Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
National security agency operations
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s methods in surveilling American citizens has been called into question. This agency operates partially in secret making it difficult to question some of its methods. However, some methods have been revealed to the American public. Edward Snowden revealed that the NSA has ordered Verizon and other companies as well, to relinquish the metadata the company has on its customers. This metadata contained documented files on “phone numbers, duration of calls, routing information and sometimes the location of the callers” (Schell 2013). Other information regarding the NSA’s methods include its operation under the Bush Administration in which the Terrorist Surveillance Program took into effect. Under the Terrorist Surveillance Program, if two certain conditions were met, the NSA had the authority to commit warrantless domestic eavesdropping (ACLU v. NSA). However invasive these methods may seem, the techniques utilized of the NSA can still be deemed constitutional. The NSA has the constitutionality to implement these methods through: the implied powers set forth by the authority of the President, the agency’s inherent secretive nature, and the vulnerability set by the advancement of technology. Under the NSA’s implied powers to protect the security of American citizens, this agency has the right to domestically surveil as long as it attempts to protect the citizens of the country. Under the Bush Administration’s Terrorist Surveillance Program, the NSA could only perform warrantless wiretaps if a party satisfied two conditions: one of the suspected parties in the communication had to be located overseas and the NSA must “have a ‘reasonable basis’ to believe one of the parties has an af... ... middle of paper ... ...8. "THE SURPRISINGLY STRONGER CASE FOR THE LEGALITY OF THE NSA SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM: THE FDR PRECEDENT." Stanford Law Review 60, no. 4: 1023-1077. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 19, 2014). Lemos, Robert. 2013. "NSA Chief Says Data Collection Targeted, Obeys Constitutional Limits." Eweek 7. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 19, 2014). "Resolved: The Benefits of Domestic Surveillance by the NSA Outweigh the Harms." Debate Central. National Center for Policy Analysis, 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2014. Schell, Jonathan. 2013. "The Surveillance Net." Nation 297, no. 1/2: 3-6. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 19, 2014).2008. 2013. "New rules for NSA spying: Protect the presumption of innocence." Christian Science Monitor, December 19. N.PAG. Academic Search Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed February 19, 2014).
The National Security Agency or NSA for short is a United States federal government intelligence organization that is used for global monitoring and collecting data. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush implemented the NSA’s domestic spying program to conduct a range of surveillance activities inside the United States. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding this program as it allows the NSA to tap into the public’s phone calls, cameras, internet searches, text messages, and many other mediums to seek out individuals that may be potential threats to the security of the general public. Many individuals say that the tactics used by the NSA are unconstitutional as they invade people’s privacy. This is primarily
To better understand the topic at hand it is important to understand what electronic surveillance is pertaining to Foreign Intelligence. The definition of “electronic surveillance”, as written is FISA, can be summarized best as acquisition of data from wire or radio communications using “an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device”. There are four specific criteria that further define electronic surveillance in more detail also included in FISA under Title 1, Section 101. This section also included definitions for those groups that surveillance may be authorized against. [2]
The aftereffects of the September 11, 2001 attacks led to Congress passing sweeping legislation to improve the United States’ counterterrorism efforts. An example of a policy passed was Domestic Surveillance, which is the act of the government spying on citizens. This is an important issue because many people believe that Domestic Surveillance is unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, while others believe that the government should do whatever is possible in order to keep the citizens safe. One act of Domestic Surveillance, the tracking of our phone calls, is constitutional because it helps fight terrorism, warns us against potential threats, and gives US citizens a feeling of security.
The NSA is a U.S. intelligence agency responsible for providing the government with information on inner and foreign affairs, particularly for the prevention of terrorism and crime. The NSA maintains several database networks in which they receive private information on American citizens. The agency has access to phone calls, emails, photos, recordings, and backgrounds of practically all people residing in the United States. Started in 1952 by President Harry Truman, the NSA is tasked with the global monitoring and surveillance of targeted individuals in American territory. As part of the growing practice of mass surveillance in the United States, the agency collects and stores all phone records of all American citizens. People argue that this collected information is very intrusive, and the NSA may find something personal that someone may not have wanted anyone to know. While this intrusion's main purpose is to avoid events of terrorism, recent information leaks by Edward Snowden, a former NSA contractor, show that the agency may actually be infringing upon the rights of the American citizen. Whether people like it or not, it seems that the NSA will continue to spy on the people of the United States in an attempt to avert acts of terrorism. Although there are many pros and cons to this surveillance of American citizens, the agency is ultimately just doing its job to protect the lives of the people. Unless a person is actually planning on committing a major crime, there is no real reason for citizens to worry about the NSA and it's invasion of our privacy. The agency is not out to look for embarrassing information about its citizens, rather, only searches for and analyzes information which may lead to the identification of a targe...
We all have heard the quote “Life, Liberty, Land, and the Pursuit to Happiness” and that is the promise of a life here in America. As Americans we pride ourselves on these freedoms that allow us to live everyday. We are one of the only countries that have this promise and it is what draws people from all of over the world to come here. Our founding fathers of the United States of America wrote these words, having no idea the impact that they would have for the rest of this countries history. Those words were the foundation for government, and it wasn’t perfect at first but slowly it matured into what we have today, strong and powerful. To other nations America is seen as the World Power, and a somewhat perfect nation to live in. Unfortunately corruption, scandals and controversies have tainted our once golden glow, and other nations are weary of watching their steps. One of the most controversial elements to our government is the NSA. Hidden in the shadows from American and global knowledge is what the NSA is actually doing and watching out for. Only very recently has the NSA been ripped from the shadows and brought to light what exactly is going on inside those walls. They are “spying” on not only America’s personal data, but foreign leaders as well. The NSA says it’s for the safety for everyone against terrorism and attacks. However, it has gone way to far and violates a constitutional right, privacy. The NSA has overstepped their boundaries, and spying doesn’t seem to make a difference in safety.
Edward Snowden is America’s most recent controversial figure. People can’t decide if he is their hero or traitor. Nevertheless, his leaks on the U.S. government surveillance program, PRISM, demand an explanation. Many American citizens have been enraged by the thought of the government tracing their telecommunication systems. According to factbrowser.com 54% of internet users would rather have more online privacy, even at the risk of security (Facts Tagged with Privacy). They say it is an infringement on their privacy rights of the constitution. However, some of them don’t mind; they believe it will help thwart the acts of terrorists. Both sides make a good point, but the inevitable future is one where the government is adapting as technology is changing. In order for us to continue living in the new digital decade, we must accept the government’s ability to surveil us.
(Whitehead). The NSA has collected masses of raw data from the web throughout the years, data like phone conversations, emails, and other kinds of communications with the consent of the American people. This kind of data collection clearly violates the privacy principles. After the devastating terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bomber, the American people are trading their liberty and freedom and basic human rights, for a phantom of so-called safety.
In early June 2013, Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former defense contractor who had access to NSA database while working for an intelligence consulting company, leaked classified documents reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) is recording phone calls of millions of Americans along with gathering private data and spying foreign Internet activity. The Washington Post later broke the news disclosed PRISM, a program can collect data on Internet users. The leaked documents publicly stated a vast objection. Many people were shocked by the scale of the programs, even elected representatives were unaware of the surveillance range. A nationwide debate over privacy rights have been sparked. Although supporters claim that the NSA only does its best to protect the United States from terrorists as well as respecting Americans' rights and privacy, many civil rights advocates feel that the government failed to be clear about the limit of the surveillance programs, threatening Americans' civil...
The NSA has been secretly ordered to eavesdrop by the Bush administration after the 9/11 terrorist attack. The base of where the NSA has been operating their wiretapping agenda is in Bluff Dale, Utah the building sprawls 1,500,000 square feet and possess the capacity to hold as much as five zeta bytes of data it has cost almost $2,000,000,000. The act of spying over the USA citizens even though they are suspicious is a threat to the people’s privacy and the privacy of other countries’ members are being infringed on by the NSA by the act of wiretapping. The action of wiretapping violates laws for privacy, like the Bill of Right’s Amendment Four which says “Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions”. The wiretapping controversy has caused the panic and hysteria of the citizens of the USA and USA’s allies. This panic and hysteria has troubled the government by resulting to mistrust and concern against them by both groups. The panic effect of the NSA wiretapping has caused many people such as journalist to have their freedom of speech to be restricted in fear of the NSA to stamp them as terrorist and according to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights that is an infringement of the people’s right of freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.
Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Americans fear that another attack is imminent. To ease these fears, lawmakers created the USA Patriot Act which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism. This lengthy bill allows the justice department a great deal of power in criminal cases especially in those dealing with terrorism. While, according to lawmakers, the Patriot Act is aimed at ending terrorism, it is arguable that the Patriot Act is aimed at beginning a Big Brother-type society. For the government of the United States to enforce a law that encourages the obstruction of the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments and other civil liberties is highly hypocritical and quite un-American.
The Patriot Act has been under scrutiny and opposition since its creation following 9/11. When 9/11 struck it was clear that Americas intelligence was lacking in some specific way, but it was translated that America needed greater allowance for gathering information. The Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001, very close to 9/11. It can be concluded that the Patriot Act was signed with such extreme ability’s applied, because of how close it was signed after 9/11. The Act Greatly expands the liberty’s if law enforcement in their efforts to gather information, which in turn imposes on the privacy of the American people. The FBI has the ability to study any citizen suspected of terrorism, and has access to all their information. Wire Taps and other invasive action are allowed and granted by the Patriot Act. Was the Patriot Act signed to quickly? Are its measures to extreme? When is the line drawn on how much power the government can have? Is the Patriot Act effective enough that it is necessary? Should we as Americans willing to trade freedom for safety? Can the Patriot Act effectively stop or hinder terrorist attacks; has its stopped enough attacks to be validated? Another question is does America want a government that has that much power, how much are we as Americans willing to sacrifice, and how much more liberty’s is the government going take. If the government can pass the patriot act, what other legislation can they pass? In reality it all comes down to the American people, we are democracy but do we have the power in are hands? When finding all these questions one asks do we need an act that is in fact this controversial? Is the Patriot Act a necessary evil? To find this answer we have to answer all the questio...
Essentially for the past 12 years the NSA has been monitoring the cyber world and telephone activity of American citizens, as well as foreign nationals in secrecy. The NSA has been receiving digital information from several major internet and cable providers including Verizon, AT&T and Sprint. They have kept records of phone conversations of millions of Americans and internet search histories as well as all data text messages. Many of the American citizens being monitored have not been convicted of any crimes and have caused no suspicion of illicit activity. Despite the circumstances these private citizens are being unlawfully monitored by the U.S government without consent.The issue at hand is whether the new powers granted by the Patriot Act to permit the NSA to spy on its citizens are absolutely necessary to protect our national security, or if the NSA utilizing the terro...
The United States government is up to its ears in the personal information it has collected from its citizens. Americans are becoming increasingly “aware of these slowly eroding walls of privacy,”(Hirsh) and more than half polled admit concern “about the overall accumulation of personal information about them “by […] law enforcement, government, […] and other groups,” though “they accept it as an unavoidable modern phenomenon” (Hirsh). The question is, how far is too far to trust the government with the collection, proper storage, and usage of this information? Studies show that “Americans believe that business, government, social-media sites, and other groups are accessing their most personal information without their consent” (Hirsh). People should be given the ability to admit or deny access to their personal information. The government does not have a right to use whatever information it wants for any purpose it wishes. Michael Hayden, once the NSA director for seven years, says, “Even I recognize that it's one thing for Google to know too much, because they aren't putting me in jail. It's another thing for government, because they can coerce me” (Hirsh). The United States government's ability to collect information about its citizens and residents should be restricted by what kind of information it can take, how it can acquire it, and what it can use it for.
It is argued that the NSA metadata collection is supported by the Patriot Act in the light of national security. The information that is gathered is only skimmed through to look for key phrases and words to find terrorist activity and then discarded after five years. It is claimed that in this day and age we can not afford to be private and that there is always reasonable grounds for investigation for the sake of national security. The FISC agency also argues that, “the production of telephone service provider metadata is squarely controlled by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Maryland" (Barnett, 2015). Because of this statement, the court as well as many other legal experts and commenters were convinced that the NSA data collection orders can be considered constitutional. All they collect is the very information in which Smith tells us that telephone consumers have no reasonable expectation of privacy (Barnett, 2015). There have been many federal court judges deciding all across the map that, no, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy on you personal computer, smart phone and internet provider (Rumold,
Domestic Surveillance Citizens feeling protected in their own nation is a crucial factor for the development and advancement of that nation. The United States’ government has been able to provide this service for a small tax and for the most part it is money well spent. Due to events leading up to the terrifying attacks on September 11, 2001 and following these attacks, the Unites States’ government has begun enacting certain laws and regulations that ensure the safety of its citizens. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 to the most recent National Security Agency scandal, the government has attempted and for the most part succeeded in keeping domestic safety under control. Making sure that the balance between obtaining enough intelligence to protect the safety of the nation and the preservation of basic human rights is not extremely skewed, Congress has set forth requisites in FISA which aim to balance the conflicting goals of privacy and security; but the timeline preceding this act has been anything but honorable for the United States government.