Terrorism, it's one of the worst things that can ever happen to mankind. The NSA’s goal is to prevent this horrible threat and save lives. So far the NSA has prevented 54 terrorist attacks around the world. Take a second to think about how many lives have been able to be lived because of this. Many people would say the NSA are stalkers and should not be doing what they're doing, tell that to the thousands of lives that have been saved. As of right now the NSA is monitoring about 200 phone numbers for FBI security. That means you have less than a 1% chance of being monitored. Unless you are a terrorist with evil plots, I highly doubt that the less than 1% of people being “stalked” is you. This is why the NSA is barely an infringement on privacy. The NSA is committed to protecting our country by …show more content…
fending off terrorists. How do they do it? The NSA probes digital activity such as Email, web searches, and instant messaging. This data is crucial to identify potential terrorists before they act. People should be open to this and not think it's an infringement of privacy because when posting something on social media the account is basically giving it off for anybody to see, and users should know that anyone can access it. This being said the NSA searches social media and other things similar for no other reason but to protect the country we know and love and if you don't like that, then you should get off social media. Restating in the thesis, 54 attacks have been prevented since 9-11 so clearly there probing of social media, web searches, and instant messaging is highly effective. Why should stop such a great thing that protects U.S. citizens and on top of it is working so well? The NSA is a government agency that is very serious and does not waste valuable time looking at pointless phone calls and records.
When people say that the NSA needs to stop spying they are wrong. The NSA’s goal is not spying but identifying people who are a potential threat to this country, before it is too late. That being said, as stated in the thesis, as of right now the NSA is currently monitoring about 200 phone numbers. In fact, by law the NSA is only allowed to collect information contained on the phone bill, namely the numbers dialed and the duration of the call. If they need to listen in on a call they need to obtain a warrant from a judge. This is why the NSA is barely an infringement on privacy because they only listen to your calls if they think you could be planning an attack on the U.S., if you are not then you are your calls are most definitely not being listened in on. If the NSA isn't even listing on your calls, please tell me, what are all the protests and fuss about? Exactly, they are pretty much protesting about the NSA keeping the country safe. I don't know about you but I don't think this a topic we should be protesting about, if not
supporting. If I were to put myself in your shoes I can see why you are significantly insecure about the NSA and their ways. In order to keep this establishment going U.S. taxpayers combined pay about 10 billion dollars a year to keep the NSA going. With everybody who pays taxes in the U.S. this is a lot to ask for, but then again all the money goes to an organization that saves thousands of lives. People become very insecure when they know that the NSA probes text messages, social networks, and web searches. But think about it, do the costs of being probed outweigh the benefits? When the NSA does this they use the data to “connect the dots” in order to identify potential terrorists before they act. When you feel insecure you are not physically being hurt nor are you losing people close to you. If the NSA were to stop probing there would be thousands of innocent lives killed which could lead to something even greater like a horrible world war. I do not want to push to conclusions but with 50 plus terrorist attacks since 9-11 the earth would definitely be going in the wrong direction. Insecurity is one thing, but wars, terrorists, and thousands of people dying is a whole nother issue. In fact I think I would be pretty insecure knowing that so many horrible things such as terrorist attacks are waiting to happen. But because of the NSA I am not as insecure because knowing there are people who are committed to preventing these sort of things I feel alot more safer knowing the NSA is doing there job. In conclusion, the NSA is a crucial to protecting our nation. The NSA is highly successful and should keep doing what they're doing. Without this establishment we are basically telling the terrorists that our country is free to bomb, and that is not ok. The NSA only closely monitors data that is suspicious and important. The NSA aren't spies but there hard working people trying to protect our country. With 54 terrorist attacks prevented since 9-11, we should give them lots of respect and not be insecure about them knowing that they are the reason thousands of lives are saved. All in all the NSA should keep doing what they're doing and not be overthrown by protesters and everything ulike.
How would you feel if everything you did on the internet, every text you sent, and every call you made was seen by someone? That is what the NSA is doing right now. According to Wikipedia, the National Security Agency is a national-level intelligence agency of the United States of Defense, under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.[1] They have been a controversial topic since the 1970s when it was revealed that they had been wiretapping Americans’ telephones. Their surveillance has only grown since then, even though most Americans disagree with it. [2] The NSA’s domestic surveillance is unconstitutional, ineffective, and a violation of privacy that needs to be stopped.
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
The United States has lived through an age of terrorism and the citizens have come to realize that they would rather ensure the safety of the masses than protect their privacy. Works Cited Cunningham, David. A. "The Patterning of Repression: FBI Counterintelligence and the New Left." Social Forces 82.1 (2003): 209–40. JSTOR.com - "The New York Times" Oxford Journals.
“There are about 3 billion phone calls made within the USA every day” (Romano). Now picture you’re calling your friend on the phone. Sometimes we can take small privilege like this for granted. Now imagine that the government is listening to every single phone conversation that we make. Why wouldn’t this scare you? I know it terrifies me. Wiretaps are a problem that concerns every single person in the country. But it isn’t just wiretaps; with a program called Prism the NSA has obtained direct access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Apple, and other US internet giants (Glenn). Everything we search for on Google, every message sent or received on Facebook, every item purchased on Apple is all seen by the NSA. The government is overusing their power to spy on its citizens and it needs to stop.
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 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).
The NSA and U.S. government sifting through our private information is but a small inconvenience that we must sacrifice in order to protect our own freedom and safety. Domestic Surveillance roots back to the 1910’s, where the assassination of President McKinley, created a Bureau of Investigation that would trace the efforts of the Communists attempting an uprising in America. This would be the foundings behind Domestic Surveillance in America, and would continue on after World War II where the government created the NSA and CIA, with the main purposes
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.
What Are Your Rights Worth? George Edward Peele III King &Low Heywood Thomas School. National security has been greatly enhanced by the passage of the Patriot Act. The USA PATRIOT Act is an act of Congress that was signed by President Bush in 2001. The title of the act is a ten-letter acronym that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.
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
Evidence can prove that Miranda Rights should be an important right for the citizens of the United States Of America but should not be a digression or inconsequential and that shows Equality,liberty and justice. If we didn't have miranda rights we would end in a deleterious situation which would end in disaster for example, the police requirement to remember few amendment portrayed to Miranda Rights to recommend citizens that are inculpable to go to jail by police who can fabricate the situation.Evils don't have rights for other citizens like Paris which some of the victims have to be interrogated for a few days. “The Miranda warning prevents police from taking advantage of suspects who have been arrested or are in police custody. The Miranda Court determined that these protections were necessary to
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
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.
Using surveillance and investigation the government would be able to detect if someone has committed a crime and imprison them based on the evidence. If the person did not commit the crime they would go free and their name cleared. Yet these suspects have not been jailed before hand. In this scenario, why is it ethical for the government to surveill these people? The reason that this is considered ethical is because the government knows how to carry out surveillance and the proper people trained in information gathering are carrying it out and the information is being properly handled. Police officers, detectives or other officers of the law, those who carry out surveillance are trained in it and know how to handle the information gathered. They are the correct people to verify someone’s innocence because they know how to verify innocence or guilt. Surveillance does have a valid purpose of verification and justice, and if the alternatives are worse, nonexistent or need surveillance to supplement the evidence then it would be necessary to use surveillance and the purpose is proportional to the means of surveillance. Their cause is valid, if a crime has been committed to maintain justice and the safety of the people it is
Keeping your privacy is getting harder and harder to do, but even though the privacy setting can help to an extent, they don’t always work the way they should. Putting information out for the public eye to see can be a risk but could also be used to the Facebook users advantage. With this comes a loss of privacy that the user has to deal with. No matter how many privacy settings are used or are changed they never a guaranty of full privacy. The only real way to guaranty this is to stay away from social media completely. With that we would lose the connected world we have today.