There is unintended consequences for government surveillance of citizens. For example, the advances in technology to facilitate surveillance of people and terrorist. The government’s intentions is to protect citizens; however people feel their rights are being taken from them with the increase in surveillance. Technology has improved throughout the years which allows the government to facilitate surveillance of citizens. There has also been an increase in domestic and international mass surveillance of people. Although everyone is protected by the fourth amendment which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure, it is important that the Government has surveillance on citizens so they can investigate bombings, terrorist attacks, suspicious activities, …show more content…
The government has the most available information today then they have ever had. A cell phone is the most used technology today and is “the current best source of personal and private information, and therefore targeted by the government,” because it contains information the FBI expresses interest in (Claypoole 2). Although, Congress has passed laws that forbids anyone to get ahold of their cell phone information because it is a Constitutional violation; however, the FBI has asked Congress to allow them to make other’s cell phones more available to them because they contain important information. There is a Stingray surveillance technology that the FBI has hidden from the public and this technology allows “cell phone towers to trick nearby mobile phones into connecting to them” and this releases their cell phone’s location to the government (Claypoole 2). The FBI “continues to complain that it must have access to any and every type of technology used by US consumers” so they can have access to all technology that U.S. citizens use and this gives the government the ability to track suspects (Claypool 2). Claypoole’s purpose for this article is for others to understand the power the government has with surveillance of …show more content…
Alexander’s article asserts that congress should revise the U.S. Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the government's power in using their military to act as law enforcement personnel, to ensure the military does not intervene with the surveillance of citizens. The National Security Agency “conducts pervasive, highly sophisticated spying operations, both domestically and internationally” and the government has been spying on citizens for centuries so this is not new news (Alexander 630). Nine-eleven is a massive reason why National Security is the highest it has ever been and it has increased surveillance around the world. However, before 9/11 the NSA had been spying on citizens illegally without a warrant through wiretaps, cell phones, and eavesdropping. The NSA came up with a project called the MINARET which allows the NSA to spy on “antiwar protesters, civil rights activists, and political opponents” (Alexander 633). Citizens thought all of their privacy was being taken from them because the government is monitoring everything they do and say. In 1978 the Federal Intelligence Act was passed that protected people from the government spying on them. The only way the government could have permission to spy on citizens is if the government had foreign intelligence purpose on the person. After the nine-eleven attacks, the NSA focus changes
Is the American government trustworthy? Edward Joseph Snowden (2013) released to the United States press* selected information about the surveillance of ordinary citizens by the U.S.A.’s National Security Agency (N.S.A.), and its interconnection to phone and social media companies. The motion picture Citizenfour (2014), shows the original taping of those revelations. Snowden said that some people do nothing about this tracking because they have nothing to hide. He claims that this inverts the model of responsibility. He believes that everyone should encrypt Internet messages and abandon electronic media companies that track personal information and Internet behavior (op.cit, 2014). Snowden also stressed to Lawrence Lessig (2014) the importance of the press and the first amendment (Lessig – Snowden Interview Transcript, [16:28]). These dynamics illustrate Lessig’s (2006) constrain-enable pattern of powers that keep society in check (2006, Code: Version 2.0, p. 122). Consider Lessig’s (2006) question what is “the threat to liberty?” (2006, p. 120). Terrorism is a real threat (Weber, 2013). Surveillance by social media and websites, rather than the government, has the greater negative impact on its users.
The people’s apprehensiveness does not come from the government’s ability to monitor their phone calls. It is the idea that they are listening to their individual conversations. The government needs to communicate to its citizens on the capabilities of the program. Most of the information on the limits of PRISM has come from the data leaks of Edward Snowden. The common consensus is that the government is able to access information by merely advising a meeting with a judge that is not withheld to the public. However, contrary to the popular belief that they are listening to phone calls, they are merely collecting the date and length of each phone call (Stray).
According to John W. Whitehead, “The fact that the government can now, at any time, access entire phone conversations, e-mail exchanges, and other communications from months or years past should frighten every American.” (Whitehead). The NSA
Whether the U.S. government should strongly keep monitoring U.S. citizens or not still is a long and fierce dispute. Recently, the debate became more brutal when technology, an indispensable tool for modern live, has been used by the law enforcement and national security officials to spy into American people’s domestic.
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.
Current advancements in technology has given the government more tools for surveillance and thus leads to growing concerns for privacy. The two main categories of surveillance technologies are the ones that allow the government to gather information where previously unavailable or harder to obtain, and the ones that allow the government to process public information more quickly and efficiently (Simmons, 2007). The first category includes technologies like eavesdropping devices and hidden cameras. These are clear offenders of privacy because they are capable of gathering information while being largely unnoticed. The second category would include technologies that are used in a public space, like cameras in a public park. While these devices
“Before Sept. 11, the idea that Americans would voluntarily agree to live their lives under the gaze of a network of biometric surveillance cameras, peering at them in government buildings, shopping malls, subways and stadiums, would have seemed unthinkable, a dystopian fantasy of a society that had surrendered privacy and anonymity”(Jeffrey Rosen). Where were you on September 11, 2001? Do you remember the world before this tragic incident? Throughout history, the United States has adopted forms of legislation with the intention of improving national security. From prohibition, to gun laws, the outcomes of these legislations have not always been good.
Adam Penenberg’s “The Surveillance Society” reminds Americans of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the instant effects the that attacks on the World Trade Center had on security in the United States. Penenberg discusses how the airports were shut down and federal officials began to plot a military response. Although those were necessary actions, they were not as long lasting as some of the other safety precautions that were taken. The Patriot Act, which makes it easier for the government to access cell phones and pagers and monitor email and web browsing, was proposed. Politicians agreed that during a war civil liberties are treated differently.
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.
In this technology driven era, I question what effect cell phones are having on our lives as American citizens? To investigate this, I read two articles. The first reading was “Mobile Phone Tracking Scrutinized” by Nikki Swartz originally published in the Information Management Journal for March/April 2006, and the second reading was “Reach out and Track Someone” by Terry J. Allen, originally published by In These Times on May 15, 2006. In her article, Swartz questions the legality of using a cell phone’s GPS system as a tracking device in situations when crimes are involved. She argues the potential violation of Fourth Amendment rights and describes loopholes our government avoids when the data is as a surveillance device. In her article, “Reach Out and Track Someone”, Allen shows the conspiracy theorist’s view of cell phone data tracking use. She suggests the government uses of warrantless wiretapping, and argues the communications companies and government have been involved in questionable activities (p1). Swartz and Allen question the government’s practices using cell phone data; Swartz sees the issue as practical is some cases, where Allen sees an overt violation of privacy. Both of the articles brought up two important questions. How do we define our expectation of privacy, and when does the government’s need take precedence, and even violate an individual’s expectation of privacy?
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
One of the foremost reasons the government is monitoring the populace is to discover those people in the general public that are involved in major crimes or terrorism activities. Many supporters of state surveillance are of the view that in order to discover those people involved in major terrorist or criminal activities the government must actively monitor all of its citizens through the use of surveillance. Since the government casts such a broad net of monitoring, they are using citizens as a means to an end. Whistleblower Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, leaked classified NSA flies that expose mass surveillance operations carried out by the NSA (Greenwald, 2013)
Video cameras are being deployed around the nation to help with crime solving, but some people are concerned about their privacy. Having cameras to monitor public areas have shown to be useful in situations such as identifying the bombers of the Boston marathon in early 2013. There have also been issues with these cameras however, as people are concerned they are too invasive of their privacy and have been misused by police officers in the past. Some people want to find a balance in using cameras in public so that they can continue to help with crime solving while making sure they are not too invasive and are properly used.
Privacy is not just a fundamental right, it is also important to maintain a truly democratic society where all citizens are able to exist with relative comfort. Therefore, “[Monitoring citizens without their knowledge] is a major threat to democracies all around the world.” (William Binney.) This is a logical opinion because without freedom of expression and privacy, every dictatorship in history has implemented some form of surveillance upon its citizens as a method of control.
However, government agencies, especially in America, continue to lobby for increased surveillance capabilities, particularly as technologies change and move in the direction of social media. Communications surveillance has extended to Internet and digital communications. law enforcement agencies, like the NSA, have required internet providers and telecommunications companies to monitor users’ traffic. Many of these activities are performed under ambiguous legal basis and remain unknown to the general public, although the media’s recent preoccupation with these surveillance and privacy issues is a setting a trending agenda.