass legislation that would strengthen the United State’s counterterrorism efforts. Less than a month after the horrific attack, the National Security Agency (NSA) started a “special collection program” with intentions to track communications among suspected terrorists and Al Qaeda leaders. Then on October 4, 2001, President George W. Bush authorized the NSA to monitor domestic communications in order to track down suspected terrorists. Two problems shortly arose from Bush’s decision: the fact that his authorization to NSA was carried out in secret and also that monitoring the domestic communications was done without a warrant. This proved to be illegal since the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act states that the government is prohibited from eavesdropping inside the United States without first getting a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court). In order to counteract the issues he had caused, on October 26, 2001 Bush signed the Patriot Act; a law that would expand the government’s electronic surveillance powers. After signing this law Bush stated, “The existing law was written in the era of rotary telephones. This new law that I sign today will allow surveillance of all communications used by terrorists, including emails, the

To conclude, many people have the stand that Constitutional rights should not be sacrificed for any reason. While others say, NSA surveillance should not be

Government officials claim that surveillance is a necessity, but it doesn't make the people any more safe. There is little or no evidence of more lives being saved as a result of mass surveillance programs. The people run the risk of surrendering one of the key freedoms that the citizens strongly strive to protect, the right of privacy, and speech. The national security agencies are now coming up with new technologies that would allow them to monitor credit card activities bank accounts, rental agreements, and dozens of other personal documents. This once again violating the constitutional protections of unreasonable search and seizures. People have the right to know their supposed to be private life, is being

Nowadays everyone has a cell phone, or some device that allows them to reach others, get directions, and take pictures. These devices could be monitored or tracked, and we wouldn't even know it. In December 2005 the NSA (National Security Agency) was exposed to intercepting American phone calls and monitoring internet communications. How would you feel if the government was listening your calls? How would you feel if the government was monitoring everything you do on your phone? The NSA spying, monitoring calls, and data trafficking is what bothers many American’s.

A good video surveillance system should deter criminals, protect you when you're home, alert you to events, and provide rock solid evidence should something happen. All the while, your security camera system should be easy to install, easy to use and definitely earn you some bragging rights of being able to say, "They picked the wrong place to mess with."

Technological Surveillance In an age where instant communication and technology provide easy and ready access to information, the society and the individual is caught between two very controversial principles- open information and privacy. The perceptions and expectations of privacy are rapidly changing as a result of current developments in surveillance technologies. The question is are these new surveillance technologies endangering the values and morals of our democratic society, the society we have worked for many centuries to achieve?

Why do we as American's fear of becoming the victim of a crime? Reality is that we as individuals of the United States only have a two-percent chance of becoming the victim of a violent crime. Surveillance is starting to become high in demand for businesses, offices, and even inside and outside of homes solely because we are taught that crime is always happening to someone, somewhere. From personal experience, I feel as if surveillance cameras are not only one of the best ways to prevent crime, but it also increases the possibility to catch the individual(s) who choose to engage in a deviant act or actions. Although alarm systems can be effective, they do not identify who is committing the crime. The alarm systems simply tell the