Edward Snowden Ethical Issues

Muslim Americans endured more government scrutiny after September 11, 2001. The United States government decided to monitor this population. This involves surveillance on phones, worship place and funds. The US government needed to pass a law to collect data to use concerning risks. Consequently, the Several days later after the 9/11 attack, the U.S. passed the USA PATRIOT Act which is an acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” (Stan, 2014). The Department of Justice drafted the USA PATRIOT Act to increase the federal agencies’ power to use surveillance cameras, conduct search and detect communication both nationwide and from foreign countries to seek out terroristic attacks. In addition, the president that signed this into law was President George W. Bush. In addition, most people would not want the government to secretly spy on them.

According to the text “Our value is founded on a unique and deep understanding of risks, vulnerabilities, mitigations, and threats. Domestic Surveillance plays a vital role in our national security by using advanced data mining systems to "connect the dots" to identify suspicious patterns” (NSA). One of the slogans of the NSA is, “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. However, if you have nothing to hide there is no argumentation as to why the NSA taps into any form of communication or access to the internet. Therefore, this withdraws the power of the people and puts it directly back into the government and, simultaneously belittles citizen’s

On September 11, 2001 the world came to a stand still as a terroristic attack targeting our country killed 2,977 people. As fear ran high in every American house hold, the government quickly acted and on October 26 President George W. Bush passed the USA PATRIOT Act. The full title, "Uniting and Strenghtening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act", suggest how the government quickly acted in response to the new threat that we were experianceing. Although some may argue that it violates our civil liberties, the Patriot Act serves as an asset to help protect U.S. citizens by stopping terrorist attacks, giving the law enforcement tools to make investigations easier, and increases national security.

Snowden, who was a computer systems contractor, worked for the National Security Agency and revealed to the public how the American Government was spying on its own citizens and foreigners. Snowden was committed to the truth which allowed him to reason and understand the difference between what is right and what is legal. Snowden was convinced that the truth requires an individual to do the right thing and not necessarily what is legal. However, doing the right thing could sometimes require an individual to break the law. Snowden was committed to doing the right thing so he revealed the different spying operations that were going on within the N.S.A. He became a whistleblower who rescued American citizens from being monitored through illegal surveillance and was looked upon as a

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.

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 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

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."-Socrates. Peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society because the society is not free unless it's able to check the government. As long as the protest of the law remains peaceful it is a good thing. It is the public telling the government that they will not let them gain to much power and crush their human rights.

The fourth amendment protects us from many things, including the seizure of our property and possessions and unnecessary frisking. It was created to prevent the government and its branches from unlawfully violating privacy, and that’s how it should work, theoretically. Traditionally, a violation of our Fourth Amendment rights involved a physical invasion, like the seizure of papers or personal items, without a warrant. However, in this day and age, officers rarely need to physically violate this right to gain incriminating evidence. Many government agencies have a few skeletons in their closets when it comes to this. With the introduction of new technology in recent years, the government can discreetly capture evidence from electronic files,

The NSA, and the Fourth Amendment have been a touchy subject for some American citizens. The NSA, or National Surveillance Agency, is being closely watched by American citizens since a debate has formed as to whether or not the actions of the NSA regarding the surveillance of American

Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the United States government to gather foreign intelligence information concerning persons located outside of the country that are, or are connected to, a potential threat against the nation. In addition to protecting national security, the communications data collected under Section 702 has been used for criminal prosecution in domestic court cases. Since it passed in 2008, scholars have raised questions over the act’s constitutionality, especially about its consistence with the Fourth Amendment which protects both US and non-US persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. These scholars argue that not all communications gathered under Section 702 meet the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment and should therefore not be used in criminal cases. However, Section 702 mainly conflicts with the Constitution only when the act is used inappropriately by agencies to investigate people residing within the US rather than for its intended purpose of gathering foreign intelligence. In order to ensure that the Fourth Amendment is not violated in the process of gathering foreign surveillance intelligence or using such intelligence in a domestic court case, FISA Section 702 must be amended.

On September 11th, 2001, the United States witnessed the deadliest day in law enforcement when 72 officers were killed while responding to the attacks of the World Trade Center. Due to this attack, impacts and demands for change devastated law enforcement. This overwhelming attack redirected priorities to the United States, our government, and our law enforcement agencies. Homeland security, information systems, and security related implications became the forefront of change for state and local policing.

Similar to Assange and Snowden, Ellsberg can only be considered heroic for his actions of releasing Pentagon papers amidst the Vietnam War to inform the American public about the real ongoings of the war. US Citizens have a right to information therefore the US government must respect that right and tell them exactly what is happening during the war, even its negative, embarrassing, aspects. The Vietnam War was arguably one of America’s greatest military failures and part of the reason it was such a failure was because of President Nixon and Defense Secretary McNamaras’ repeated lies that things were going well, that America was making “progress” in fighting communism in Vietnam. Ellsberg really changed the course of the Vietnam War, by helping Americans realize it was a lost cause and that the US government and military were lying to the press and thus violating the First Amendment of the Constitution.

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance” (Wendell Phillips), and requires every citizen to act as a watchdog for their government. As demonstrated in the past, sometimes morally abhorrent legislation is passed and action is taken in opposition to the will of the people. In these instances, civil disobedience positively impacts a free society, but should be used a “last resource” (qtd. in Mirkin “Rebellion, Revolution, and the Constitution”), less one endangers the rule of law.

"  In our World, threats to our Country are common and are becoming frequent. Issues like bullying, extremism, terrorism, and even the illegal production and distribution of drugs threaten all parts of the world more than ever. Not to mention, our increasing dependence on technology for business transactions, work, school, and storage of information has opened up a medium to effectuate these actions. The use of the internet no doubt is beneficial but like anything else, it can, and has been put to ill use. Controversy has been stirred up concerning the monitoring of internet content by the government. Many believe that this action is violating their right inscribed in the fifth amendment which protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information. But with the existence of agencies such as the NSA and Acts like the USA PATRIOT Act, the government has shown that it is more concerned with the national