In both instances there are enemies that have the capability to infiltrate a populace and use intelligence collection techniques in order to attack their targets. The basic definition of terrorism is the use of violence to further political or ideological ideals. Extremists from the West use attacks to achieve their goals of reestablishing caliphate in hopes of spreading their rule throughout the world. In the case of terror networks opposed to the traditional threat seen in the counterintelligence realm, the terror networks are harder to detect due to more compartmentalization in their network ties. But how can counterintelligence operations assist in these necessary counter-terror operations?
“We are trying to get a border wall to protect millions of low income Americans against folks who aren’t supposed to be here. So, it’s a national security.”~Mick Mulvaney. There are many controversial opinions about the wall that the government is willing to build. A border wall would be necessary for specific reasons, such as drug control. Debate.org believes that a border wall will prevent drugs.
Your Honor, my client is pleading guilty to the charges of breaking the Espionage Act. Although Mr. Debs is extremely sorry for the disturbance he has caused but he was only exercising his first amendment right, peacefully. My client is aware, and has a clear understanding in what the Espionage Act is put in place for; the real problem is how could a law such as this exist? The espionage Act is in place to stop treason, and anti -americanism thoughts, but there is not enough war propaganda that exist to prohibit people from realizing war is not completely glorious. Any person that is anti- war does not make them anti-American.
The FBI seems to be making strides in preventing terrorist attacks, but this action should be made without social profiling and trolling the internet. Also, the repeal of Net Neutrality is another right being stripped from Americans. We deserve the right to an accessible internet that does not economically discriminate. All in all, the government does not have the right to monitor or limit internet content, as it skews our checks and balances system. Without these checks and balances we evolve into a country that oppresses its citizens.
To begin with, Counterterrorism measures such as Biometric data collection would not flag Adam Smith as a homegrown terrorist. Even though Homeland Security’s advanced data collection and evaluation methods from have had outstanding triumphs with many foreign terrorists entering the United States. In the same fashion, administered programs such techniques are probable to yield false positives due to temporary or permanently distorted physical injuries. Furthermore, the homegrown terrorist in the U.S. is typically obedient to the laws with authentic proofs of identification with transgressions or not has not been alerted by Homeland Security as a terrorist.
Although there are more cons than pros this could be one pro of the NSA watching Americans. Despite the fact that people don’t have any privacy there isn’t anything that can harm people in being watched but, will admit that it’s still a wrongful act to do. There isn’t anything to worry about concerning safety unless there is a crime committed. So as long as everybody does the right thing everyone is safe. All in all, it’s still something that makes people uncomfortable even though there isn’t any harm coming the way of
Once information enters the online data bases, it is impossible to erase. The data can be used in court to draw incorrect conclusions and put someone in prison for good. The U.S. government does keep tabs on its citizens. John Simpson, a privacy project director says, “I don’t really want to live in a total surveillance state where big brother knows everything I do and has all that information at its fingertips.” Edward Snowden released this information out of concern because he thought it was dangerous. The government debated about Snowden being considered a traitor or patriot of the country.
The recent revelations about the NSA surveillance programme have cause concern and outrage by citizens and politicians across the world. What has been missing, though, is any extended discussion of why the government wants the surveillance and on what basis is it authorised. For many commentators surveillance is wrong and it cannot be justified. Some commentators have argued that surveillance is intrinsic to the nature of government and its ability to deliver the public good.  Few, though have looked at the surveillance within a wider context to understand how it developed.
According to Richards (2013), it is illegitimate and pernicious to establish an underground and comprehensive surveillance in the society. First, individual privacy, which should be granted and well protected by the law, is now violated. Under PRISM, personal details, including thoughts, movements, communication, transaction and health record, is being systemically and consistently collected without a permit from the owners. The right to hold these details is shifted from the individuals to the state. The state then can make use of the information for certain political purposes like filtering criminal/ terrorist-related suspects out of the government or even country.
Homeland security is responsible for preventing terrorist attacks in the United States, reducing the nation’s vulnerability to terrorism, minimizing damage and assisting in the recovery of attacks that occur, ensuring that the overall economic security of the United States is not diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the homeland, and lastly monitoring connections between illegal drug trafficking and terrorism. Cyber security is a growing field that is tasked with preventing damage or prevention the unauthorized use or exploitation of electronic information and communication. Some issues that relate to the Homeland security is that the agency is too large to manage. The reason behind that is because of the vast array of agencies with varying missions related to homeland security. Funding is allocated without regard to a risk assessment of where attacks might occur.