\Government Surveillance today has changed from what it used to be. Technology has expanded through the past several decades and the government’s monitoring abilities have also expanded tremendously. Since the September 11, 2001 9/11 terrorist attacks, government surveillance has become more a part of everyday life. Government surveillance is said to help in efforts of capturing terrorists and stopping terrorist attacks before they even happen. But how much of our civil liberties are we giving up in order to maybe help capture some terrorists. The rapidly advancing technology of today and a more globalizing culture has made privacy and civil liberties come more into the forefront of our views. After about nine years of unprecedented spending …show more content…
That is why leaks like Edward Snowden are kind of expected. Snowden publicizing America’s alleged intelligence-collection programs exposed the United States and caused not only intelligence damage but substantial political harm. One thing that has come out of the NSA leaks is that Europeans want to know why Washington cannot protect sensitive information. Also the Snowden leaks showed that the US has been monitoring millions of emails and phone calls from Brazilian citizens. This has lead Brazilians to become anger with the US and now Brail has strained relations with us since they have a lot less trust with the US. Also another thing that happened that has caused strained internationally relations is when the “US suspected that a plane from Russia carrying Bolivian President Evo Morales might also be transporting Snowden to asylum in Latin America, the US used diplomatic pressure to force the plane to land in Vienna. Morales charged Spain, France, Italy and Portugal with joining in a Washington coordinated efforts to refuse the plane airspace access. The Obama White House has not bothered to deny involvement. Snowden was not, in fact, aboard the plane’’ (Engler). The Snowden leaks have caused a lot of damage both relations and intelligence …show more content…
"Five Alarming Things We Already Knew About The NSA, Surveillance, And
Privacy Before Snowden." Reason 45.5 (2013): 26-28. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
Engler, Mark. “Don’t Shoot The Whistleblower”. New Internationalist 465 (2013) 33: Points of
View Reference Center. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.
Kenny, Jack. “NSA Spying: It Didn’t Start With 9/11.” New American (08856540) 29.19 (2013):
35. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 31 March. 2014
Newport, Frank. “Americans Disapprove Of Government Surveillance Programs.” Gallup Poll
Briefing (2013): 2. Points of View Reference Center. Web. 8 Apr. 2014.
Schulhofer, Stephen J. More Essential than Ever: The Fourth Amendment in the Twenty-first
Century. New York: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.
Schultz, Daniel. "Being Watched." Christian Century 130.14 (2013): 10-12. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 5 Mar. 2014.
Shackford, Scott. "Three Reasons You Should Be Worried About Government Surveillance,
Even If You Have 'Nothing To Hide'." Reason 45.5 (2013): 28-30. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
Sullivan, Eileen, and Bob Salsberg. "A Year Later, Little Government Response to Boston
Bombing as Politics of Terrorism Shift." Fox News. FOX News Network, 17 Apr. 2014. Web. 28 Apr.
In an article written by James Ball he explains that the NSA collects “pretty much everything it can”. Ball explains that the NSA collects information from everyone “including of individuals under no suspicion of illegal activity”. The NSA “collect(s) all available information from all available sources all the time, every time, always” is also said by the Domestic Surveillance Directorate, implying that the NSA collects information from phone calls, messages, internet browsing history, emails, and any other possible mediums of information. This is unacceptable as a lot of private information that is being held by the NSA is from people that are not under suspicion of illegal activities. Yes, the NSA is gathering information from everyone so it can identify threats before people have a chance of attacking. However, not everyone is a threat to the safety of the general public so storing the information of all people is not justified. It would be understandable if the NSA just analyzed text messages, phone calls, and other sources of information to be able to determine if someone is a potential threat and store their information only if they are a suspect. One’s text message should not be stored if it does not show any potential threat. People’s transaction information should not be kept if it is not a suspicious transaction. Apart from the NSA analyzing
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 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 government is always watching to ensure safety of their country, including everything and everyone in it. Camera surveillance has become an accepted and almost expected addition to modern safety and crime prevention (“Where” para 1). Many people willingly give authorization to companies like Google and Facebook to make billions selling their personal preferences, interests, and data. Canada participates with the United States and other countries in monitoring national and even global communications (“Where” para 2). Many question the usefulness of this kind of surveillance (Hier, Let, and Walby 1).However, surveillance, used non-discriminatorily, is, arguably, the key technology to preventing terrorist plots (Eijkman 1). Government surveillance is a rising global controversy; and, although minimal coverage could possibly result in safer communities, too much surveillance will result in the violation of citizen’s privacy.
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...
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. From there, Penenberg explains that for years before September 11th, Americans were comfortable with cameras monitoring them doing everyday activities.
Today, in the United States, national security is a major issue. With countless terrorist attacks being inflicted on the U.S., government officials seek to fix the problem by any means possible. In 2001, shortly after the attack on September 11, the George W. Bush administration drafted legislation designed to prevent future terrorist attacks; however, controversy broke out concerning people’s rights to privacy. In effect, The Patriot Act was passed to support the public’s demand to combat terrorism in the wake of 9/11 and resulted in the expansion of the surveillance of federal law-enforcement, and controversy regarding the violation of basic constitutional rights.
The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what the ‘law is”, causing a lack of circulated rule. The actual leaders with political purposes jeopardize our individual privacy rights, liberties, and freedoms.
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.
To understand the concept of government surveillance and the different opinion people may have when it comes to it, it is important to first look at the legality of it all. It is no question whether or not legal cases involving the internet and data are different than those with physical evidence. The closest example
Adam D. Moore argues in his essay “Privacy Security and Government Surveillance” that it is “important to note the risk of mischief associated with criminals and terrorists compared to the kinds of mischief perpetrated by governments—even our government. In cases where there is a lack of accountability provisions and independent oversight, governments may pose the greater security risk” (Moore 146). Forfeit of individual privacy yields to an overstep of government. Moore cites FBI operations performed by the Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) “designed to infiltrate, disrupt, and if possible eliminate groups that were deemed to be enemies of the American way of life” (Moore 144). The grievances to this program took the it to federal court, where “Socialist Workers Party v. Attorney General found that ‘COINTELPRO was responsible for at least 204 burglaries by FBI agents, the use of 1,300 informants, the theft of 12,600 documents, 20,000 illegal wiretap days and 12,000 bug days’” (Moore 144). Government abuse is an issue that average citizens tend to overlook, but that deserve
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)
“Personal privacy is a closely held American value,” Anna Eshoo. Even though this might be considered one of the biggest lies discovered in the 21st century, government surveillance should actually not come to a surprise to anybody. While no one can deny that we live in a real surveillance state today, predictions from novels such as 1984 are far from accurate. A dystopian novel filled with contradictions and an excessive left wing totalitarian government who hears, listens, and controls every aspect of its citizens’ lives is inaccurate to our current era of spying. Due to its dramatic end of the world environment, excessive government control, and inaccurate predictions of spying devices today, the novel 1984 has failed to foresee the modern
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.
2) It is getting ever easier to record anything, or everything, that you see. This opens fascinating possibilities-and alarming ones.”