"Despite the cold wind blowing outside, I was red with rage yesterday and engaged in a heated argument involving my brother. I had caught him red-handed as he scrolled through my phone; perusing texts, emails, and Instagram messages that were private to me, and certainly off limits for a nosy older brother. This desire for privacy and the injustice of someone violating it, strikes a cord with most people. In recent years, the american public has become outraged over discoveries of their ‚Äúbig brother‚Äù-the government- snooping on private email messages, texts, and internet data. Yet, after weighing the arguments on both sides, the implications of government monitoring internet content are far greater and more complex than the implications of my brother discovering who my secret crush was. I believe that United States Government has the responsibility to monitor internet content when, and only when, it must be done in order to fulfill their duty of protecting the safety of the public and their rights. …show more content…
Benjamin Franklin in a letter to the New England Courant said, “Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or control the Right of another.” Many people argue that another reason the government should not be allowed to monitor the internet is because that could lead to abuse of our first amendment rights of free speech. However, as Benjamin Franklin point out, there clearly is a point when individuals violate their own rights, by harming the lives of others. The Megan Meier Foundation reports that over 1 million children are bullied on Facebook alone every year, with cyberbullying being a main cause in the 4, 400 suicide deaths in teens. It is clearly time someone, especially local governments, monitor this content and stops this needless loss of
Because technology is continually growing, new laws are being passed regarding technology and confidentiality. This article questions the “invasive” internet searches and looks for a constitutional answer. As of now, no electronic device can be confiscated and searched without a warrant. This could prove to be beneficial for Arnie. If he was to report Mr. Bowen’s suspicious data to the police, they would be able to obtain a warrant to officially search Mr. Bowen’s computer.
All the tools we have are awful’” (147). That is the problem with digital security. The average stereotypical lazy American does not want to be inconvenienced, which is why the government can access almost anything we put online. Our online lives are like an elementary school girl’s diary that doesn’t have a key and is hidden under her pillow, which is not secretive at all.
The internet has been used to post all the plans of people. Many people post what they are doing or what they are going to do. People in some occasions post to hurt or harm other people. The video of the Virginia shootings posted by Bryce Williams, whose real name is Vester Lee Flanagan and who is thought to be the gunman who killed two of his former co-workers at the television station WDBJ (Manjoo) was publish and it took the police a long time to find him. The government can stop acts of violence and crime if they see everything that happens on the internet and social media.
Some Americans believe that the Patriot Act is a violation of privacy, but the government takes crucial steps to ensure the privacy of all law-abiding Americans. Despite contrary beliefs, the
why the NSA is bad some people believe that everything on the internet should be monitored by the NSA, well i believe that is completely wrong and unjust. for a couple reasons. But the main one is that it goes against the fourth amendment in the constitution. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by a probable cause, which means that the NSA can 't search your messages,calls,search history, or data unless they have a reason that is lawful and approved by a judge. But in most cases they don 't have it approved.
The United States needs to start seriously monitoring emails, text messages, phone calls, and web searches for any suspicious activity that could lead to terrorism. This is no joke, extremism in the defense of being able to go to a baseball game, or concert without anxiety is no vice. If anyone is a suspected terrorist, they should be monitored. Some people say that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, but is it worth risking a life? Monitoring a suspected terrorist could prevent an attack from happening, and save lives.
The Need for NSA Domestic surveillance plays a vital role in maintaining the country’s national security, and to reassure the citizens that they are properly protected from foreign and domestic attacks. The National Security Agency monitors Americans and other individuals around the world, who may be considered to be potential threats to the United States, and therefore bringing the nation under a state of emergency. The NSA is a subtle and yet legitimate way of preventing attacks against the United States, as the agency is governed by a particular set of legal rules in which they are permitted to exercise their powers in the benefit of the nation’s well being. The professional surveillance carried out by the NSA is an integral part of the
The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is not to completely stop the police, because the amendment can be waived if an officer has a warrant, or a person’s consent. The Fourth Amendment states that generally a search or seizure is illegal unless there is a warrant, or special circumstances. Technically stating that a citizen is protected by the Fourth Amendment, until a government employee gets a warrant, and then they can invade a citizen’s privacy. Also people state that the FISA Court’s warrants are constitutional, but the NSA’s surveillance is unconstitutional. Even though people do not like the NSA’s surveillance, the NSA is legal because the FISA Court that the people did not mind makes it legal.
"The government should have control over the internet based on a middle ground that can be formed. Censorship can be harmful to the right that we have to equal access of knowledge. We as a people need to teach kids about the internet. The internet can never be a complete utopia free of evil. We can combat it the best we can, and we can learn how to handle it.
The “Nothing-to-Hide Argument” Analyzed: In this rhetorical analysis, I will be taking a look at Daniel J. Solove’s essay “The Nothing-to-Hide Argument,” which is about privacy in the context of personal information and government data collection (Solove 734). Solove’s main argument in his essay is that the general public has a narrow perception of what privacy really is. The purpose behind his main argument is to expose the problems with the nothing-to-hide argument while presenting a way to challenge it for his target audience, government officials. Solove’s argument to his target audience is effective through his exemplary use of substance, organization, and style in his essay.
Cyberbullying and the First Amendment Matthew Trotti Grand Canyon University: POS 500 2/23/16 Cyberbullying and the First Amendment In todays world and the 21st century technology is everywhere and access to that technology is at everyone’s fingertips. Due to social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter things like cyberbullying have become a new way of bullying. The definition of cyberbullying is “bullying that takes place using electronic technology” (What is Cyberbullying). This paper will talk about the topic of cyberbullying and the steps that I am required to take if I hear from a student that they are being bullied on Facebook.
Government Monitoring The government shouldn’t have the right to monitor our phone calls and our emails. It will make us the citizens not trust the government because we don’t know his reason why he has to monitor us. We the people respect each other’s privacy because it’s none of our business to interfere in others problems, or some people just don’t want others to know about their daily lives they rather keep to themselves.
There are many current events that use government monitoring to serve justice, it can turn out to be a really good thing. For example, the case of Michelle Carter who was found guilty for manslaughter after she sent text messages to her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III, urging him to get back into his vehicle that he was filling with carbon monoxide. If the government hadn 't had the ability to get into the device and see those texts, there 's a possibility that the malicious texts Roy received from Carter would go unnoticed. Though she didn 't exactly kill Roy, she played a part in his death
"The government has a substantial amount of freedom when governing their nations. Their guiding principles are listed in the Constitution however, this does not prevent them from improvising and bending the rules to their benefit. One scenario is when the federal, state, and local government monitor the internet content of the people. What some people fail to recognize is it occurs more often than people think, and not only by the people in the government, but also by companies and corporations. Although the government and major companies can be deemed wrong for performing these acts, it can be argued that they are doing it for the safety of the citizens.
“Once you’ve lost your privacy, you realize you’ve lost an extremely valuable thing” - Billy Graham. “Invasion of privacy is a legal term. It is used to describe a circumstance where an individual or organization knowingly intrudes upon a person. The intrusion occurs when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in a bathroom or locker room”(Winston). There are many factors that help with the loss of privacy these days.