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,
Perhaps to capture a memory or an unusual event, and sometimes other people in the background. Are random photographs an invasion of privacy? The point is intelligence collectors are not interested in the daily communications of millions of citizens--they are interested in collecting information on terrorist and criminal activity. If this is the price we have to pay in order to make our country a safer place to live, then people shouldn 't complain. If the alternative is another attack like 9//11, maybe the anti-USA Patriot activists might think twice about their civil liberties.
Since Bill C-51 now has better accessibility to information, many people are worried that their private and personal information would be invaded. This is highly unlikely, seeing that C-51 is only using this ability to put a stop to terrorism. Therefore, it would be quite rare that your personal information would be violated, unless you are a terrorist or associated with one, in which the violation of your information would be used to keep the rest of the population safe. Although many people oppose Bill C-51, I support this anti-terror legislation. I believe that Bill C-51 will provide us with a safer and more protected country to live in, that will last for
The whole point of the Fourth Amendment is not to completely stop the police, because the amendment can be waived if an officer has a warrant, or a person’s consent. The Fourth Amendment states that generally a search or seizure is illegal unless there is a warrant, or special circumstances. Technically stating that a citizen is protected by the Fourth Amendment, until a government employee gets a warrant, and then they can invade a citizen’s privacy. Also people state that the FISA Court’s warrants are constitutional, but the NSA’s surveillance is unconstitutional. Even though people do not like the NSA’s surveillance, the NSA is legal because the FISA Court that the people did not mind makes it legal.
The fourth amendment states, “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 Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” To me, this means, in order for the American people to feel that they and their belongings are safe, only an official sworn into office can issue a warrant. This warrant can also be issued with probable cause, or reasonable belief, that some crime has been committed. Upon issuance of said warrant, the sworn official must specify exactly where police are allowed to search and the exact things or people they are allowed to look for and take in their investigation.
The First Amendment is the most important, because of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Many people think that the fourth amendment is the most important. They think this, because it is important for a person to be able to tell policemen “No” if they ask you if they could search your car or your house. I believe that the fourth amendment is really important, but you wouldn’t be able to tell the policemen “No” if you didn’t have freedom of speech.George Washington said,”If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be, like sheep to the slaughter” (“Famous Quotes Freedom of Speech”).Without freedom of speech and religion we are nothing.
Amendment 1 ¬ Freedoms, Petitions, and Assembly- This amendment protects religious liberties meaning there will be no law symbolizing a national religion or persecuting somebody if they chose to follow a certain religion. Under this amendment, citizens are also guaranteed freedom of speech meaning the right to express any opinions without censorship, the right to press meaning television, newspapers, magazines and other media sources can publish truthful reports, even if they may be controversial, without the government interfering, the right to peacefully assemble meaning someone can gather together with others without fear from the government that they are a mob, the right to complain, and seek assistance of the government without fear of
To be frank, the fourth amendment is a security blanket for American citizens; it protects them from illegal searches and seizures. The amendment was one of the first ten, which made up the original bill of rights in the constitution. Many were added to it since then, but the first ten remain extremely important. Without the fourth amendment, America and its citizens could be subject to searches and seizures at any time. By law the constitution states that the fourth amendment is 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 warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
Personal records given to the NSA or government without a probable cause or reasoning for a search warrant repels everything the Fourth Amendment represents. As said by Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis “Now the right to life has come to the right to be let alone” with the government and other associations receiving the right to track records at any moment takes away from the feeling of security the Fourth Amendment is supposed to give citizens. The confidentiality of individual’s personal belongings, feeling of security, and freedom from governmental obstruction is what makes the Fourth Amendment important to society, although search-warrants can be issued with causes that seem reasonable.
The people are giving up some of their right so the government will protect them. The first amendment is “freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition” The first amendment is similar to the social contract because in a way the government is promising to protect you in exchange for some of your rights. But if you think about it your free speech is limited, you can’t just say whatever you desire like shouting out “there’s a bomb” in a crowded place that’s illegal because safety is major.
Researchers say that this is due to the fact that people have “feelings of political powerlessness.” They believe that the government is such a powerful force that it would leave the regular people defenseless if they were actually conspiring. Because of this, people tend to blame and create conspiracy theories to make the people who are most powerful seem like they are at fault. When applied to 9/11, we can see use this information to understand how someone would be able to come to wondering if the government were behind the attacks. This falls back under Jan-Willem van Prooijen’s research that was mentioned, who found that people who believe conspiracy theories are those who feel that they lack control in their lives. These two studies tie into each other because feeling powerless is a feeling that usually is a primary reaction to feeling a lack of control over the things happening in your
The FBI thought that Afghan war prisoners were underwater trying to spy on American targets. Yes, the FBI was violating the rights of privacy, but if they had not done that then we could 've had another terrorist attack. The FBI wanted records of the shops but the dive shops wouldn 't let them have the records. The government position makes sense because if they didn 't once who let them see the records then they obviously have something to hide. If the dive shops had nothing to hide then they could 've easily handed over the records.
This isn’t the first time something like this has happened. When the FBI wiretapped a conversation in order to arrest people for illegal gambling without a warrant the Supreme Court ruled that they had an expectation of privacy and that law enforcement must have a warrant to wiretap. Their decision was based off when you say something to the public it is not protected by the 4th amendment, but when you try to keep it private even if it is in a public place it is protected. I think the solution is that the Supreme Court should make a decision based off their previous ruling because the defendants kept it private and even took additional measures to make sure no one else knew, like masking their IP address by using
There is no easy way to say “let’s just get rid of the Patriot Act as a whole.” As it was described in the beginning, it is an acronym, swearing that the government will protect its citizens from terrorism. It is justifiable in a sense that after the attacks on 9/11, the government needed to take the offensive in the war against terror. It is not justifiable that after passing such anti-terror legislation, that the government abuses/and restricts the citizens of the United States of their constitutional rights. Most importantly, THE BILL OF RIGHTS. Congress as of early 2015 is becoming more and more aware of such unconstitutional tactics that agencies such as the FBI, or NSA are implementing on citizens, and deemed that the Patriot act needs to be reformed, even though it was only a little bit of a reformation.