The systems capture images or videos of the public going about their daily life. There is an argument that this poses a threat to the individuals way of life (“CCTV and ANPR”, 2010). This essay will discuss the advantages CCTV has in providing evidence for criminal investigations. It will use meta-analysis data to argue that it has limitations as a crime reduction tool, but generally makes the public feel safe. This paper attempts to show too many privacy laws can, in fact, undermine criminal investigations and public safety.
Without this use of anonymity being possible, our nation as it is today would not exist. While the American people do not live under circumstances as critical as those of our founding fathers, the means to allow the United States citizens to be willing to express controversial opinions still needs to be exist in the same capacity it did for the authors of the federalist papers. This opinion is also shared by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The ACLU serves to protect the rights of individuals deemed to exist within the constitution of the United States, and their stance on online anonymity is made clear in their statement: “The right to remain anonymous is a fundamental component of our right to free speech, and it applies every bit as much in the digital world as it does in the physical one” (Online). Given the ACLU’s history and high regard for federally given rights, it is evident that anonymity should be valued as an inalienable right, just as much as freedom of speech or the right to bear arms.
If a civilian’s rights are violated they may be allowed to have protection through state and federal laws, which means the person whose rights were violated are being protected by the government. One of the main reason for civil rights laws is to protect civilians from government abuse. Even though the police officer went too far with a civilian, the police officer cannot be sued. The civilian still has recourse through federal law. Retired police officer David Couper talks to Dr. Greg Gelembiuk, one who gathers data from police reports, “Sometimes I hear the argument that raising the bar on police use of deadly force will somehow put more police officers in physical jeopardy.
This amendment is also very important because people like the police would have too much power over other people. For example a normal person could be patted down and searched just if they looked suspicious and this is a violation of their body and property which they deserve the right to have control of. The Fourth Amendment has dramatically changed our country by protecting people’s personal items and property. Although there are still some mixed opinions about the Fourth Amendment most people are for it and believe that it is a great way for them to feel safe in their homes and with their possessions. Many people that are for the Fourth Amendment believe that it is a great amendment that protects them from unnecessary searches or when police abuse the law and destroy property to find what they need.
The FBI seems to be making strides in preventing terrorist attacks, but this action should be made without social profiling and trolling the internet. Also, the repeal of Net Neutrality is another right being stripped from Americans. We deserve the right to an accessible internet that does not economically discriminate. All in all, the government does not have the right to monitor or limit internet content, as it skews our checks and balances system. Without these checks and balances we evolve into a country that oppresses its citizens.
State and Local governments also have agencies that monitor suspected criminals. Some people argue the government monitoring internet use restricts citizens_Ñé rights due to multiple amendments and laws. The difference is the extent of the duty each level of government has to monitor people_Ñés internet use. The United States_Ñé Government should have full responsibility to monitor the internet, so they may interrupt criminal activity and terrorism before it happens and protect innocent citizens from danger.
Instead of focusing on the broad-spectrum of social ethics, this report will utilize Computer Ethics Institute’s Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics in analyzing the ethics of counter-hacking. The Ten Commandments of Computer Ethics is a simplistic overview of the ethical and unethical way to utilize computers. With a quick overview of Figure 1, it is easy to see that allowing U.S. corporations to counter-hack another’s computer would go against half of the listed ethical principles. Further complicating things is the way most internet attacks work. For example, a Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) uses the resources of generally unknowingly compromised systems.
By developing several organizations which share the real facts and statistics, cyberbullying could be controlled or even eradicated. Many examples of these organizations are actually government sites, one of whom I 'm employed - stopbullying.gov. They support the cause and hope for others to follow suit, but it 's not being spread far enough so people like us need people like you: open-minded but confused citizens who don 't know who to look to for information. You can come to us. We 're a government website, hence the web address, so you can tell that the place where the facts reside is reliable.
Its focal points incorporate an arrangement of security and prevent black hats hacking, terrorists, provides data surveillance to the Web and enhances co-ordination. Resulting upon the experts of a surveillance society, some of the impacts that harm the surveillance society are the danger to the protection of people, however, we appear to be more worried about risky situations. While we are in the process, we might neglect the possibility that completely reliant on surveillance technologies for safety could wind up of more damage to us than great (Wu, and Chang, 2016). Surveillance causes the problem such as lacking of trust and generating doubts between people, citizens and the government, by this means for us to control and mindful of our
The number of effects attributed to anonymous comments is long and varied. In some accounts, anonymity allows for the kind of “cyberbullying” that produces low self-esteem and feelings of alienation in vulnerable members of online communities” (Wallsten n.pag.). Together America’s society needs to promote healthy bodies by obliterating uncivil remarks added by
The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures (Hall, 2014). In the scenario, it is important to remember that the employer is a government entity and the Fourth Amendment was originally designed to limit government authority as it applies to unreasonable searches and seizures (Hall, 2014). You would not be able to make a strong argument that the government violated the Fourth Amendment in this scenario. The property, whether it is a laptop, cell phone, or tablet, belongs to the government. Government entities have policies that employees must read and sign specifically acknowledging there is no expectation of privacy on these devices owned by the government.
In spying on its citizens America would be enabling the abuse of citizens through controlling their actions exploiting their lives. A way this could be observed is by bugging phones to listen in on conversations. “We must not ignore the costs to liberty and privacy of intercepting phone calls and other electronic communications”, (Posner 2). Although public safety is a concern, the greater threat comes from denying citizens their rights and protecting them from tyrannical leaders. First citizens will lose their independence, then they will be stripped of their freedom by restraining their actions.
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,
If they felt that they should search it in fear of my activity on it, they have a right to do it. I plugged my personal storage into their computer, which could be harmful to it or even the system. They could possibly need to check it because of that and is only fair. As a citizen I have rights but accepting a government job should make me aware that I am in a position where I could do more harm than good and monitoring activity might be needed. Reference: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
For example, one theory seems to suggest that harm arises not only from misuse of the data but also from the breach itself. In both Pisciotta and Reilly, customers chose to share information with a trusted institution for a particular purpose; when malicious third parties hacked the defendants ' computer systems, customers lost control over who had access to their personal information. It is not necessary for the probability to be as high as the court in Reilly would require for the breach to cause feelings of powerlessness and anxiety. The Court’s “increased risk” analysis in Pisciotta overlaps with this control theory, but it is not coextensive. Harm under this theory would not necessarily require an increased risk of exposure, as general anxiety and stress stems from the perception of loss of control over personal information, regardless of whether an increased risk of harm can be statistically