Imagine a society in which, at any given moment, there is a reasonable likelihood that you’re being watched. Because you can never be certain of whether you have privacy or not, you must always assume you’re being monitored. You must always be on edge and always cautious of the emotions you show, the opinions you express, and even the thoughts that run through your mind. This dystopian society presented in George Orwell’s 1984 (Orwell, 1949) are not so far from reality. At any given moment, much of our personal data including (but not limited to) phone calls, bank action, text messages, and social media presence (Avirgan, 2014) is being collected and stored by the NSA. Even as I type this paper, it’s more than likely my keystrokes are being …show more content…
We can determine this by analyzing consent, purpose, means, and necessity. First and foremost, we must look at whether one has granted permission to be watched. Author W. A. Parent defines privacy as involving “the control of undocumented information about oneself” (Parent, 1973 as cited in Macnish, n.d.). It can be concluded that if one gives their information freely and willingly, they are in control of their information and their privacy is not being violated. Consent is routinely given in many instances where it betters the subject’s life, such as search engine results being stored in history for later reference, loyalty cards tracking purchases at shops for rewards, and medical information being stored in case of sudden injury (Macnish, n.d.). This leads us to our next criterion, purpose. Just as the above, surveillance can be used to benefit both parties. It can have a potentially positive impact on one party, and a neutral impact on the other, such as surveillance as shown under consequentialism. Finally, it can have a positive or neutral effect on one party, and a harmful one on the other, as in the case of identity theft or stalking. Macnish explains: “This [personal gain] might be financial or emotional, but can extend to other reasons. An unethical computer hacker might break into a website to steal credit card numbers which she can then use for her own ends. Alternatively a Peeping Tom might steal up to someone’s window with voyeuristic intent, or an ex-spouse might seek to gain incriminating information in order to secure custody of their child” (Allen, 2008 as cited in Macnish, n.d.). Next, the methods used to observe can determine its ethicality. Intent, invasiveness, and target all determine the morality of said means. Generally, surveillance is most ethical when it is used specifically to prevent a crime, which the surveyor has
Government surveillance has become prevalent during the age of the Internet. While the government can also monitor phone calls, the internet has made it easier for agencies to monitor people because of its widespread use and ease of access. The Patriot Act granted federal agencies the power to monitor telephone and internet traffic in order to prevent a terrorist attack. Through the social contract theory, one can justify government surveillance by claiming that the government is monitoring information in order to ensure the safety of its citizens. Thomas Hobbes claimed that in the state of nature, human beings are in constant conflict because they must compete for scarce resources in order to survive (Rachels, 142).
It gives us a broad view of how devious our government can be towards their private situations. One of the main consequences that government faces as a result of their secrets is the distrust they receive from America today. Our government can asks us to participate in their desire to know more of us but refuses to inform us with the truth. Instead of giving up our rights to our government we should be protecting them. Therefore, it is absurd that there is even a debate on whether or not we should allow our government to monitor our personal
By using strong supporting arguments In the essay entitled, Everyone is Watching You, by Nadine Strossen. Strossen’s goal in the essay is to influence her readers that surveillance cameras do more damage than good, and that something needs to be done to eliminate them. Her controversy on this matter was very vigorous, Strossen convincingly argues that surveillance cameras are an atrocious idea and needs to be stopped. She does a satisfying job of catering to her viewers in her essay. With a topic that pertains to everybody, she takes the opportunity to use this to her convenience.
Criminals, for instance, shouldn’t have as much privacy as the average adults. Criminals need to be constantly monitored for their welfare and the
While there are still debates on the exact scope of government surveillance, the fact that there have been steps taken to limit its excesses shows that the United States values individual rights. As technology advances and security threats evolve, it will be important for policymakers to continue to evaluate the role of surveillance in national security and ensure that privacy protections are not sacrificed in the name of
The Need for NSA Domestic surveillance plays a vital role in maintaining the country’s national security, and to reassure the citizens that they are properly protected from foreign and domestic attacks. The National Security Agency monitors Americans and other individuals around the world, who may be considered to be potential threats to the United States, and therefore bringing the nation under a state of emergency. The NSA is a subtle and yet legitimate way of preventing attacks against the United States, as the agency is governed by a particular set of legal rules in which they are permitted to exercise their powers in the benefit of the nation’s well being. The professional surveillance carried out by the NSA is an integral part of the
[The government] will be enabled to expose a jury to the most intimate occurrences of the home .” Justice Brandeis later went on to write an article called “The Right to Privacy” in which he asserted that “the right to be let alone” was integral to the American citizen’s quality of life . The argument that Brandeis makes against technological surveillance of citizens follows a certain line of logic: “property” encompasses both physical and intangible possessions, in the same way that other protections are not physical but real all the same, such as protection from assault or nuisance6. It is unlikely that Justice Brandeis could envision a world entirely reliant on an intangible network of information such as the Internet, but his ideas can still be used today to protect Americans’ privacy in the digital
There’s a question Americans constantly ask themselves, is the government trustable? Many citizens would answer no because they believe that the government is constantly watching them. The privacy of American citizens is being violated by the GPS trackers in our phones that the government can see and monitor, how the government listens to our calls and how they store all our information. In the novel, 1984 by George Orwell, Winston explains how Big Brother is constantly watching them.
“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.” This quote is from George Orwell’s book, 1984, written in 1944 about domestic surveillance. This quote has become all too real in today’s technology-idolizing society in which our freedom of speech and the security of our digital thoughts and papers are constantly put at risk by the government, particularly the National Security Administration. The NSA conducts wiretaps and digital surveillance without the acknowledgement of the majority of citizens and without constitutional evidence to do so. Although the NSA must appear before Foreign Intelligence
Though if the act is used correctly and only when it seems necessary then the would be perfect. However, in this non perfect world power is abused and people are taken advantage of. Even though I know that people take advantage of the ability to get into people's technology I feel that it is acceptable to do. The only people who should fear being watched are the ones who are hiding something worth punishment. This Act I feel is mostly necessary, besides the first part, a necessary evil in order to keep up with today's
It begins to create a want or need for increased security. How can a nation watch itself all at once, including those who may be undercover? The answer is presented by surveillance. If all individuals are being watched and listened to than the chances of preventing an attack are heightened. At what cost?
Do you ever feel like someone’s watching you? We may not see it, but government surveillance has skyrocketed throughout the years. Anything that we do with our electronic devices can be monitored by the government. Our privacy can be intruded on and we don’t even have a clue. Once our information is in the government’s hands, it can be spread widely and kept for years, and the rules about access and use can be changed entirely in secret without the public ever knowing.
It is very important to use surveillance, but if you use it unjustly it can give more power to public order than individual rights. It causes a similar problem as the ones mentioned before, that it can prove challenging to identify if you had a good reason to use surveillance. You might not always know if you have a good enough reason to use surveillance, but you should exercise your best judgement to decide whether or not to use
(Bilton, 2013) Surveillance of search engines permits information to be monitored so that if any hazardous search word like how to make bomb is looked it up several times by someone then it can be identified (Anon, 2014). Also, watching over the public assists police to capture crime suspects so that government organizations can protect national security (mass surveillance 위키피디아) To be specific, after terrible incident occurred in September 11, 2001, government of United States enacted the Patriot Act which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. The act was signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001 in the name of declaring war with terrorism. (위키피디아) The law grants the right to Federal Bureau of Investigation to profile people who fit certain stereotypes so that potential crime and potential terror can be prevented.
“Once you’ve lost your privacy, you realize you’ve lost an extremely valuable thing” - Billy Graham. “Invasion of privacy is a legal term. It is used to describe a circumstance where an individual or organization knowingly intrudes upon a person. The intrusion occurs when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in a bathroom or locker room”(Winston). There are many factors that help with the loss of privacy these days.