The Importance Of Government Privacy

Is anyone’s private information contained in their cell phone actually private? Are appointments, bank information, conversations, the user’s location or other sensitive personal information truly confidential? Is there a Big Brother watching? There is no definitive answer to any of these questions. From the beginning of time to now, privacy has become more and more scarce. Through new developments in technology, it is hard to believe that someone is not watching your move at any given moment. The government’s job is to keep Americans safe, but where is the line drawn? Where is the difference between having a reasonable doubt and accessing information solely because these government officials have the power to do so? The government has infringed upon the rights of the American people when it comes to this topic.

Most Americans feel trapped by the government. They believe that the government is spying on them just to do so and that there is absolutely no reason for it. However this is wrong because the government has several reasons to spy on us Americans. Even though this may seem outrageous, it is needed and there are ways the United States’ citizens have privacy. With all of these false accusations it is simple to see why people would be supportive of our right to privacy. On the other hand, the government eavesdropping on the people of the United States has helped save many lives and justice being served. The United States of America is a free country, so we should have the option to be spied on by the government; however, as citizens we do

With the seemingly exponential propagation of inexpensive digital communications technologies over recent years, the general public is becoming more aware of the issues surrounding information privacy and government surveillance in the digital age. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a smart-phone has to be wary of how they use their private information for fear of that information being collected and used in a way contrary to their wishes. "Leaky" smartphone apps that transmit private information across the internet can be unethically used by government agencies. The issue of privacy is a balancing act; the public usually wants increased privacy and the government usually wants increased access.

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”:

The First Earl of Chatham, William Pitt, in his Speech on the Excise Bill, claimed that “The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storms may enter, the rain may enter,—but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement!”

We’ve all heard the conspiracy theories. Alien aircrafts are kept in Area 51. Obama can control the weather. Neil Armstrong never landed on the moon. Some people see these theories as a product of irrationality but they’re really a product of fear. Ever since 9/11, Americans have been desperately searching for a sense of security within the country that was taken from us. We’ve been so desperate in fact that we’ve given up some of our basic rights in order to restore that sense of security. When you walk through a metal detector at an airport and they scan you for any metal items, would you consider that an invasion of your privacy? Would you sacrifice that privacy to feel safer on an airplane? Most of us would because when the choice is life or death, the decision becomes a lot simpler.

The controversy on government surveillance is very controversial. Should the government have unlimited access to citizen’s personal information, conversations, and text in order to protect the country? Or should the government have more of a laissez-faire-type role in citizen’s private lifestyles? Across the world, there are different approaches on the government’s surveillance on people. Iceland’s policies are the least intrusive in the world, with almost no surveillance and laws protecting the people’s freedom of speech. On the other end of the spectrum is China, which is in the process of creating a constant surveillance system of all its citizens. Somewhere in the middle of this scale is the United States of America. Influences by other

The privacy of American citizens has been long debated ever since the N.S.A. was revealed to the public on what it was doing. Since then, American citizens have been arguing over what the N.S.A. should and shouldn 't be doing. This has lead to the government changing some things, but not everything and causing the American citizens to get upset and wonder what is and isn 't being watched. We go through on a daily basis wondering if our next phone call, that next email, our websites we browse and even our next text message is being monitored by the government and if it is will it get flagged as something they deem worthy of investigating into. This constant fear has us wondering what we should and shouldn 't be posting on various social media sites, taking pictures of or even talking about. By questioning what the N.S.A. is doing, we leave ourselves pondering what the government should do to adjust what control the N.S.A. should have, the activities it should be conducting, who they should be monitoring and what gets flagged as warranting further investigation. Many people believe that the N.S.A. should have restrictions placed on it that prevent it from having complete access to everything, in which if they are going to be able to access anything they want to they need to inform the public on what information they are going to get and how they use it as without this information being

What if you were being watched twenty-four seven, would you act any different. The government interprets that watching the public will prevent and stop many attacks on our country. Many other individuals argue that this is an invasion of our privacy and basic freedom.The government watches us through security cameras, our cellphones, computers, tablets, and even televisions; they also track our emails, texts, phone calls, and social media. Since Edward Snowden, a former CIA agent, leaked classified information from the NSA without authorization; this topic has been very popular and there have been many interpretations of it.

As the years have passed since Edward Snowden's 2013 bombshell revealing the NSA spying on Americans using PRISM many debates and arguments continue to take place. As a majority of Americans feel terrorism will never be completely gone they do feel regulations for their privacy is a necessity, and many feel they should dig deeper into Americans everyday life. This issue seems to evolve year by year along with technology. With technology already being so ahead of its time it makes one wonder how far the government is willing to go for their people society, or when the people will say enough is

The government has been proved to be spying on American’s privacy for many reasons that are not covered under the Fourth Amendment. This act of manipulation includes monitoring people’s conversations, examining belongings with only a subpoenas, and searching information of social medias; however, these acts are sometimes needed because of terrorist activity. A novelist, Jonathan Franzen, once stated, "without privacy there is no point in being an individual (source 4).”

When should the government have the right to step beyond, without going to court to have the permission to spy on a person? Having said this, privacy have more importance when comes to protect the freedom of the citizen by the constitution. Simultaneously, in terms of technology being created that makes your personal information harder and harder for other people to hack and used for wrong purpose, we have the right to protect our privacy from hackers in order to protect ourselves and family. But, if the government have a concern or suspicious about that… well in my opinion the government should have is an ability to either a court order, or other process to be able to get whatever information they think they are entitle to

Although people in the United States are entitled to privacy and freedom from government intrusion, there is a limit to that privacy. State or federal police officers are allowed, where justified, to search your premises, car, or other property in order to look for and seize illegal items, stolen goods or evidence of a crime. There are certain rules that the police must follow when engaging in searches and seizures (FindLaw, 2014). Not every search, seizure, or arrest must be made pursuant to a lawfully executed warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless police conduct may comply with the Fourth Amendment so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances (FindLaw, 2014). First, this paper explains what the Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights means. Second, this paper gives examples of court cases concerning search and seizure of vehicles and the Fourth Amendment. Third, this paper examines the Richmond VA 2nd Precinct Police Departments policies, procedures, and practice of conducting vehicle searches. This paper examines the Richmond, VA 2nd precincts policies for vehicle trunk searches, searches that are conducted after the driver has being arrested, searches on impounded vehicles, searches on abandoned vehicles, and searches of vehicle passenger’s compartments and containers. Of interest will be if their policies and procedures or practice complies with constitutional provisions of search and seizure.

First of all, it is important to know the definition of privacy, it is the right to control who knows what about you, and under what conditions. The right to share different things with the people that you want and the right to know that your personal email, medical records and bank details are safe and secure. Privacy is essential to human dignity and autonomy in all societies. If someone has committed a physical intrusion, or, in discussing the principal question, has published embarrassing or inaccurate personal material or photographs of the individual taken without consent, he is invading their right of privacy, which is in the article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The tension between national security and individual privacy has long existed even before the development of digitized information. Recently, two main forces have advanced the debate over this balance to the forefront of the public eye: 1) the proliferation of data by private sector companies and 2) the heightened need for homeland security and public defense. With the rapid evolution of technology, companies have aggregated pools of consumer data to improve upon internal decision making. In some cases, however, this data can be leveraged to ensure national security and public safety. This juxtaposition of enterprise and security results in a blurring of the line dividing public and private sector responsibilities. The question becomes an issue of moral obligation versus legal responsibility. What are we as consumers and citizens willing to sacrifice in exchange for safety? And does the private sector inevitably succumb to obligations originating from the public sector?