The Increase of State Surveillance in the United States and United Kingdom

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.

However, despite its unpopularity amongst many citizens, government surveillance still has many benefits to the society. In this essay we will discuss the advantages of government surveillance and espionage in detail. The following essay will discuss how government surveillance will counter terrorism and reduce crime rate which will lead to greater diplomacy, freedom, and increased sense of safety. In addition, the essay will discuss how government surveillance can help improve public health care system in Canada by allowing greater access to scientific data that may not be easily accessed. Last but not least, the essay will discuss how government surveillance may also be advantageous to Canadian economy by helping domestic businesses prosper and grow by increasing the efficiency of their business model.

The general public gives an problem with the government surveillance as a media for invading others privacy. With the government monitoring, collecting, and retaining people's personal data, one side would claim that it is an infringement of their freedom to the rights to privacy. While the National security associations justifies the reason for monitoring would be to maintain order. Their ways to maintain order would be to monitor criminal and terrorist activity and to detect incoming threats, terrorists, or problems that would harm their country. This issue shows that freedom cannot exist without order. Although the general public wants their freedom of their privacy, they can not achieve their most of their desires because it puts their lives at risk without protection. Order is necessary in order to have freedom. It is impossible to attain entire freedom for a cause, however, it is possible to attain freedom to a certain

The use of surveillance is becoming increasingly evident around the world. Surveillance is carried out in many different forms from simple methods such as video surveillance to more complex methods such as call and browser monitoring. Although it might seem that surveillance is undeniably convenient when pursuing a criminal or preventing a terrorist attack, it is often misused and many are beginning to question why there

To figure out whether domestic surveillance of citizens is moral from a demonstration utilitarian point of view, we should take a look at both the positives and the negative outcomes that may come about as a result being monitored by the government. It is possible that as a consequence of government surveillance, potential terrorists that desire to do hurt against the United States and against its residents of the United States will be revealed and ceased. It is likewise possible that this legislative observation will prompt the capture of persons included in real wrongdoings inside of the United States. These are a few illustrations of the positive things that happen as an aftereffect of the legislative checking. In any case, there are potential negatives outcomes that can and have happened in the United States as a consequence of governmental monitoring. In order to determine if governmental monitoring and surveillance is ethical as indicated by the Utilitarianism theory, we should determine the positive and negative outcomes that may happen as an aftereffect of the monitoring and afterward figure which has the most impact. Weighing the pros and cons of Patriot Act and which has more impact will help determine if this type of domestic surveillance is ethical or not in accordance to the Utilitarian theory. From the perspective of subjective relativism, domestic surveillance is considered to be both ethical and unethical. Surveillance is moral from the point of view of those that trust that the utilization of domestic surveillance is justified in order to prevent any future terrorist attacks. On the other hand, the governmental monitoring was observed to be unethical from the viewpoint of those that believe that the surveillance is not supported and is an

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”:

Government surveillance is made with the intent to keep American society safe, usually made in response to major terrorist attacks to prevent future terrorist attacks. After the tragic events of 9/11 the Us government took measures to prevent future terrorist attacks from happening. One major act enacted was the Patriot act.

The Internet powers our country. Not only do hundreds of millions of Americans use it daily, our government and states use it to do important national and international business. Our government already utilizes it to monitor the activity of its people. This monitoring has especially risen after events such as the Boston Bombing and the attacks of 9/11. The main reason that the government does this is to keep us safe. If the government puts more slack on this matter, then it will give a chance for terrorists to complete their objective. The normal person does not know how many terrorist attacks may have been stopped in the past years due to this surveillance, and how many lives it may have saved. Therefore, we cannot let our government halt

Mass surveillance is a word that has been thrown around every so often in the last few decades, especially ever since George Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four. Although this book was released over 60 years ago, some aspects of the book are seeming to become true in the United States, and other parts of the world today. The idea of mass surveillance isn’t so taboo anymore, as there are several programs ran by sovereign countries around the world which monitor their domestic citizens, as well as citizens and leaders of other foreign countries. With all of our technological communication advances since 1949, this age of information is only going to get more severe, and more tracking and monitoring will be done. The biggest offender of doing

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

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.

Government surveillance in the past was not a big threat due to the limitations on technology; however, in the current day, it has become an immense power for the government. Taylor, author of a book on Electronic Surveillance supports, "A generation ago, when records were tucked away on paper in manila folders, there was some assurance that such information wouldn 't be spread everywhere. Now, however, our life stories are available at the push of a button" (Taylor 111). With more and more Americans logging into social media cites and using text-messaging devices, the more providers of metadata the government has. In her journal “The Virtuous Spy: Privacy as an Ethical Limit”, Anita L. Allen, an expert on privacy law, writes, “Contemporary technologies of data collection make secret, privacy invading surveillance easy and nearly irresistible. For every technology of confidential personal communication…there are one or more counter-technologies of eavesdropping” (Allen 1). Being in the middle of the Digital Age, we have to be much more careful of the kinds of information we put in our digital devices.

Thesis statement: Government surveillance should be stopped because it is an invasion of privacy and gives the government control that is not enumerated in the constitution.

This occurs on the basis that they claim it is necessary to protect against terrorists, criminals and political rebels, and to maintain control of society. Mass surveillance has been widely criticized for being a violation of privacy rights, and to prevent political and social freedom. In some cases, however, the interests of society be seen as more important than the individual's privacy so that privacy can be restricted.

Government surveillance has not contributed to a decrease of percentage in crimes, but has created a controversial topic instead. Online surveillance has been an invasion of privacy, because everything the users access is seen without their consent. Due to the fact the stored data is not used, government surveillance in the united states has not been very impactful. Crimes and terrorist attacks were not stopped, and the mass storage of personal data within the last year has violated privacy laws 2,776 times (Government Surveillance 722). Surveillance online is not only unsuccessful in America, but in UK, and Canada as well. Out of every 1000 security cameras, only one camera is actually used to catch a criminal (Government Surveillance 722). However, there are several solutions that can be made to allow the usage of government surveillance without the violating the rights of Americans. Some of the solutions have already taken action, and will give users more freedom online.