Surveillance Vs Government Surveillance

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.

Technology has become very effective for a thriving generation, but it also possesses a handful of flaws that counter the benefits. Technologies help people post and deliver a message in a matter of seconds in order to get a message spread quickly. It also gives individuals the power to be the person they want to be by only showing one side of themselves. But sometimes information that had intentions of remaining protected gets out. That information is now open for all human eyes to see. This information, quite frankly, becomes everybody’s information and can be bought and sold without the individual being aware of it at all. However, this is no accident. Americans in the post 9/11 era have grown accustomed to being monitored. Government entities such as the NSA and laws such as the Patriot Act have received power to do so in order to protect security of Americans. However, the founding fathers wrote the fourth amendment to protect against violations of individual’s privacy without reason. In a rapidly growing technological world, civil liberties are increasingly being violated by privacy wiretapping from government entities such as the NSA, Patriot Act and the reduction of the Fourth Amendment.

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

As our fears grew concerning national security, our government began to conduct surveillance with certain groups labeled as “suspicious”. As this escalated into dangerous territory, it begged the question: does the threat of terrorism outweigh the right of privacy?

Citizens do not always fully understand legislation before becoming angry at someone. Who better to point a finger at than their government (Zuckerman para 7)? Despite the actual legal terms on surveillance, innocent citizens feel that they have had their rights violated and wonder why the government needs their information if they have nothing to hide. The supreme court declared in the third party doctrine that “anyone turning over information to a third party, such as a bank or Internet service provider, has no right to object if that information is later shared with the government” (Timberg para 11). Whether they understand the law or not, most people feel that their information should not be unnecessarily subjected to the government without their voiced approval (Zuckerman para 6). “Quite simply, the administration could have done a much better job of explaining both the potential and the limits of data mining. It should have made it clear

Government Surveillance, a way that the government says that will keep you safe from foreign dangers like terrorist attacks, espionage, and perhaps a international war. However you have to sacrifice your private life, and business for increased protection and surveillance.

Under the Bush Administration, the Protect America Act was passed in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. As a result, in 2007, the National Security Agency designed and operated a surveillance program called ‘Prism’. The programs’ intent is to gather web communications from major United States internet corporations. Under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Prism collects suspicious stored web communication and further employs communication companies such as, Verizon, to turn over all data that included court-approved terms, that indicated conspiracies targeted to compromise our national security. ("NSA PRISM Slides - IC OFF THE RECORD," 2013). Now, you may feel conflicted about their approach to securing our safety, but some are certain that this is undoubtedly a breech in our civil liberties. Lee (2013), states, “Civil liberties groups warned that the PAA 's vague requirements and lack of oversight would give the government a green light to seek indiscriminate access to the private communications of Americans. They predicted that the government would claim that they needed unfettered access to domestic communications to be sure they had gotten all relevant information about suspected terrorists.” Imagine we have a government that justifies spying on its citizens without any legal authorization to do so. The exploit our trust by suggesting that they

One of the most prevalent battles that the American Government and the American people have continued to fight over the years is the battle of privacy vs government surveillance. Questions such as, how much is the U.S. government willing to intervene in the citizens’ lives? Or how much do they really want to know, have caused many debates and is often times left unanswered. Once again these questions have taken center stage in the wake of the recent San Bernardino shooting. With 14 people dead, the search for answers is at its peak. Many questions about the incident have been left unanswered and it is believed that the answers to these questions are locked inside a phone. However, the phone company, Apple, has resisted decrypt the phone for the F.B.I agents. Many people stand in support of the F.B.I, while others are in support of Apple, including the signees if a letter who are associated with Pen America. In “End efforts to Compel Apple to crack iPhone”, the signees used premises to justify their arguments and

Reason to Listen: As Daniel Sarewitz writes in Defending Democracy,“The time to start thinking about the impact of security technologies on democratic rights is during R&D.” Now, more than ever before should we as a country be worried about government surveillance. The government claims it is for our protection and sure they’re are some benefits. Terrorist attacks stopped, crime prevention, and leads to murders, rapes, and drug trafficking. But, where is the line drawn, how democratic is it really, and whose best interest is really in mind? Should stipulations be set? This topic is a hot discussion in newsrooms, classrooms and political institutions across the nation.

“The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival” (Orwell). The world today is full of many dangers domestic and abroad. It has become a routine in the news to report on the daily mass shooting or update with the war on terror. We live in a world where being worried is justified; however, we should not give up our constitutional rights in the face of fear. The NSA’s dragnet surveillance programs, such as PRISM, are both ineffective and are surpassed by less questionable national security programs. The FISA court's’ approval of NSA actions are not only illegal, but exist as an embarrassing formality. Surveillance is a necessary

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.

The government can use securing the United States as justification to using surveillance in public facilities, however, when it comes down to it, not much can stop them from abusing this power. Today in Government classes, students learn about the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” (“Legal Information Institute”). Despite the right to privacy expressed in the amendment, the government still finds loop-holes, even at the expense of a citizen. In the novel, Little Brother, Marcus states, “This sounds like you’re saying that national security is more important than the Constitution” (Doctrow ?).

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

Place yourself in the safety and comfort of your home, under the belief that “everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property” (Department of International Law), searching, emailing, and talking about things that may be frowned upon by others. Now imagine the raw feelings of fear and deception that would wash over you upon seeing Edward Snowden’s statement on how “the U.S. government is destroying privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they 're secretly building.” You may initially feel betrayed, but Obama formally announced that the NSA acts solely in the name of safety right? Have we begun to sacrifice the freedom and

The government has always keep their surveillance high on all citizens whether it's a big treat or a small treat. The big question is whether someone's privacy shall be protected over national security. When the government collects information and goes through someone's activities without a warrant it breaks the 4th amendment which leads to problems whether the privacy over someone's information is more important than national security.