"The internet was modernized and popularized during the early to mid-1990's with the creation of the 'world wide web.' Since then, our dependence on internet use for research, entertainment, and communication has skyrocketed. Because the internet is still in its youth, no one really knows what to do regarding government monitoring of internet content and, while the argument could be made that monitoring browser searches and sites visited would help keep our country secure, the reality is that government monitoring of public internet use is much too expensive and goes against basic fourth amendment rights.
One of the most compelling arguments against open internet use is the easy trafficking of child pornography. Just recently, an account of child pornography has found its way into Facebook. As the Winston-Salem Journal puts it ""people are
…show more content…
sharing the video with the best intentions. They want to see the person in the video caught and get the child help. However, that is doing more harm than good and other law enforcement officials told the station that just re-victimizes the victim."" Despite the good intentions of many, the circulation of child porn is blatant. Government monitoring of the user who originally posted content like this, however, needn't go against the 4th amendment. Monitoring the internet use of known and convicted pedophiles or other sexual predators is within the grounds of a reasonable search and the same could be said for many other criminals. Another well-known internet crime is identity theft.
Many believe that crimes like these require government monitoring to protect the people. Identity theft, or the act of stealing someone's personal information, is not new in any respect. The only thing that has changed is the decreased difficulty in acquiring this information. According to CNBC ""Some 15.4 million consumers were victims of identity theft or fraud last year...in all, thieves stole $16 billion."" Crimes like these, however, are caught rapidly averaging around a week's time. Another important factor to consider is that the passwords that we use are largely unoriginal. I, myself, am guilty of having a single password for many important internet accounts. The reality is that no matter how much the government tries to hunt down cyber identity thieves, they will still exist. What we can do as consumers, like having strong passwords and monitoring our credit, is far greater than anything the government could do for us. (And that's not even mentioning any costs or legal implications the government would have to face if they were to monitor transactions or password
use) The internet is a very powerful thing; it can be used to create or destroy. The nature of the internet is dangerous, but it all branches back to an all too similar human nature. The internet is only dangerous because people make it so. The internet isn't an entity that creates or destroys, it's a vehicle we, as a country and as humans, use to speed up our communications. With this acceleration comes greater risk, but this greater risk does not call for unnecessary government intervention and monitoring. While the government does have a duty to reasonably monitor criminals like convicted pedophiles, they should not be allowed to enter into our private lives and look at everything we look at or purchase. "
Abstract: This paper provides an analysis of the privacy issues associated with governmental Internet surveillance, with a focus on the recently disclosed FBI tool known as Carnivore. It concludes that, while some system of surveillance is necessary, more mechanisms to prevent abuse of privacy must exist.
Studs Lonigan is the protagonist and the name of the trilogy of three novels, Young Lonigan, the Young Manhood of Studs Lonigan and Judgment Day, by the American author James T. Farrell. The novel is a classic depiction of Irish life in the South side of Chicago and how Studs Lonigan comes of age in the setting. It is particularly in the second part that Farrell brings to light the venom of racism and how its unchecked spread helped to produce and reproduce the ghetto. The main reason Farrell cites for writing the book is the urban world that he knew had never been portrayed honestly enough in fiction. In his words, ‘I am a second-generation Irish-American. The effects and scars of immigration are upon my life. The past was dragging through my boyhood and adolescence’ (Farrell, 1993). It was the acrimony that Farrell had for the Irish Chicago neighborhood in which he grew up that led him to write the novel. In his opinion the Catholic parish church as the neighborhood’s primary institution was a great obscurant whereby the immigrants and their children were always uncertain of their identity and place in the new land (Byrne, 2006).
The authors of these passages have very different ideas about censorship. After evaluation I will determine which passage states a stronger argument. I believe that Passage 1 provides a stronger argument over Passage 2.
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.
In mid March of 1998, a scientific break through occurred for the engineers at NASA. The space probe that they sent to Mars came back and, for the first time, contained readable and usable photographs of the planet's landscape. Full of pride over their latest achievement, NASA posted the information on the Internet. This allowed astronomy enthusiasts, students, and other interested individuals to take a first hand look at the, never before seen, Martian Landscape. (NASA)
"Internet Censorship." What does this mean to us? What is restricted? Censorship is summarily defined as the suppression of objectionable material. That means that material such as pornography, militant information, offensive language, anti-religion, and racism would be restricted in use. Freedom would not only be restricted to material placed on the web, but also what you could access, and where you could explore. Should the right of Freedom of Speech be taken away from us on the Internet? Having stated this, should there be any restrictions and if so, what's the limit of censorship?
Part of the allure of the Internet has always been the anonymity it offers its users. As the Internet has grown however, causing capitalists and governments to enter the picture, the old rules are changing fast. E-commerce firms employ the latest technologies to track minute details on customer behavior. The FBI's Carnivore email-tracking system is being increasingly used to infringe on the privacy of netizens. Corporations now monitor their employees' web and email usage. In addition to these privacy infringements, Internet users are also having their use censored, as governments, corporations, and other institutions block access to certain sites. However, as technology can be used to wage war on personal freedoms, it can also be employed in the fight against censorship and invasion of privacy.
The government gives each American citizen a set of unalienable rights that protect them from the government’s power. These rights cannot be broken, yet the government violates the Fourth Amendment daily to find ways to spy on the American public under the guise of protecting against terrorism. In 2007 President Obama said the American administration “acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our securities – it is not.” Americans need to understand that their privacy is worth the fight. The people need to tell their neighbors, their congressmen, and their senators that they will not allow their internet privacy to be violated by needless spying. American citizens deserve the rights given to them and need to fight for the right to keep them by changing privacy laws to include Internet privacy.
Censorship is Necessary to Protect Children from the Internet Do you want our future generations being exposed to violence, hate, sexuality, illegal substances, and false information, and then one day think it would be cool or alright to try these things? The internet is filled with dangerous information, that children should never have the freedom to access. Children learn from example, and if they search, watch, or read something on the web that could be potentially dangerous, they could be influenced or curious and think that it would be alright to imitate one day. If our children now are viewing these things, it could mean that future generations could grow to be more violent and our world could become more dangerous than it already is today. Censorship is necessary if we plan on having our kids grow up in the safest environment possible.
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.
Internet is a powerful tool that allows users to collaborate and interact with others all over the world conveniently and relatively safely. It has allowed education and trade to be accessed easily and quickly, but all these benefits do not come without very taxing costs. This is especially true when dealing with the likes of the Internet. Countries in the European Union and Asia have realized this and have taken action against the threat of net neutrality to protect their citizens, even at the cost of online privacy. Internet censorship is required to protect us from our opinions and vices. Every country should adopt Internet censorship and regulation since it improves society by reducing pornography, racism/prejudice, and online identity theft.
In this new era of the Internet, most people use the Internet to acquire information of one kind or other. But what these people are not aware of is that the Internet is collecting information about them. Every time we get onto the Internet there might be a compromise of privacy of our personal information. The information flows both ways. With every clock of the mouse on a hyperlink, or an addition to the mailing list, someone out there might be gathering information about us. This raises the seriousness of privacy of our information on the Internet.
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, ...
The Internet provides a gateway for an individual to speak freely and anonymously without being targeted to what he or she said. With this said, one of the biggest issues concerning the Internet today is freedom of speech. The issue of free speech on the Internet has been a topic of discussion around the world within the past years. It is a unique communication medium and is powerful than the traditional media[2]. Because the Internet can not be compared equally to other mediums of communication, it deserves the utmost freedom of speech protection from the government. The restriction of speech on the Internet takes away from individual's rights and freedom from experiencing the Internet's benefits and uses. Information found on the Internet is endless and boundless and this poses the question, "should the government be allowed to regulate the information and content being transmitted or posted online?"
The Internet is an extremely educational and communicative tool. Everyone can access a tremendous amount of information and connect with people on the other end of the planet; it is capable of doing everything. Nowadays, the society is facing a variety of challenges and controversies which are mostly related to religion, morality, the economic crisis, etc., and the most talked-about issue in today’s world is “Internet censorship”. Although the Internet is very useful, many people are suggesting the idea of censoring the Internet; however, the government should not censor the Internet because a free and open Internet usage has many positive impacts on people’s lives.