The Information Technology behind Counter-Terrorism The information technology behind counter-terrorism saves American lives. In the weeks after 9/11, President Bush authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct plethora of surveillance activities inside the United States, which had been barred by law and agency policy for decades prior. When the NSA’s spying program was first brought to public knowledge by the New York Times in 2005, President Bush admitted a small aspect of the program—what the administration labeled the terrorist surveillance program—in which the NSA monitored, without warrants, the communications of between 500-1000 people inside the US with suspected connections to Al Qaeda. The current head of the NSA Gen. Keith Alexander condones collecting the phone records, internet searches, and emails of American’s nation-wide. Alexander encourages the program stating that, “It is needed for domestic counterterrorism and that it was helpful in investigating the Boston Marathon bombings and the plots against U.S. diplomatic sites during the summer.”(“NSA chief defends U.S. spying”) The technology behind the NSA abilities to spy on unassuming Americans, the use of collected data and, the contribution of the PATRIOT Act, are all contributing factors to the effectiveness of the NSA in preventing terrorist attacks. According to the foremost authority on data mining Dr. Gregory Piatetsky-Shapiro “If the NSA just has the metadata—who calls whom – that’s sufficient to determine the status of people,” “You don’t necessarily need the conversation if you have the network” (Piatetsky-Shapiro) In the past 20 years information technology has advanced more than ever in our history. This rapid increase has brought an... ... middle of paper ... ...stions will be asked as they should as to laws of the land. The technologies behind the many agencies such as the NSA and FBI that secure our borders both physical and virtual only become more important each year. As our country continues to promote democracy and support uprisings in countries around the world Works Cited Gilbert, F. (2013). DEMYSTIFYING THE UNITED STATES PATRIOT ACT. Journal of Internet Law, 16(8), 3-7. New York Times reports that NSA uses collected data to map out a person's social connections. (n.d.). Canadian Press, The, International Business, T. (2013, June 12). NSA and Big Data: How Technology Innovation Fuels PRISM. International Business Times. Investor's Business, D. (2013, September 26). NSA chief defends U.S. spying. Investors Business Daily. p. A02. Stewart, B. (n.d). Don't play games with U.S. security. USA Today.
U.S. Department of Justice. The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty. n.d. web. 11 November 2013.
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.
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.
With the introduction of the internet being a relatively new phenomenon, the act of cyber espionage is not something that has been properly acknowledged by society. The American Government has done a stand up job of keeping its methods in the shadows and away from the eyes of its people since its documented domestic surveillance began on October 4th, 2001; Twenty three days after the Twin Towers fell President George Bush signed an order to begin a secret domestic eavesdropping operation, an operation which was so sensitive that even many of the country's senior national security officials with the...
Gellman, Barton. "NSA Broke Privacy Rules Thousands of times per Year, Audit Finds." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 21 Aug. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.
The recent terrorists attacks of 9/11 has brought security to an all-time high, and more importantly brought the NSA to the limelight. Facts don 't change however, terrorist attacks are not common as history has shown. So what has domestic surveillance actually protected? There are no records to date that they have stopped any harm from being caused. If it is well known by every American that they are being watched, then why would a terrorist with the intention of harming use these devices to talk about their heinous acts? The real criminals are smarter than this, and it has shown with every attack in our history. Petty acts of crime are not what domestic surveillance should be used for. Terrorism has been happening for decades before any electronics were introduced, and even in third world countries where electronics are not accessible. The government needs a different way to locate these terrorists, rather than spy on every innocent human being. Andrew Bacevich states in his article The Cult of National Security: What Happened to Check and Balances? that until Americans set free the idea of national security, empowering presidents will continue to treat us improperly, causing a persistent risk to independence at home. Complete and total security will never happen as long as there is malicious intent in the mind of a criminal, and sacrificing freedoms for the false sense of safety should not be
After the devastating attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, this country scrambled to take action to provide future protection. New techniques had to be developed to protect the nation from the menace of terrorism. Along with the new techniques came the decision to enact laws that some believed crossed the threshold of violating civil liberties this county and those living in it were guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. “On October 26, 2001, the Public Law 107-56, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, also known as the USA Patriot Act, was signed into effect” (Stern, 2004, p. 1112). While speaking to Congress, President George Bush stated, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorist” (Stern, 2004, p. 1114). Congress knew by signing the bill, they were expecting each American to give up a part of his or her guaranteed rights. Rights such as the right to privacy, free speech and the right to know when a citizen is being investigated by the government were just among a few. The act has been described as a “law enforcement wish list” (Stravelli, 2003, p. 1). The wish list allows law enforcement to “obtain people’s personal information and conduct surveillance, and in some cases impose secrecy on their law enforcement activities” (Update: USA Patriot Act, 2007, p. 1).
Taylor, James Stacey. "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance." Public Affairs Quarterly July 2005: 227-246.
5 Dec. 2013. Gorman, Siobhan, and Jennifer Valentino-Deveries. New Details Show Broader NSA Surveillance Reach. " The Wall Street Journal. N.p., 20 Aug. 2013.
One of the many details shown is that mass surveillance has not had an apparent impact on the prevention of terrorism (Greenwald, 2013). Most of the information gathered has not been used to impede a terrorist attack. Surveillance does not protect the rights to life, property and so on from being violated by terrorists. However it gives the citizen...
The world erupted in outrage following revelations by Edward Snowden regarding the extent of surveillance perform by the National Security Agency. Privacy becomes one of the hottest topic of 2013 and was chosen by the world’s most popular online dictionary, Dictionary.com, as the Word of the Year. However, the government is not the only one that conduct data gathering and surveillance. Employers often monitor their employees, and businesses collect data on theirs customer. The morality of these practices is a topic that generates heated debate.
There has always been surveillance of the general public conducted by the United States government, the usual justifications being upholding the security of the nation, weeding out those who intend to bring harm to the nation, and more. But the methods for acquiring such information on citizens of the United States were not very sophisticated many years ago, so the impact of government surveillance was not as great. As a result of many technological advancements today, the methods for acquiring personal information - phone metadata, internet history and more - have become much simpler and sophisticated. Many times, the information acquired from different individuals is done so without their consent or knowledge. The current surveillance of people by the United States government is unethical because it is done so without consent and it infringes on a person’s rights to privacy and personal freedom.
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.
A major reason the U.S. needs to increase restrictions on the type and amount of data collected on individuals from the internet is due to the fact that the United States government can track communications and browsing histories of private citizens without warrant or cause. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, ...
Gonchar, Michael. “What Is More Important: Our Privacy or National Security?” New York Times. New York Times, 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.