Ever since September 11, 2001, America has increased its domestic and foreign surveillance to prevent another catastrophe that has become known as 9-11. And with this increase in surveillance has come an increase in the American people’s desire for privacy. With the recent leaks by Edward Snowden, that desire has become even greater. However, there is no defined line for when the government is keeping you safe or for when it is simply violating your privacy. I feel that with the ever growing threats in the world that the government has the right to go to great links in domestic surveillance to keep the nation safe. And to see why I believe this I’m going to examine the following five points: the Fourth Amendment, Europe, the Patriot Act, technological …show more content…
Those two companies are particularly opposed because part of the NSA’s spying efforts involved tapping their Internet traffic without a warrant” (Risen). However, it’s not just a couple of companies being infiltrated and their patrons spied upon. The NSA has been spying on multiple companies and collecting information on those who use their services. “To press for legislation to end the agency’s data collection, tech companies such as Facebook, Twitter and Apple partnered with advocacy groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology to mail a letter on Wednesday to Obama and congressional leaders such as McConnell. ‘It has been nearly two years since the first news stories revealed the scope of the United States’ surveillance and bulk collection activities,’ the letter reads. ‘Now is the time to take on meaningful legislative reforms to the nation’s surveillance programs that maintain national security while preserving privacy, transparency, and accountability’” (Risen). Most people think the NSA is monitoring for terrorism, and they’re right. However, they’re not just monitoring for large terrorist …show more content…
Lone wolves are terrorists who act on their own accord and are not ordered by large scale extremist groups such as Al-Qaeda, ISIL, Boko Haram, and Hezbollah; however, they may still be a part of a terrorist group. Lone wolves are so dangerous because they are seen as wild cards or loose cannons. Communications between members of a large terrorist organization are easier to monitor than the decisions of one individual. Some of the only indications that lone wolves are plotting something is when they directly say what their plans are. In fact “they found that 76% of attackers in the US since 9/11 spoke publicly about their plans in the weeks and hours before the incident, including on Facebook and Twitter” (Safi). It’s lone wolves who are already inside the United States plotting their attacks that the government is monitoring
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.
In our world there are many crimes and cases where the government must search a home to find evidence or seize items. But, what happens when the government begins to ignore an amendment and break the trust of people. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Fourth amendment). The fourth amendment was created to protect the people from the government incase they wanted to invade people’s privacy and so the government doesn’t go too far in their searches for
The U.S follows a different school of surveillance. Despite the fundamental right to be held “innocent until proven guilty”, it monitors everyone until proven innocent. The status quo could of course damage America’s long known liberties granted by the Constitution. Recent revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden, have confirmed that the government is more likely to cross some constitutional lines in the name of national security. “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) regulates the government’s acquisition of any electronic surveillance within the country for foreign intelligence use.
These statistics not only make you question whether or not the Patriot Act is successfully completing its job, but it makes you wonder whether those suspected of regular crimes were rightfully convicted. Although the Patriot Act has played a
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
This is a clear example that shows that even the most controversial parts of the Patriot Act are not just constitutional, but strongly supported by the Constitution. From this, many see that any attempted claims that the Patriot Act is wrong in the law are based merely on thought. But, there are more than one sections of the Patriot Act that are up for debate. Any arguments against the Patriot Act are destroyed quickly due to the fact that, “no single provision of the Patriot Act has ever been found unconstitutional,” (McNeil). Once again, it is clear that the Patriot Act is constitutional.
The author of, You decide: Current Debates in Criminal Justice asks, “Is the Patriot Act a Necessary Protection Against Terrorism or a Threat to Our Civil Liberties?” (Waller) Proponents of the Patriot Act have claim that the law is a necessary protection against terrorism. In contrast, opponents of the Patriot Act claim that it is a violation of Americans’ civil liberties. Both sides of the argument have debated valid points for and against the Patriot Act. The, U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act is an acronym that stands for, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.
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.
The far-reaching powers of the Patriot Act has substantially empowered our law enforcement agencies and allowed them to apprehend many offenders who otherwise would have gotten away with their crimes. Despite it being contradictious to the fourth amendment of the US constitution, it is not only helping prevent disastrous events in our nation but also equally instrumental in protecting American lives and defending civil liberties. After the endorsement of the Patriot Act, the tools and power it provided to our law enforcement agencies has enhanced our domestic security. This act tore down the legal and bureaucratic walls that would otherwise keep the law enforcement agencies from being able to share vital information freely about the terrorist’s
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.
NSA Surveillance "I can 't in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they 're secretly building" (Edward Snowden). The NSA began monitoring and collecting sensitive and personal information from Americans such as their emails, phone calls, photos and other private material. Massive surveillance began in 2001 after the terrorist attack in New York and since then there has been a big peak in government watching. It 's unnecessary for the NSA to monitor American’s private conversations as well as other sensitive data because people should be able to have a sense of privacy in personal communication with others. Government watching is something that the government shouldn’t do because although there are bad people in this world it is irrelevant for them to watch everyone because not everyone is bad and many people disfavors this decision.
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.
Standing Up to Turn off the Cameras* [1] Every morning at the beginning of the school day, I stand and pledge my allegiance to the American flag reciting at the close, “with liberty and justice for all.” [2] The flag represents loyalty to my country as well as the freedom and equality my country grants me. When these rights are threatened by unfair and misused government surveillance, I question my daily allegiance. I want to feel safe in my school, my community, and my home, but I also do not want to feel that Big Brother’s watchful eye may endanger this security. [3] Although surveillance cameras can solve crimes, these monitoring systems can also negatively impact justice and privacy.
Surveillance is becoming increasingly integrated into human lives. Seemingly inconsequential minutiae like how long one spends in line at a grocery store or how many times a headline is clicked on a social media site are collected automatically by both public and private institutions. Whatever we do and wherever we go, there is likely some trace of it. This has led to great debates about the right to privacy, how much surveillance is too much, and under what circumstances surveillance is justifiable. Film and Television play important roles in these debates and in the way in which the public conceptualizes the utility and threat of surveillance more generally.
Abstract— In recent years, video surveillance systems become more important to enhance the security and safety of people. These systems can use in various fields such as smart home, office, bank security, monitoring the traffic and in public like shopping malls, railway stations, airports and so on. By using this system, it offers realtime display of the monitoring scene and video playback. Besides that, more comprehensive and specific monitoring with no limit of the line-of-sight can be achieved. In this paper, a study of video surveillance system which focusing on using wireless sensor network has been done.