There are people who think it’s a great idea because police and catch criminals easier. In the other hand people think it is invading our privacy. The ACLU believes that the government is invading our privacy and they should not be able to search our phone without a warrant and should not know the location we visit or currently at. The can also get you contacts,
US News reports the FISA and USA Patriot Act as a "privacy scandal" (Fox, 2013). NPR News reports the concern of "civil liberty[ies] groups" protesting the USA Patriot Act and the concern for the authorities to demand business records from various companies (Johnson, 2011, p.1). What the media fails to convey to the general public is the intent of these Acts is to combat terrorism and not to invade privacy. Millions of people travel the world every day snapping photos from their digital cameras and iPhones. Perhaps to capture a memory or an unusual event, and sometimes other people in the background.
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.
According the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the most important and unconstitutional parts is in Section 215 of the act. It expanded ability for the government to gain access to third party records such as internet service providers and cell phone service providers. One of the most significant provisions of the Patriot Act makes it far easier for the authorities to gain access to records of citizens ' activities being held by a third party. This also would include forcing doctors, lawyers, anyone at all that has electronic communications records to turn such records over to the FBI when requested. Another concern raised by the ACLU is the provision’s violation of the 4th Amendment which allows investigates to conduct such searches without showing probable cause.
They now have unprecedented power to monitor the phone calls, e-mails, without a warrant. This is a great way to monitor terrorist but for the normal non criminal citizen it 's a violation simply because they can collet such things as religous affilations. medical conditions, close friends, romantic partners, gun owners and any additions. there is a movement in congress for a cleaner auterazation
People against the Patriot Act believed it violated the citizen 's right to the Fourth Amendment; while others made a highly controversial point with the allowance for the FBI to make a procedure of any tangible things, including: books, records, papers, documents, and other items for an investigation against international terrorism (EPIC - USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162). (n.d.). With access to tangible objects such as books and records, libraries felt the Patriot Act targeted them. Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act allows the government to secretly obtain library records without any reason to believe a person of suspicion are involved in any illegal activity.
From a different viewpoint, this can all be fake. Today, people can alter footage, change audio and make fake documents look real. This is very dangerous because people who take these things as truth will react in a way that will shake the foundations of society. If this documentary’s purpose was to mislead the people to get what they want and people believed it, then we really don’t know fact and fiction in this world. People can be easily manipulated with by small things.
This is brought to light in the book when Montag and Faber are talking on the phone and Faber says, “This is some sort of trap! I can’t talk to just anyone on the phone!” (Bradbury, 1991, p.76) Faber’s fear of talking on the phone stems from him knowing that someone listening. The current U.S. government does listen in on the phone calls of its citizens. News journalist Anne Flaherty wrote, “The U.S. government long has enjoyed access to phone networks and high-speed Internet traffic under the U.S. Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act to catch suspected criminals and terrorists.” (Flaherty) She illustrates the government excusing its actions for the better of its citizens. In Fahrenheit 451, the government gets rid of people who are a threat.
“The Patriot Act broadly undermines the rights of all Americans. It reduces judicial oversight of a host of investigative measures, including wiretaps, expands the government 's ability to track individuals ' Internet use and gives federal officials expansive new powers that are in no way limited to investigating terrorist crimes. ( thenation) It authorizes an end run around the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct wiretaps and searches in criminal investigations, without probable cause of a crime, as long as the government claims that it also seeks to gather foreign intelligence--an authority that is particularly questionable in light of recent disclosures from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the FBI has
During this Cold War period, Americans intuited communism as a feasible threat, called “Red Scare” led to negotiations to civil liberties. Civil Liberties accentuate preeminence of individual rights and personal freedoms over and against any kind of authority. Civil liberties are basic freedoms assured by the Bill of Rights or elucidated by courts and lawmakers. Civil liberties protect personal freedoms such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly. The restriction of civil liberties was done by policymakers in the federal, state and local governments and the news media was attacked regularly on the basis of its alleged liberal bias.
Many states can tax each other’s products. This makes America seem like 13 separate nations.” This statement is partially true because the new Constitution fixed this flaw by prohibiting states to tax imports, giving the nationals government full power to regulate trade across the states. The final most important mistake of the new Constitution was that it did not include a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights gave Americans basic rights as a citizen of the United States and showed them that the government can’t take away these natural rights. Without the Bill of Rights, the government could do whatever they wanted to the citizens because the Constitution did not state the rights of the American people.
There is a saying: “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” As long as there are people in the world with the intention to do harm, or crime, (which unfortunately is a great percent of mankind), there will be abuse and corruption. The Criminal Justice System was implemented to protect against such acts against citizens of the United States. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. The implementation of the U.S. Patriot Act in 2001 is an example of such massive abuse of power that has ultimately led to countless unjust arrests, unjust government surveillance on citizens, and most importantly it has stripped U.S. citizens of their civil liberties.
The USA Patriot Act has been “secretly interpreted to authorize the collection of Americans’ phone records” on a massive scale, which shows a reckless abuse of power because there is no way that “all [citizens’] phone records can be relevant to any particular authorized investigation” (“The Pros and Cons” 1). Most importantly, a “three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals” concluded on May 7, 2015 that the NSA “engaged in repeated, substantial legal violations” of privacy with their bulk data collection program (“The Pros and Cons” 1). The government is performing illegal activity in hopes of catching illegal activity. Why is there so much irony in their actions? Simple logic takes play here: the law should not be broken by the government.
Is Snowden an enemy for informing the world of how the US keeps tags on them, or is he a hero for letting the American people know that their 4th amendment is being violated? Some can argue that America’s enemies didn’t need Snowden to inform them, groups such as al-Qaeda have long since figured that out. Because it is almost certain that enemies already know about what Snowden revealed, the only thing he did wrong was violate his oath, and the NSA’s oath of secrecy trumps his belief that the NSA’s activities were an unconstitutional threat to the American people. Even though the NSA’s oath trumps Snowden’s beliefs, it does not mean that what the oath is protecting is constitutional. The National Security Agency has been keeping many people out of the dark for years about their policies.
Nobody should have their phones tapped without the knowledge of the person because that breaks the third amendment. Even if it is a US amendment it is carried out by the US citizens. Another way to look at this is, the United States was just being cautious. After all Germany was the country Hitler rose to power so easily back in the 1900s. On the other hand, our allies have been spying on us.