Technology Has Made The Lives Of Many People Much Easier.

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

Privacy and safety of citizens is common in today's society, as well as the government looking over their shoulder at all times. As an example, George Orwell wrote a book called, "1984" which in it gave an outlook of society being taken over by a party. Government surveillance is different from protecting and bringing safety to the citizens, it violates their freedom, privacy, and human rights.

Technology is defined as machinery and equipment developed from the application of scientific knowledge. Its original use was meant solely for the service of humans, however overtime it has evolved into something much different. What was originally meant to be an assisting piece of machinery has changed almost every aspect of our culture. The way we think, communicate, lie, and even love has been impacted by the use of technology, and all of this is has made for interesting pieces of literature. In pieces such as Her and I, Robot, we see the evolution of robots and artificial intelligence into a more empathetic and humanlike creatures. This gradual change in our views of robots overtime speaks volumes to the evolution of technology. Technology in literature has become a reflection of human beings themselves, mirroring the very qualities of ourselves that make us human. By looking at the personality that technology takes on in literature, we can greater understand the aspects of ourselves that truly make us human.

One of the most popular cases of this argument to discuss is the issue of the Patriot Act. It was hastily passed following 9/11 and gave the federal government a license to restrict privacy in

Government surveillance is beneficial in moderation, but can quite easily become excessive. A well-known example of this is the controversy regarding the NSA monitoring U.S. citizens discreetly on American soil. This unwarranted watch crosses the fine line between monitoring criminal suspects for security, and blatant overreach of authority in spying common citizens. The personal infringement of information has been commonly associated with the NSA’s PRISM, but their MUSCULAR program is much more disconcerting. According to Harry Bruinius in “Why Tech Giants Are Now Uniting Against U.S. Surveillance”:

Greenwald does an exceptional job of diving into the meat and potatoes of the issue, and gets right at its core with an essential question we need to ask ourselves in our growing digital world: “Why does our privacy matter?” In his TED Talk: Why Privacy Matters Greenwald explains how the Internet, which has been hailed for the liberation it brought is now being used as a zone of mass discriminant surveillance (Greenwald, 2014). It seems as though whenever the topic is brought up most ignorant people immediately assume that if the government is watching, it is okay as long as you don’t have anything to hide. With this train of thought comes the idea that there are clear lines between “good” people and “bad” people in this world, and its essentially okay for a computer to determine whether or not someone is good or bad based on a collection of phone records, Google searches and associates on social media. The group of those saying that there is no harm done in the breaching of ones privacy are those who have accepted that they are in no way shape or form a threat to our government in any case. To me, that is something that is simply unacceptable in a functioning democracy. If people are so willing to give up every aspect of their daily lives to the government, it becomes easier to track the exact schedules and routines of certain individuals and on a grand scale, the impending results can be more than scary. Greenwald explains that there has been many studies held that prove that when humans know they are being watched, their behavior dramatically changes compared to if they think they are alone. After someone realizes they are being observed they quickly start conforming to their surroundings because they’ve become imprisoned in their own minds for fear of

Privacy is defined by Dictionary.com as “freedom from damaging publicity, public scrutiny, secret surveillance, or unauthorized disclosure of one’s personal data or information”. This is something that most people value extremely highly. From everyday civilians to government officials, everybody wants some level of privacy. Many say surveillance technology denies them the right to privacy that they are given at birth as American citizens. However, there should be a small amount of wiggle room when it comes to this technology, in order to protect the country and its people. In “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets”, Peter Singer gives us an insight into privacy in the government. He discusses the

Edward Snowden is America’s most recent controversial figure. People can’t decide if he is their hero or traitor. Nevertheless, his leaks on the U.S. government surveillance program, PRISM, demand an explanation. Many American citizens have been enraged by the thought of the government tracing their telecommunication systems. According to factbrowser.com 54% of internet users would rather have more online privacy, even at the risk of security (Facts Tagged with Privacy). They say it is an infringement on their privacy rights of the constitution. However, some of them don’t mind; they believe it will help thwart the acts of terrorists. Both sides make a good point, but the inevitable future is one where the government is adapting as

Government surveillance may be helpful when it comes to catching criminals and detecting crime, but what harm can it do to those not in the wrong? All citizens have a right to privacy, I believe many of us will agree with such a statement. Unjust Government surveillance takes this away without the knowledge or the consent of the innocent victims.

The internet is an amazing technological advancement that opened the door to a connected society. Since the early days of the internet, people have built ways to safeguard their possessions with various security systems from thieves. Once people are in the cyberspace securing personal items or information gets a little trickier. It is common knowledge to assume government agencies have the means and possible authority to search the internet in its entirety, but should people grow mad over this blatant invasion of privacy? Consider this; what if accepting the government’s access to all information in cyberspace will help them easily catch terrorists, thieves, cyber bullies, and other nuisances? In the public space that is the internet, privacy

The issue between government surveillance and individual rights has been around for a while now. Government surveillance is a topic that makes most people feel uncomfortable because the idea of having someone seeing your every move is disturbing. All though many say that it is for our own safety it still has several negative outcomes. For example, our personal privacy would be completely lost, the purchasing of programs and software to see everything would be expensive, and people would not feel safe due to the fact that they would not know who exactly is seeing their personal information and what they could do with it.

The government has invaded privacy in many different ways throughout the years. With today’s day and age technology has evolved to be both a gift and a curse. When asked the question about if the government should be able to invade people's privacy, a common response is, “If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to be worried about.” In my opinion, this statement is completely correct. The government’s job is to protect the people. People that break the law have a tendency to hide what they did. If the government can not invade a suspicious person’s privacy then it is near impossible to know that they have broken the law.

Though the government may seem to have the right to spy on its people through electronic devices, it's unconstitutional. The Fourth Amendment, as stated in the U.S. Constitution, guarantees "the right of the people to be secure on their persons, houses, papers, and effect, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." Since the government is allowing the NSA to bend the law, they should face the consequences. Just like the public, the government is also a group of people too, and no

Thomas Jefferson once said that “Everyone has the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If the government spied on its citizens, the citizens would carry the burden of having the government constantly watch every move being made, interfering with citizens pursuit of happiness. With that being said, if a citizen’s privacy was invaded then their pursuit of happiness would be demolished. The government should not be able to spy on its citizens because it is a major invasion of privacy, people become fearful of the government, and is a large violation of the rights citizens are permitted.

Internet security is defined as a process to create rules and actions to take to protect against attacks over the internet. An example of internet security is an online system that prevents credit card numbers from being stolen on a shopping website. Whereas internet privacy involves the right or mandate of personal privacy concerning storing, repurposing, provision to third parties, and displaying of information pertaining to oneself via the internet. Internet privacy is a subset of data privacy. Both internet security and privacy should definitely be monitored by the government, however it should only be monitored to a certain extent. There should be only certain situations to what can be monitored. For example, it makes sense to monitor the vast majority of the population to track what people