“If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists - to protect them and to promote their common welfare - all else is lost.” Representatives, keep this quote in mind today, as President Barack Obama was absolutely correct in saying so. Now Thomas Hobbes’s theory of the social contract is clear, in which the people must sacrifice a portion of their rights for protection by the government. But this sacrifice does not and cannot have a definition. Times change, and with it, so must security measures. With the rise of the digital age, the monitoring of this information becomes crucial to security. That is why we must let the NSA be, and that is why I must negate this resolution. Now simply put, the US needs the NSA, as they are one of the few possibly effective anti-terrorist methods today. Political commentator Marc A. Thiessen claimed that there are only three methods in the modern age to combat and prevent terrorism: Interrogation, Penetration, and Signals intelligence. As for interrogation, Executive Order 13491 of 2009 prohibits inhumane, but effective methods of interrogation. Also, a living and breakable subject must be …show more content…
US internet use has not declined at all since Edward Snowden’s leakage of the NSA’s operations in 2013. According to Internet Live Stats, US internet usage has increased at about 17.8 million new users per year, mostly for miscellaneous reasons. According to Scott Public Relations, the 3 most popular uses for the internet by far are social networking, gaming, and emailing, constituting 41.9% of the total time Americans spend online. Representatives there is no need to investigate the NSA. They are one of our few feasible defenses against terrorism today, and we cannot afford to lose it. An investigation would only further increase tensions between the US government and its constituents, and so I must
In the essay, Security and Freedom (2023), author Eva Lindani, asserts that liberty should be prioritized over security and suggests that higher governments prioritizing the latter would be overstepping as citizens are capable of protecting themselves. She supported this claim by providing examples of past governments abusing power while framing it as a security measure. Her essay was written in hopes of persuading the audience to prefer liberty over security in order to create a balanced society by keeping the federal government out of local business. Moreover, Lindani’s tone seems as if she aimed for an audience that lacks trust in the government. The most effective strategy she uses to persuade the readers is by using a sensitive topic as
In response, the United States implemented the USA Patriot Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by providing appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act), significantly impacting homeland security within the country. The act introduced surveillance measures, such as monitoring communication networks like telephones and texts, to gather data and identify suspicious activity. Additionally, it allowed for the scrutiny of business records and financial transactions, aiding authorities in investigating potential terrorist acts and funding sources. According to statistics from the Pew Research Center, 42% of the public viewed the Patriot Act as a necessary tool to combat terrorism, while 34% believed it went too far and posed a threat to civil liberties. These differing perspectives reflect an ongoing debate regarding the act's impact on national security and civil liberties.
According to the BBC, it has become known that the NSA was responsible in the massive surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans through the PRISM progra,, not just those who have suspected links to terrorism. Companies such as Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo routinely provided a back door for the NSA to tap into their servers and track online communications (Document 1). This article was released about two years after the leaks when the debates over the future of the PATRIOT Act started to intensify. The National Security Agency strong armed these firms into giving up clients’ private data. No one stood in their way because the NSA had the full backing of the blinded Congress.
The moment that the Twin Towers fell in New York, America became destined for change. In the wake of these attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was quickly passed through congress, and signed by then-president, George W. Bush. The act itself gives the FBI and other government agencies the ability to do and use certain methods, many of which are already used by other law enforcement organizations, to help prevent future terrorist attacks. Since then, this piece of legislation has been the center of much debate and controversy. But, there is ample reason to believe that the Patriot Act is needed and effective.
Tragedy is the great unifier, but it is also a great opportunity for manipulation. In attempting to create a sense of peace and togetherness Obama has unwittingly planted the seeds for censorship and social stagnation in America. Following traumatic events people often act in extreme ways as a result of human nature. In a state of emergency primitive tribalism takes over;people resort to extreme measures to preserve the safety of the group.
Since the approved, the Patriot Act has granted law enforcement investigation with the “roving wiretaps.” Proponents assert that this improvement to investigative abilities is a vital key element to intercepts and prevent terrorism and is legal. In 2009, the authorizations of “Roving wiretaps” were set to expire in December of that same year. With desperation proponents like, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III urged law makers to renew what he called, “exceptional’ tools to help protect national security” (Johnson).
While there are still debates on the exact scope of government surveillance, the fact that there have been steps taken to limit its excesses shows that the United States values individual rights. As technology advances and security threats evolve, it will be important for policymakers to continue to evaluate the role of surveillance in national security and ensure that privacy protections are not sacrificed in the name of
The government should make a law requiring a background check for people who want to buy a gun. Background checks keep guns out of unsafe hands. (FBI) "Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harm- by not letting guns fall into the wrong hands". The Federal Bureau of Investigation says to use background checks to be more safe. Background checks make sure it is safe to sell an unsafe object to the people.
After the gruesome attacks of 9/11, the United States government passed a legislation called the Patriot Act in attempt to cut down on the terror attacks. This act gives the NSA, or National Security Agency, the ability to oversee our actions. The NSA’s approach to surveilling the population is obtaining the information by tapping into technology, such as phone calls, internet pages and searches, and viewing emails and texts. Thus, controversy has triggered due to the fact that these actions are unconstitutional, and much terrorism that remains. The NSA should be greatly altered because they invade the privacy of Americans, unlawfully goes against the constitution, and we lose our rights.
The Patriot Act allows for government investigators to share information on suspected terrorists with other branches of the government much easier than before 9/11 so that tragedy’s like this can be avoided in the future. While intense backlash has been received regarding the Patriot Act’s effects on immigration, and unlawful surveillance, the small negatives that have yet to been proven true much outweigh the good this law can do in protecting the lives of innocent Americans. With the Patriot Act countless lives have been saved without the masses without even realizing they have been saved. According to a speech given by President Bush three years after he signed the law into place, with the Patriot Act a one man terrorist plan turned into
Civil liberties are rights guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution that the government cannot interfere with, however, in the name of national security, they do. The government sometimes finds it necessary for Americans to give up some of their basic rights to keep the nation protected, but many people find this unnecessary. A law-abiding citizen’s extremely personal information should not be essential to finding terroristic threats within this society. Under no circumstances should an American citizen’s civil liberties be violated in a time of war or crisis, because those are assured rights that are most valuable to their freedom during national conflicts.
The United States spends more on its defense than any other country in the world, in a democratic state whose constitution Alexander Hamilton helped to inspire. It’s questionable as to what lengths a democratic system should go to keep its citizens safe as ultimately security cannot be unconditionally guaranteed. Having a debate between liberty and security is by no means a new one, its influence on political thought can be profoundly polarizing, as the extremes of both liberty and security can be witnessed around the world and throughout history. The principles that must be prioritized within a democracy while still affording safety, revolves around the ability of citizens to exercise their political liberties.
The security is overriding to improve the nation, now day security is increasing to control the terrorism. NSA Surveillance one of the agencies that provide intelligent records to the American government. Although leaking out personal information making the American uncomfortable and people started getting freak out. “I am not trying to bring down the NSA, I am working to improve the NSA. I am still working for the NSA right now.
INTERNET PRIVACY When we say Internet maybe in our mind it’s about our social media right? But what does it mean when we say Internet Privacy? Internet Privacy, it involves the right or mandate of personal “Privacy” concerning the storing, repurposing, provision to third parties, and displaying of information pertaining to oneself via of the “Internet”. It is also a subset of “Data Privacy”. Privacy concerns have been articulated from the beginnings of large scale computer sharing.
" Our generation is one known for the internet. Many of us have never known a world without the internet. A good thing about that is that we stay informed on subjects from all around. A bad thing is cyber-bullying and negativity. But no matter what negative or positive place we withhold on the internet, one thing that stays the same is government control.