Government Surveillance In America Pros And Cons

To begin, government surveillance invades citizen’s privacy and breaks the fourth and first Amendment right that they naturally have. The fourth amendment states that a person has the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures while the first amendment exercises freedom of speech and religion (United States Constitution). Government surveillance breaks the fourth amendment by searching people’s internet files and databases without a reason; the first amendment is also broken because people no longer have freedom of speech if the NSA is spying on them and what they say is being monitored. The NSA has been spying on citizens for quite some time now to find out what they have been saying or doing. Charlie Savage, an author and newspaper reporter, states in his article

The government was free to spy to its people, it was its way to keep things under control. The citizens of Orwell’s dystopian world didn’t have any privacy, they were constantly spied on, and if they did or said anything that went against the government, they were punished. In the article written by Maass and Rajagopalan That’s No Phone. That’s My Tracker. It Explains how the new advances in technology, mainly in our smartphones, can be used to track us.

In this small country a terrorist attack may happen at any time and in any place. Therefore, when entering a shopping mall, hospital, or school, the security guard asks to search the contents of your bag. We have never thought that it was an encroachment on our freedom or invasion of privacy because in these circumstances it was necessary for our protection. Obviously, a government has to protect the lives of its citizens. Nowadays, many people in the United States spend too much time discussing the balance between security and liberty.

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.

“Law Enforcement authorities may now conduct secret searches and wiretaps in your home without showing probable cause.” “Eroding Liberties”(“ACLV”). Although secret searches can help our government catch a terrorist it’s a violation of our privacy in many ways. “It revealed NSA has maintained a number of mass-surveillance programmes over its citizens… regardless of whether or not they are persons of interest.”(Edward Snowden: the true story…). The government needs to have probable cause or a warrant, that is signed by a judge to be able to search a person’s house or

There is a lot of terrorism in the United States, no doubt about it. However, since the main purpose of a terrorist attack is to gain publicity, this will give them even more reason to. The terrorists will get more views if it’s on video and the government can release them and any other information they find about the terrorist. However, if the terrorist plans to stay undercover, they can disguise themselves by covering themselves up to not get caught on footage and then no one can trace who they are and their technology. All of this money will come out of American tax papers.

The next reason is the Apple and FBI disputes. Disputes go on due to the terror attack by the FBI forcing apple to unlock phones. The FBI is going to far when doing this, Apple makes phones secure and safe. The FBI should not be able to unlock somebody's Iphone this may cause problems just like it did in the terror attack killing 14 people. Last and final reason is the US vs Jones.

It seems like instead of asking Apple to make such a serious modification to the software a single FBI agent could have sat there and tried all possible combination. It is important to note that Apple hasn’t said that they can’t create this backdoor only that they wont. The reason being in a metaphor Apple CEO once used, “if you put a key under the front mat for the government, there’s nothing to stop burglars from finding the key as well.” Which means they are assuming that once the backdoor exists, it is only a matter of time before it is exploited by hackers and perhaps, more importantly, other Governments. Because if Apple provides the U.S Government with this backdoor in the name of national security now it exists and what’s to say that China can not come to Apple and say, “Hey! We want that backdoor too, also for our national security, but if you do not give it to us, we are not going to let you sell your iPhone’s to our one

The writing of Bob Toxen about Snowden is about Edward Snowden. A contractor for the National Security Agency. Snowden’s role was a systems administrator which granted him access to very sensitive top secret data, which is not and should not be shared with anyone outside of the US government. Although Snowden’s role was to keep hackers and other people from accessing such information, it was Snowden who took it upon himself to copy a lot of this top secret data on a flash drive and present this information to the press. Toxen, explains throughout the majority of this writing about how the US government could have tried and prevent the actions that Snowden did.

Patriot act was ruled illegal as they passed the freedom act. Justice Department in 2009 acknowledged the NSA had collected emails and phones of Americans in a way that exceed legal limitations In May 2015, According to a federal Patriot Act, known as Section 215, cannot be legitimately interpreted to allow the bulk collection of domestic calling records. Freedom act== 2.Ineffective

With this question, privacy v. safety concerns came up. With this concern, The Petitioner, Riley and his lawyers, argued that smart phones simply contain too much personal information to be legally searched by police without a warrant. Many argues that smart phones reveal the most private thoughts of the average American, containing extensive records of the book read, websites visited, and conversations with friends and family of the owner. They also argue that constitutional protections will be surrendered if police can search the smart phone of every American arrested without a warrant. The Petitioner further contend that smart phones are every bit as sophisticated as personal computers and need to be treated as such and can be through of as a window into the owner’s mind.