In this paper, I argue against Government Surveillance. Although a society full of cameras could help solve some crimes, it is also true that the Constitution, through the fourth amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Despite the fact that this is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law should be monitored. In addition, increasing political surveillance with the excuse of protection against war or enemies only fuels the fact that innocent people’s lives are being monitored. Finally, the information collected by the mass internet surveillance programs could be used for other harmful purposes since hackers could gain access to the databases and sell the information to other companies or terrorist groups.
Government
…show more content…
"The Future of Big Data." Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. N.p., 19 July 2012. Web. 7 Mar. 2017.
Gallington, Daniel J. "The Case for Internet Surveillance." U.S. News & World Report. U.S. News & World Report, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.
Gjelten, Tom. "The Effects Of The Snowden Leaks Aren 't What He Intended." NPR. NPR, 20 Sept. 2013. Web. 15 Mar. 2017.
Honorof, Marshall. "How the NSA 's Spying Keeps You Safe." Tom 's Guide. Tom 's Guide, 12 Sept. 2013. Web. 5 Mar. 2017.
"Mass government surveillance pros and cons: NSA spying." Netivist.org. N.p., 7 July 2014. Web. 03 Mar. 2017.
Pincus, Walter. "Oversight board says NSA data mining puts citizens ' privacy at risk but sees no abuse." The Washington Post. WP Company, 14 July 2014. Web. 7 Mar. 2017.
Francis, David. "5 Reasons Why The NSA 's Massive Surveillance Program Is No Big Deal (And 2 Reasons It Is)." Business Insider. Business Insider, 11 June 2013. Web. 10 Apr. 2017.
Greenwald, Glenn. "NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 06 June 2013. Web. 15 Apr.
Big Brother spying on its citizens demonstrates how large governments utilize constant surveillance to ensure their
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
Since September 11th, fear connected with national security threats has shifted to fear of the federal government. The U.S.A. Patriot Act certainly caused much anxiety amongst society. Signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, this act increased law enforcement’s surveillance and investigative powers, “The purpose of the USA PATRIOT Act is to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and other purposes.” Clearly, federal agents have abused their power, as personal information, telephone calls, and Internet searches were and are being recorded and saved. A recent news article, posted in The Guardian, fully elucidates the intrusive government spying of American citizens, “the watchlist tracks ‘known’ and ‘suspected’ terrorists and includes both foreigners and Americans.
Clients have their individuals’ rights for privacy thwarted in a way that although the release of customer’s information is to be used for the identification of possible terrorists, there is no impediment that the very information is actually utilized for other reasons, including nefarious ones. This Act fundamentally ignores some of important privacy laws and gives to the American government unprecedented surveillance powers in regards to eavesdropping in order to gather intelligence and to enforce laws. While it is clear that the balance of power has shifted towards law enforcement , it is also clear that the surveillance does not end within districts or township libraries. Quite the contrary it has reached ones’ residential doorways and this can indeed damage the reputation of the United States as the leader of human
In this excerpt, Ted Senator describes the difficulties NSA faces when trying to discover terrorists, comparing the task to the needle in a haystack analogy, in order to justify their extensive monitoring of the populace. The prompt requires both sides of the argument, so this excerpt will show students the pro-spying attitude, one many of them will likely be unfamiliar with. The student will easily understand the passage due to the pathos and informal attitude. Students could develop several different arguments from this passage, including the necessity of surveillance to compensate for the vast cloud of information to sort through. The student could extend the given analogy, connecting it to source B and C. It could also easily become a counterargument, if the student preached enough about freedom regardless of the circumstances.
By using strong supporting arguments In the essay entitled, Everyone is Watching You, by Nadine Strossen. Strossen’s goal in the essay is to influence her readers that surveillance cameras do more damage than good, and that something needs to be done to eliminate them. Her controversy on this matter was very vigorous, Strossen convincingly argues that surveillance cameras are an atrocious idea and needs to be stopped. She does a satisfying job of catering to her viewers in her essay. With a topic that pertains to everybody, she takes the opportunity to use this to her convenience.
The conception of the surveillance program was an attempt to protect the american citizens from terrorist activity as well as act as a form of counterterrorism abroad in many other countries. These positive aspects of the massive surveillance system show that there is a benevolent practice of surveillance that should be
Benjamin Franklin claims that the need for “temporary safety” rarely justifies the sacrifice of “essential liberty,” and that those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. Franklin wrote these words at a time in which America struggled to reconcile different conceptions of “essential liberty” and the sacrifices needed to fulfill those conceptions. In Franklin’s eyes, liberty represented a broad freedom to pursue one’s interests without the interference of government. He views the American people as safeguards of liberty whose decisions may lead them to “deserve” or forfeit liberty and safety. His choice of the words “little” and “temporary” underscores the fact that, while society’s notion of liberty is eternal, society’s notion of safety is often
The technology introduced by the internet was so powerful that monitoring it became one of the highest priorities for American intelligence agencies. The NSA scans bulk internet content for “keywords” to determine their surveillance targets. This is done with little limitation and no court approval (Todd 7).The NSA operates with few restrictions on what content
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.
Do you ever feel like someone’s watching you? We may not see it, but government surveillance has skyrocketed throughout the years. Anything that we do with our electronic devices can be monitored by the government. Our privacy can be intruded on and we don’t even have a clue. Once our information is in the government’s hands, it can be spread widely and kept for years, and the rules about access and use can be changed entirely in secret without the public ever knowing.
Apple letting the FBI into their system to see terrorist data poses extreme risks, because as soon as Apple has “a back door installed, all kinds of people can walk in” (“Apple vs. The FBI”). Essentially, if the government can invade privacy, untrustworthy people can as well. Most importantly however, there must be limits placed on what the government can do, lest they infringe the basic rights of citizens. How can anybody stand having their data mined without consent? The government knows “Americans’ social connections … their associates, their locations at certain times, their travelling companions, and other personal information” (Engler).
Big brother implies the authority that regulates and monitors information and citizens. Currently, technology developments such as closed-circuit television, black box, cell phone, and a bunch of search engines, allow to record every moves that people make and to give rise to surveillance society. Surveillance society has two sides of the coin. In this essay, I will deliver pros and cons about surveillance society and possible solutions to deal with the issue.
"The Case For Internet Surveillance Internet is a touchy subject in today’s modern times. It has been discussed on serious places like the CNN and Fox but it has also been used as jokes for comedy’s like South Park. Weather or not any form of government should monitor our internet content is the discussion of debate. Citizens have the right to privacy and the government shouldn’t be allowed to break that right. However, government supervision can keep and make the world a safer place.
The topic of surveillance is a dominant theme in contemporary political discourse. The news media, social media, and ordinary conversations directly or indirectly cover various forms of surveillance. As an increasingly dominant force in modern ways of being, surveillance may be explored from a multiplicity of perspectives, disciplines, and logics. In this brief critical analysis, I aim to address two central themes inspired from our multilogues and scholarly readings.