The Section 702 Of The Legislation

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

Chesterman, S. One Nation under Surveillance: A New Social Contract to Defend Freedom without Sacrificing Liberty. OUP Oxford, Feb 24, 2011

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]

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 was introduced as a response to the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11th. It has radically changed the way in which the government operates in the investigations of people in and out of our country. It has broadened the powers of the federal government in the way in which they can obtain information on people. In this paper I will be discussing the ethical and moral issues of the expanded ability of wiretapping, search and seizure, the establishment of the FISA court, and end with the transparency of these practices.

Often times the very workers that make globalization possible are the ones being mistreated and are being adversely affected by it. Steps must be taken to fix the moral oversight of globalization. Specifically I would like to look at the use of illegal immigrants to reduce the wages of workers. I want to look at the use of unfair competition to put the workers, farm workers in particular, in a very disadvantaged position. Steps can be taken to make the situation more just for all parties, but it may take a change in Mexican-American border policy.

covers: 1) The Intelligence Community, 2) The Fourth Amendment Framework (Keith vs. U.S.), and 3) The Foreign Intelligence Gathering. We gain further understanding of intelligence agencies and their functions, the Fourth Amendments application to domestic and overseas cases, and the Foreign Intelligence Service Act.

The United States has increased its surveillance through programs by the National Security Agency that collect and examine data on Internet and communication by Americans. Innocent civilians are tracked in search of international terrorists hence sparked the debate on civil liberties over national security. However, according to Thomas Friedman, there was the need to shift from ‘war on terrorists’ to ‘war on terrorism’

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

Lately, in the United States, the controversial topic of privacy has been rekindled by several occurrences, including the recent NSA surveillance scandal. When government actions are questioned, 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.

The primary aim of this article is to compare the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) with the Surveillance law in the European countries. Analyzing the European laws reveals that the right provided to the executives with reasonable oversight results in more efficient security procedures than the current U.S. regime while completely obeying the strict rules established to protect privacy by the European Court of Human Rights. The governmental monitoring and surveillance in European countries must obey Article 8 of the European Convention on the Protection of Human Rights. This article concludes by stating that U.S. Congress should consider the standards that the European countries have followed to monitor the employees’

The United States has the most capable intelligence apparatus of any country in the world. The information produced by various agencies gives the United States a substantial advantage when it comes to understanding world events, predicting and preparing for unsettled times, fielding military forces, and making a host of other political and economic decisions. From an ethical perspective, it means that the United States Intelligences information can create the risk of security for the United