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. Undeniably, there is reasoning behind a watchful government. After 9/11, anti-terrorism acts were in high gear and legislators passed the Patriot Act, which increased the amount of surveillance powers that the government held (Savage para 1). It makes sense; a country shaken by terrorism would live fearfully without the comfort of the government eavesdropping on other possibly dangerous plots; the same goes for countries that are often affected by terrorism. The surveillance can deny criminals access to communication and prevent terrorist plots (Eijkman 139), This explains why after 9/11, Americans were practically begging for more surveillance (Savage para 1). Now that America is in a state of recovery and relaxation, there is absolute uproar over the NSA and other government surveillance agencies. It does... ... middle of paper ... ...The Washington Post (2013). Web. 12 February 2014. .apo.21558cdc-cf99-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497>. Web. 19 February 2014. . Zuckerman, Mortimer B. "Let's Use All the Tools." US News & World Report 140.20 (2006). Web. 12 February 2014. .
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.
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.
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.
Every citizen has a fundamental right to privacy. No citizen should have the government looking at his or her information without his or her permission. The amendments in the constitution should be enough to protect citizen’s privacy. The government should not have the right to collect people’s personal information.
The past decade has seen a proliferation of law enforcement security cameras in public areas, with central London having more cameras than any other city. In cities like New York, Los Angeles, and central London, cameras can be found at almost every intersection. Terrorist attacks have been a major basis for this significant increase in law enforcement security cameras; however, privacy advocates, along with many of the public, feel that it’s an invasion of privacy. People are concerned that all this video surveillance, which is continuously expanding, has created a “Big Brother” society, where people are constantly watched. This creates paranoia and unease for people that just want to go about living there private lives, without feeling that their every move is being watched. The increased presence of surveillance cameras is almost compared to George Orwell’s novel from 1984, where he imagined a future in which people would be monitored and controlled by the government. One question that needs to be asked is: does the benefits of law enforcement security cameras outweigh the negative sides to it? Although the invasion of privacy is a serious argument against law enforcement cameras; nevertheless, it should be seen as a valuable tool to help fight crime. As long as surveillance cameras are in public places and not in people's homes, privacy advocates should not be concerned.
“The Dangers of surveillance,” was written by Neil M. Richard. In this article, the author had made more than three warning to the general public regarding the government surveillance and the dangers that come with the surveillance. He wants to make sure that as the general public, we the people need to understand the purposes of the surveillance and how it can affect us on our daily life. His first warning was, “the government surveillance is harmful because it can chill the exercise of our civil liberties.” The second warning, “special harm that surveillance pose is it effect on the power dynamic between the watcher and the watched.” The third warning, “surveillance menaces our intellectual privacy and threaten the development of individual
Citizens may also feel that the government has lost their trust by choosing to keep them under continuous surveillance. This leads to the original cause of surveillance, “why are we being watched?” And this naturally flows into, “is it necessary”? The manner in which it is carried out also plays a role in the ethics. Function creep is a factor to take into account as many times surveillance can take on a new use that may or may not be justifiable. Allowing the government to constantly surveil its citizens exerts its power and can become over powered. There are also many other ethical reasons that include the evidence that the proliferation of surveillance does not help, and in some cases can even hinder, the chances of catching a terrorist or suspect. It also is a very large financial burden and then even more so weighing what comes of it, which is nothing if speaking in terms of terrorism (which is why surveillance exists according to Patriot Act). This, like many other cases concerning privacy and surveillance, beg the question where is the line drawn and who is responsible for enforcing
Ball, Kirstie, David Lyon, Clive Norris, and Charles Raab. "A Report on the Surveillance Society." BBC News. Ed. David Murakami-Wood. BBC, 11 Feb. 2006. Web. 19 Feb. 2014.
The surveillance laws are generally not morally upright because of the consequences of their implementation. The use of personal data by rogue officers or cyber criminals to access personal documents and finances of the citizen is a morally degraded activity that occurs due to the implementation of the surveillance (Rice, 2015). Moreover, the citizens do not free when providing sensitive information regarding illegal activities in the society because of the notion that the authorities can use their personal data to intimidate or destabilize their lives. The adoption of the mass surveillance policy promotes discrimination in the society. The main goal of the establishment of these policies was to enhance national security by predicting the activities of criminals in the society (Rice, 2015). In this case, the authorities would acquire information about terror plans by tapping into the telephone call of the citizens. The laws however promote religious and racial discrimination in the society, which undermines the aspect of morality in the laws. Most of the terror activities in the United States are associated with certain religious and racial characters; the implementation of such laws shifts the focus of the authorities from the general population to individuals with specific religious and racial
In this paper, I argue against government surveillance advocates. In recent years, many whistleblowers revelations have making awareness of the government surveillance activities. The surveillance program has relinquished people’s privacy. Additionally, the activities that take place under the government surveillance program strikes, citizens over their rights-to-privacy. The surveillance is deposing the citizens' privacy and arise the concern of what the government intent is. Not-only-but-also, it violates the constitutional right of unreasonable search and seizure warrantlessly. The constitution protects people’s over government abuse of power and should be respected.
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.
In 1949, George Orwell wrote the book titled ‘Nineteen Eighty- four’, which first put forth the idea of an omniscient government that could see and hear every action and word that its people undertook. Little did Orwell know- or perhaps he did know- that such an idea would, today, be a reality. Satellites can identify and follow any person on the face of this Earth. The content of our very thoughts and intended actions can be made known by what we post on the internet, which is analysed by people working in IT companies like Apple and Google, and even analysts in the defense sectors of governments. Proof of this is seen in the fact that advertisements, which pop up while we are logged into our email accounts, are related to the content of our most recently sent emails. Send a friend an email telling them that you are going for a holiday to Goa and immediately, pop ups relating to resorts and tourist sites in Goa, will appear. ‘Big Brother is Watching You’ literally epitomizes this idea in shows like ‘Big Boss’ and ‘Big Brother’ where a bunch of people are monitored via audio and video equipment, with their consent of course. For the purpose of this essay, we look at the concept of monitoring in the context of the organization, the ways in which it is carried out, the manner and purposes for which it is used, the negative effects of such monitoring, and the optimal way in which it can be carried on so as to diminish these negative effects .
For example, most of us have gotten in trouble by employees for bouncing a basketball inside a store. We do it because we assume there is no employee watching us, yet they are. As a matter of fact, cameras work the same way. Knowing that there is someone behind a specific camera is intimidating because you are not be able to tell when they are watching. Penney, a researcher, took this study further and did research at Harvard Law School’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet. He presented a study on effect of Americans’ behavior. He stated that “the fact that you won’t do things, means you will self-censor, are the worst effects of pervasive surveillance.” He gives the example of how China has one of the world’s largest camera surveillance. By all means, it is allowing them to self-censor and not showing their true self. However the cameras are working in allowing the people to feel intimidated causing them to always do the right thing. It sets boundaries and demonstrates individuals where the “line ends.” Therefore, he argues that the effectiveness of surveillance will not stop crimes or terrorism, but will control the
First, one must discover the real reason why the government feels the urgency it does to spy on America’s people. The biggest argued reason is due to national security. In fact, just a few short weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the USA Patriot Act was passed. The Act was a revision for national surveillance laws and how far the government could really go when it came to watching Americans in their own homes. During the frightening weeks and months after September 11th, when Americans were looking to feel safe again, the Patriot Act gave them a sense of security. It let them know that if a terrorist was within our borders again, much like the terrorists of 9/11, the government would have a higher chance of catching him, making the chan...
There has been a lot of debate on whether or not the government should be conceded to execute an invasion of privacy on its citizens. Government organizations such as the CIA have been closely monitoring daily feeds that are uploaded or shared on social media, blogs, and even forums. Chats have also been scrutinized, but most people would fail to agree to the general term of this type of invasion as it is ‘against our constitutional rights’. There are others, however, that would concede to this privacy invasion due to the fact that it may warn or prepare citizens and law enforcement to terrorist acts that continue to happen all around the world. This paper will tell the overview and the legal definition of privacy invasion, how privacy has adapted to our current modern society and in our daily lives, and laws or amendments that have to do with privacy invasion.