Right To Privacy

Today, as a means of defending citizens, the government takes frequent peeks into the daily lives of its people to ensure no threats are made against the country. Plotz defends the government’s actions to maintain the safekeeping of the nation, stating that “lack of privacy actually tends to fight crime, not cause it” (A-25). Still, that “lack of privacy” works through a one-way system. The information of the general public is open to various American federations for use, but as for the secrets of the government, they are kept as the most confidential data in the nation. Although the leaders of the country are right to hide information on the basis of ensuring the safety of the citizens, there is information they keep stowed away in order to prevent an uproarious rebellion.

Since then people have been trying to rebuild their lives and continue on. America is getting there and will not fall because of the attack. According to Professor Dhruba Bora, a criminal justice professor at Marshall University, America will not be phased by such a little thing as a terrorist attack because of all the governments attacks into preventing another one. The government attacks that Professor Bora mentioned are surveillance, cell phone tapping, and the twisting of the Patriot Act. It is because the government understands that all lives are precious that they are willing to go to such lengths in order to protect its people, but all the government is doing to fix the nation is adding more and more surveillance and starting to treat the people of the nation as if they were nothing but slaves to the government (Goldman).The governments reason for this is to protect the people, and the people are starting to accept it.

In that case, they will also say yes for surveillance. This is easy to understand because there is no privacy without security. However, documents leaked over and over again show us that surveilling is ineffective and there are very little evidence of surveillance helping us from preventing crimes and tragedies (Landau, Greenwald, Munk Debate on State Surveillance). Sadly, because of that the government started to use for other things. From surveilling a country leader to surveilling a single person’s private life.

According to the text “Our value is founded on a unique and deep understanding of risks, vulnerabilities, mitigations, and threats. Domestic Surveillance plays a vital role in our national security by using advanced data mining systems to "connect the dots" to identify suspicious patterns” (NSA). One of the slogans of the NSA is, “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. However, if you have nothing to hide there is no argumentation as to why the NSA taps into any form of communication or access to the internet. Therefore, this withdraws the power of the people and puts it directly back into the government and, simultaneously belittles citizen’s

The government is structured to represent how some people see the government today. Every government has its secrets: plans go awry, mistakes happen, and there are problems that don 't go away. People are always outraged when a government cover up is revealed to the public, they feel they can 't trust the government. Its job is to protect the people and many citizens feel that the government is always watching. With all of the technology and communication devices of today, the government follows patterns in messages that seem like they would be connected to terrorism or any other national security threat.

One of the main functions of the government is to protect their citizens by the reducing the number of crimes. Although, there is still a large number of crimes committed and the government does not act to provide justice to some people. Either way, the government must create regulations to be able to protect the people in the society. In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes explains, “For the actions of men proceed from their opinions, and in the well governing of opinions consisteth the well governing of men’s actions in order to their peace and concord” (110). For instance, if the government does not control the people, people will commit more crimes and there will always be chaos.

The Patriot Act allows for government investigators to share information on suspected terrorists with other branches of the government much easier than before 9/11 so that tragedy’s like this can be avoided in the future. While intense backlash has been received regarding the Patriot Act’s effects on immigration, and unlawful surveillance, the small negatives that have yet to been proven true much outweigh the good this law can do in protecting the lives of innocent Americans. With the Patriot Act countless lives have been saved without the masses without even realizing they have been saved. According to a speech given by President Bush three years after he signed the law into place, with the Patriot Act a one man terrorist plan turned into

In this paper, I argue against Government Surveillance. Although a society full of cameras could help solve some crimes, it is also true that the Constitution, through the fourth amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Despite the fact that this is not a guarantee against all searches and seizures, only those that are deemed unreasonable under the law should be monitored. In addition, increasing political surveillance with the excuse of protection against war or enemies only fuels the fact that innocent people’s lives are being monitored. Finally, the information collected by the mass internet surveillance programs could be used for other harmful purposes since hackers could gain access to the databases and sell the information to other companies or terrorist groups.

Strict gun controls won 't make a big positive change because criminals don 't follow the law so whether you ban guns or not they will have a way to get to one. Like I said earlier if criminals can get to guns easier than your average person it will increase gun related violence. Not making guns available to people will just leave them defenseless in a time of terror. Therefore banning guns won 't leave us with a positive change. You can 't ever really ban violence; if someone wants to do something you can

According to Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill, “Unlike the collection of those call records, this surveillance can include the content of communications and not just the metadata.” Privacy in today’s world has become a thing of the past with advancement of surveillance technology similar to those exploited by the Ministry of Love. Likewise, according to Eugene Samuel, “ But critics of the project are calling for it to be scrapped, saying it allows the US government an unprecedented window on every citizen 's life, and risks causing miscarriages of justice.” Although they claim that the intrusive and deteriorating effect is necessary for protecting the state, giving up personal freedoms for a threat whose existence

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,

I would prefer if someone didn’t know because there’s no point in holding a secret in if someone can find out and tell anyone they want if they so please. When we think of safety the people is our main objective to keep out of harm’s way. Without the people safety why do we even have a government? The government was mad to set rules and regulations that will sustain the society that we live in. Without safety there cannot be peace in a community/society.

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

It is impossible to discuss civil liberties and security without talking about 9/11 and the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act was passed almost immediately after 9/11, hugely expanding intelligence agencies ability to investigate potential terrorism. However, critics of the law say that it infringed on the civil liberties of the innocent and did not guarantee proper oversight of law enforcement agencies in their execution and use of these newfound powers. I agree that as war and violence evolve, so must our methods of preventing them. In this digital age preventing such violence means monitoring information channels and being able to respond to leads rapidly and subtly.