Scott Stantis's No Right To Privacy?

fear of a disturbance is not enough to overcome free speech, Terminiello v. Chicago. What

Free Essays Unrated Essays Better Essays Stronger Essays Powerful Essays Term Papers Research Papers * Privacy * Our Guarantee * Popular Essays

The life of the typical American citizen is completely built upon the first Amendment, and one Micheal Chabon explained, " The First Amendment has the same role in my life as a citizen and a writer as the sun has on our ecosystem." The life led in America reflects the beliefs of freedom in all aspects of the American way of life. The real debate comes to light when both sides of an argument is fueled by the protective power of Amendments. In the article "Private License Plate Scanners Amassing Vast Databases Open to Highest Bidders"(Private), and "Who Has the Right to Track You?"(Track) To test the idea out.The decision between these cornerstone beliefs depends greatly on personal belief, but anyone with a belief in democracy and freedom will see clearly in the discussion between the ideas pushing the first and fifth amendments. It is clear that the development of these arguments is built on the use of ethos, pathos, and/or logos; style, word choice, and tone; and the author's purpose to shift the view of the reader towards the preferred view point.

King, Geoffrey. "Clear and present danger: the NSA, surveillance and the threat to press freedom." Nieman Reports 68.1 (2014): 38+. Academic OneFile. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.

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.

With tensions at an all time high and the nation at a potential breaking point, the decision in the Dred Scott Case came as a surprise to both the North and the South. The decision had drastic consequences, southern principles were validated while northern liberties were threatened. Therefore it is not surprising that The New York Herald and The Charleston Mercury had very different view points and reporting styles. The northern newspaper viewed the decision’s impact as having “tremendous consequences,” the article included how the Supreme Court’s ruling dismantled northern states’ rights, threatened their liberty and state constitutions. While the southern newspaper saw the

"59 Radio Address about the American Right of Privacy. February 23, 1974." American Reference Library - Primary Source Documents, Jan. 2001, p. 1. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mih&AN=32360825.

In this essay, I will attempt to argue that TSA serves as a mechanism for the government to frame the nature of the debate on privacy, in a way that is beneficial to them. To do this I will first argue that airport security and the TSA is objectively ineffective and merely creates the illusion of privacy. Despite not actually protecting us, the system of airplane security, conditions individuals in the general public to be willing to make sacrifices in privacy for a perceived “greater good” in community safety. This viewpoint of individuals sacrificing a little privacy for the wellbeing of society is the essentially the same “nothing to hide” argument that the government uses to justify mass surveillance and the violation of constitutional privacy rights. This airplane security and analogues government argument is flawed because it defines privacy two narrowly in scope and assumes that privacy couldn’t have social value. However, despite being flawed, the indoctrination by the TSA, and subsequent ideology has become a widely accepted belief. This is inherently

“As the foregoing has made clear, personal information is an extension of the person. To have access to that information is to have access to the person in a particularly intimate way,” (McFarland). When the government takes a person’s private information to use for insensitive matters, they dehumanize the human, and strip a human of their rights to individuality and expression, going against the American way. When the government has the ability to spy on our lives they obtain greater advantage above us regular people. If we are not careful, and accept the government’s hold upon us as a norm, we will never be able to define ourselves as freedom thinkers, and humans with liberty and full rights to

Our nation is built upon its foundation from the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Included within this governing document is the Fourth Amendment, the laws and guidelines that gives the people the right to privacy. Within in this amendment, it is stated that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” (Magruder’s American Government 772). Despite the fact that these right are clearly stated and profound, recent advances in the scopes of technology and social media have violated the people’s privacy by deceiving them into thinking they are protected.

America was founded of the ideals of free speech and equality, but if one tries to exercise these rights to the fullest extent, one’s privacy would be jeopardized. The purpose

Being in the privacy of one’s home, gives you comfort, the means to say what you feel, or how you feel. What if someone was listening? Wouldn’t that be uncomfortable? Knowing everything said in one’s house is being heard, and the family inside of it has no clue. One’s house doesn’t seem so comfortable anymore does it? The U.S. Patriot Act violates many privacy and freedom rights given to you buy the bill of rights. The U.S. Patriot Act was written after 9/11 a tragic event in American history that eventually lead to the Afghanistan war. Although the Afghanistan war is over, the Act is still in place and has not been removed. The purpose of this essay is to inform the people of America that the U.S. Patriot Act rapes the nation of its rights.

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 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

Thesis Statement: “Citizens of this country should value the national security more than their privacy since it is concerned with a much larger group of people in order to protect our country from invaders, to maintain the survival of our country and to prevent airing of criticism of government.”