Government Spying Is For The Greater Good Essay

Today, electronic surveillance remains one of the most effective tools the United States has to protect against foreign powers and groups seeking to inflict harm on the nation, but it does not go without a few possessing a few negative aspects either. Electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence has likely saved the lives of many innocent people through prevention of potential acts of aggression towards the United States. There are many pros to the actions authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pertaining to electronic surveillance, but there are also cons. Looking at both the pros and cons of electronic surveillance is important in understanding the overall effectiveness of FISA. [1]

In this essay I will discuss the pros and the cons of the Patriot Act, how it affected the lives of US citizens and the world, and whether or not it fits within our democratic form of government. The Patriot Act was a rapidly drafted and approved Act of Congress which was intended to increase the security of US citizens by combatting terrorism. Although granting increased security to an extent, the Act was and still is extremely controversial due to certain parts of the Act limiting the freedoms of American citizens. The Patriot Act enhanced the government’s ability to spy on their own people, and with far fewer restrictions, so many people were and still are disgusted, but many others completely agree with it. Millions of people, billions across the world have a historical trend of being happy to sacrifice their freedoms for increased security. The controversy lies with how more safe are you in comparison to how much of your freedom you have to give up, and that compromise is weighed vastly different for individuals across the world. Did the Patriot Act save enough lives to warrant what it cost, or did it inhibit the lives of too many people to be allowed to continue. The answer will always be disputed and weighing each side will be a very difficult task.

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

The NSA, or National Security Agency, is an American government intelligence agency responsible for collecting data on other countries and sometimes on American citizens in order to protect the country from outside risks. They can collect anything from the people’s phone data to their browser history and use it against them in the court of law. Since the catastrophes of September 11 attacks, the NSA’s surveillance capabilities have grown with the benefit of George W. Bush and the Executive Branch (Haugen 153). This decision has left a country divided for fifteen years, with people who agree that the NSA should be strengthened and others who think their powers should be limited or terminated. Although strengthening NSA surveillance may help the

National Security Agency (NSA) regulations and tactics’ is an invasion of privacy, an infringement on the Constitutional Amendments, and fails to keep the private or confidential data of Americans safe from hackers.

The Patriot Act allowed the government to conduct searches that it had either previously been unable to conduct or that had been far more difficult. Included in the bill was the ability for the government to conduct secret searches, to collect data on individuals held by third parties as well as the new “roving wiretaps” and “lone wolf provision.” Section 213 allowed for secret searches, also called “sneak and peak” warrants which let government officials search a home or building without giving the subject prior notice, something that had long been required under common law. Critics of the law say that if a property owner is not present or aware of a search, they cannot point out inconsistencies with a warrant, leaving officers with unchecked

Every since 9/11, the surveillance in the United States has become stricter and of more importance. The security is more top-notch than it has ever been because of the fear a future terrorist attack striking once again. The United States government is doing this for safety issues and the protection of Americans, but many are against the whole idea of having the government spy on you and others actually agree with it.

ACLU. (2017). The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - News and Resources. Retrieved from ACLU: https://www.aclu.org/other/foreign-intelligence-surveillance-act-news-and-resources. This Act was enacted in 1978 but did not have many controversial aspects in it and was later blamed for not providing enough powers to aid the process of collecting intelligence. Some security experts blamed the restriction in the Act for the poor intelligence leading to the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The US government justifies the invasion to the privacy of their citizens saying it is a matter of security to the country. All of these privacy invasion started days after the 9/11 attack. The government and the NSA say this is a matter of safety for the US, by tracking their people, knowing what they are doing and whom they’re talking to. NSA had been on court ever since the US citizens saw something wrong and all they do is deny what their doing and the only answer that wasn’t a NO was “If our people (NSA employees) do this it isn’t on purpose”. How come can you tell that tracking someone isn’t on purpose?

Despite being the superpower of the world, the United States of America does not enjoy any exception from the global threats and challenges. The people in denial of such global threats finally woke up to the reality on the dawn of September 11th, 2001, when terrorists struck American financial hub in the city of New York. A badly shaken nation shocked by the magnitude of brutality quickly assembled behind its president to pass a legislation, known as the USA Patriot Act, to tackle internal and external threats to this nation on a war footing basis. The haste with which this legislation was passed made it controversial almost immediately. No doubt, the intent was valid and there was an absolute need to tackle threats to the homeland, however,

Many of the NSA’s goals have been completely contradicted by the leaked files. Their first goal, to protect privacy rights, was a complete joke. The Fourth amendment states that there should be no unreasonable searches or seizures. Collecting people’s metadata that isn’t public violates this right, not achieving their first goal. Their second goal, protecting vital networks, is also ambiguous. Since the NSA uses the zero day exploits, and since the companies they get the exploits from sell them, The NSA is letting the hacks be used. Another problem with this statement is that it says “vital networks”. How would US citizens know what the NSA considers vital. Were Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state’s emails not vital enough to protect? There

Making the world a safe place is a statement everyone likes to hear. The Patriot Act, which was made on September 12, 2001, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attack made on the twin towers. This act was made to keep the people of America safe from terrorists, but also keeps track of all of the files. In today's discussions, people argue whether or not this act should still be used. The pro side of the story is to keep people safe and protects them from terrorist attacks, and other criminal gestures. The con side of the story is that it invades people privacy and is an unfair advantage that the government have towards people lives.

The NSA, or National Security Agency, is an American government intelligence agency responsible for collecting data on other countries and sometimes on American citizens in order to defend the country from outside risks. They can gather anything from people’s phone data to their browser history and use it against them in the court of law. Since the catastrophes of the September 11 attacks, the NSA’s surveillance capabilities have grown with the benefit of George W. Bush and the executive branch (Haugen 153). This decision has left a country divided for fifteen years, with people who approve that the NSA should be strengthened and others who think their powers should be limited or terminated. Although strengthening NSA surveillance may help

There is precedent for Snowden’s charges, as the court that supervises and manages the NSA spying decided that the agency’s domestic pursuit violated the Fourth Amendment’s constraint against arbitrary searches and seizures “on at least one occasion” (Kelley, 2013). The documents have also been validated assertions made by other whistleblowers, and increase genuine questions about the justice and honesty of what looks to be extensive lawless surveillance with dishonorable oversight. Georgetown law professor Laura K. Donohue wrote in the Washington Post, “As a constitutional matter, the Supreme Court has long held that, where an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, search and seizure may occur only once the government has obtained

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.