The main paper

“Letters to King Jao of Portugal,” was written by the king of Kongo, King Affonso, who’s real name was Nzinga Mbemba. King Affonso writes this letter directed to the king of Portugal, King Jao, to inform him about his concerns of his people. The letter is dated 1526 and takes place in the Kingdom of Kongo, which by during this time slave trade is going on (705). Throughout the letter of King Affonso seems to beg King Jao for help rather than being demanding, “again we beg of your Highness to agree with it”(707), remarks King Affonso.

In society today many citizens feel violated with the security methods taken by homeland security. “On September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States marked the beginning of the global war on terrorism. The methods used are justifiable as they provide protection against possible threats or attacks. This attack on U.S. soil increased surveillance of both American citizens and foreign nationals” (Andrew, C., & Walter,

The Patriot Act was hastily passed just a month later October and it severely limited the privacy of Americans and gave unprecedented power to the government and private agencies to track innocent Americans, turning regular citizens into suspects.5 In addition, the great technological evolution and emerged of social media that occurred round the same time, and shortly thereafter, created the perfect storm for the emergence of the largely unregulated surveillance society that we live in today.6 The result is digitization of people’s personal and professional lives so that every single digital trace that people leave can be identified, stored, and aggregated to constitute a composite sketch of ourselves and its only getting worse. In 2008, passed the FISA Amendments Act, which expands the government’s authority to monitor Americans’ international communications, in addition to domestic communications.7 In short, after 9/11 the U.S is left with a national surveillance state, in which “the proliferation of government technology and bureaucracies that are able to acquire vast and detailed amounts of digital information about individuals with minimal or no judicial supervision and often in complete secrecy,” giving the government and corporations with access to the data that the government compiles the ability to single

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 devastated the United States people. As they mourned over the deaths caused by the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City, Americans began looking for a way to prevent anything like this from happening again. Consequently, an act known as the USA PATRIOT act was passed by Congress. This act opened up many doors previously closed to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. With these new opportunities available to them, they have the capability to obtain information about specific individuals believed to be involved in terrorist activities and organizations. Very beneficial to the United States, the Patriot Act provides easier access for different government law enforcement agencies to share information, allows government agencies investigative tools that non-terrorist crimes already use, and helps to dismantle the terrorist financial network. Although many people claim that the Patriot Act violates the United States Constitution and the freedoms of the American people, it contains many elaborate safeguards to fight against such abuse.

In the years since the passing of the Patriot Act, there has been much controversy and debate regarding the positive and negative advantages, and consequences of this bill. As a member of the law enforcement community I have experienced firsthand some of the changes the Patriot Act has brought upon this nation. A result of this experience along with information obtained in the studying of this act and

There is no doubt that the attacks on 9/11 caused Congress to pass the Real ID Act in order to prevent foreign nationals from fraudulently obtaining a U.S. driver’s license. Congress said the Real ID Act is about security, not stigmas. The law was intended to set principles for states that issue licenses and to procure acceptable documents. However, due to budgets, there are not enough resources to verify the accuracy of these documents from foreign countries. This is based solely on three 9/11 hijackers being able to obtain state identification cards while using fictitious documents. In total, thirty three hijackers acquired state driver’s licenses. Unfortunately, stern stipulations have gradually decreased due to several states and local governments allowing Identification cards to be issued without distinguishing from an authentic driver’s license (Jeunesse, 2015).

However, the same technology that empowers the general public also empowers criminals and terrorists. Is it worth it to compromise the privacy of the general public in order to monitor the behavior of a select few potential criminals? Thus far, the consensus has been 'no'; every publicized effort by law enforcement to introduce general surveillance to the Internet has been met by loud public outcry. [Riley] The public simply will not permit law enforcement to do any form of monitoring that is not accompanied by probable cause and a search warrant.

With our nation’s tragedy of September 11, 2001, arose a deeply shaken America, shocked by the extent of the cruelty. An act of terrorism of that magnitude had never been seen before in our country. Patriots quickly came together, supporting the president to pass legislation, known as the USA Patriot Act, to tackle internal and external threats to this nation. The debate ensued, focused on which types of surveillance technology should or shouldn't be allowed for arresting terrorists. However, the question remains as to how these devices are going to be used, and how personally are those who use them held accountable. The purpose of this paper is to confirm that the proposed monitoring and archiving of users’ information on

The REAL ID Act of 2005 is an Act of Congress that was designed to increase the safety of citizens throughout America. As a result of this law, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the states began working together to implement rigorous standards validate and create documentation personal identification, like driver's licenses, identification cards, and other types of legal documentation.

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 impacted the American people without many of them realizing it. The act called for increased monitoring of computer networks, phone lines, and online history inside the United States and allowed the government to deport suspects (ACLU). What was created by the act has snaked its way into all aspects of our lives, creating a sense of order and restricting some freedom. However, some say that this imposition into our daily lives limits our freedoms and actions allowed us by the Constitution. Many interest groups voice strong resentment for the act while others try to demonstrate the strengths and triumphs of the Homeland Security Act. This paper will show the differing viewpoints of those that feel that the

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.

First business at hand, let’s first find out what would you need to get a national ID? A birth certificate, driver’s license, and proof of legal entry if you a foreigner. Well, the fact is that everyone can obtain such documents. Several of the men suspected of the Sept-11 attacks had forged identities. And the question now is that what would have prevented them from obtaining ID cards? Not to mention “our” domestic terrorists who are among us (but not one of us I hope) like Timothy McVeigh and John Walker Lindh.

First of all, “as of right now, technology is the only significant barrier” protecting you from “Big Brother” (Source E). Source E was published in 2012 and since then, technology is getting better and better. Currently, new iPhone applications can “snap a photo of a person and within seconds display their name date of birth and social security number" (Source E). These applications create harmful intrusions of our identity that can lead to identity theft. Big-name retailers like Wal-Mart and Target utilize technology that can track their customers, according to buisnessinvestor.com. Even though these systems are used for benign purposes they can also be used harmfully. A typical hacker could gain easy access to millions of customers’ credit cards. We have predicted that this inquisitive technology would come later in the future but it is already out.

Crime is not new to the world; as a matter of fact, the crime rate is gradually increasing and terrorist attacks are still rampant since the 9/11 bombing incident. In response, the government created ways to prevent such wickedness to happen with technology such as data encryption, information gathering, and electronic surveillance. This raises concern from the community on how much and should the law enforcement agencies have access to such information. Even though security and safety was the main goal for such response, limits should be considered on to what extent are they able to gather information on people. The privacy of an individual should be of higher priority than their security in the eyes of the law.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States went into defensive mode, increasing surveillance and dismantling privacy rights. The Patriot Act was hastily passed just a month later in October 2001 and it severely limited the privacy of Americans and gave unprecedented power to the government and private agencies to track innocent Americans, turning regular citizens into suspects.5 In addition, the great technological evolution and emergence of social media that occurred round the same time, and shortly thereafter, created the perfect storm for the emergence of the largely unregulated surveillance society that we live in today.6 The result is digitization of people’s personal and professional lives so that