Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Right to Privacy First Amendment
Snowden - national security - ethics
Snowden - national security - ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Right to Privacy First Amendment
Civil Rights: Government Surveillance
The idea of “government surveillance” and “privacy” has been an interesting subject matter that has been recently introduced by Edward Snowden and is seen as a controversial topic in the U.S (Roleff). Citizens of the United States of America have certain rights to privacy that are stated by law. These rights are important as any other and should be respected by government officials. Just like any other law, it is the job of the government to protect these rights granted to the citizens. However, due to terrorists’ attacks such as the massive attack on September 11, 2001, the government is taking extra precautions and measures to ensure the safety of the people (Obama). This includes spying or hacking into
…show more content…
The purpose of it was “to punish the willful injury or destruction of war material, or of war premises or utilities used in connection with war material, and for other purposes” (Espionage Act of 1918). This means that this act protected the U.S. from any potential domestic threat that would ruin the chances of being successful in the war at the time, which was World War I. With this act in place, not only who whoever broke it would be punished, but it also served as an incentive for others to not attempt to break it. In return, allowed the information from the government to still be kept as a …show more content…
But it is important to realize that with this new and improved security, the government has faltered to uphold their duties in protecting the privacy rights of U.S. citizens. There are several laws and acts that go against the citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights and some action should be taken to re-ensure that all of the citizens’ rights are protected. The NSA’s method of spying on citizens has proven to not only be contradictory towards a person’s Fourth Amendment right, but also a secret that has only recently surfaced and should be brought to the attention of all citizens. The overall protection of one’s privacy is in a full-fledged debate within the government system; as well as citizens who are deciding if the government’s surveillance methods have [gone] too far (“NSA Files: Decoded”). As the debate carries on, whichever method that proves to fix the problem will become known as time
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.
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.
...merican soil, the question remains as to how much privacy Americans really possess. Yes, security in the person and home is still at the discretion of law enforcement, but how far will the government reach in what seems to be an elaborate effort to gain total control over what the Constitution defines as a free society? This, and many other questions remain unanswered today, but it must be remembered that this is a government of, for, and by the people, not a dictatorship that it has come to be in today’s world.
During World War I, Congress would authorize two controversial pieces of legislation: the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. The Espionage Act was ratified in order to “suppress the spread of alleged disloyalty and to maintain the public image of remarkable national unity behind the war effort” (James and Wells, 71). The act inhibited the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and some of which seems the antithesis of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Most of the Espionage Act would be in effect only during times of war, but two of the provisions stayed in effect during times of peace. In times of peace and war, the Espionage Act granted the “issue of search warrants for the seizure of property used as a means of committing a felony” (“Treason”, 223).
The feeling that someone is always watching, develops the inevitable, uncomfortable feeling that is displeasing to the mind. For years, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been monitoring people for what they call, “the greater good of the people” (Cole, February 2014). A program designed to protect the nation while it protects the walls within as it singles people out, sometimes by accident. Whether you are a normal citizen or a possible terrorist, the NSA can monitor you in a variation of ways. The privacy of technology has sparked debates across the world as to if the NSA is violating personal rights to privacy by collecting personal data such as, phone calls and text messages without reason or authorization (Wicker, 2011). Technology plays a key role in society’s day to day life. In life, humans expect privacy, even with their technology. In recent news, Edward Snowden leaked huge pieces from the NSA to the public, igniting these new controversies. Now, reforms are being pressed against the government’s throat as citizens fight for their rights. However, American citizens are slammed with the counterargument of the innocent forte the NSA tries to pass off in claims of good doing, such as how the NSA prevents terrorism. In fear of privacy violations, limitations should be put on the NSA to better protect the privacy of our honest citizens.
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...
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up one value in order to gain another. This concept of individual right goes beyond the simple idea of “individual comfort.” Personal liberties cannot be surrendered and are not to be compromised since these liberties are intangible. Individuals should not have their personal liberties exchanged for national security because individuals are guaranteed protection to these rights.
Since the beginning of American history, citizens who resided the country lacked the basic civil rights and liberties that humans deserved. Different races and ethnicities were treated unfairly. Voting rights were denied to anyone who was not a rich, white male. Women were harassed by their bosses and expected to take care of everything household related. Life was not all that pretty throughout America’s past, but thankfully overtime American citizens’ civil liberties and rights expanded – granting Americans true freedom.
In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of the Brown v. the Board of Education. This was a very historical moment because their ruling eliminated, the "separate but equal " doctrine. Their ruling called for school integration, although most school were very slow in complying if they complied at all. The NAACP, National Association for the Advancement of Color People, viewed this ruling as a success. The schools lack of the obedience toward this ruling, made it necessary for black activism to make the federal government implement the ruling, and possibly help close the racial gap that existed in places other than public schools. During one of the boycotts for equality, a leader emerged that would never be forgotten. Dr. Martin Luther King, who was leader of the Montgomery bus boycott, quickly became the spokesperson for racial equality. He believed that the civil rights movement would have more success if the black people would use non violent tactics. Some say he was adopting the style of Ghandi. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, SCLC, was formed by King and other activist in 1957. They were a group of black ministers and activist who agreed to try and possibly help others see the effects of a non violent movement. Also following the strategies set by the SCLC, a group known as the SNCC or the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, began a string of sit-in and campaigns as the black population continued it's fight for equality. It was the undying efforts of the two groups that paved the way for the march on Washington. This march which drew a crowd of at least 200,000, was the place that Dr. King, gave his famous "dream speech." Both the SNCC, and the SCLC were victims of lots of threats and attempted attacks, yet they continued to pursue freedom in a non violent fashion. However near the late 60's they had another problem on their hands. There was a group of activist known as the Black Panthers who were not so eager to adopt the non-violent rule. The believed that the civil rights movement pushed by Dr. King and is non-violent campaign, which was meant to give blacks the right to vote and eliminate segregation, was not solving problems faced in poor black communities. This Black Panther group, stabled the term "black power", which was used a sort of uplifting for the black self esteem.
Domestic Surveillance Citizens feeling protected in their own nation is a crucial factor for the development and advancement of that nation. The United States’ government has been able to provide this service for a small tax and for the most part it is money well spent. Due to events leading up to the terrifying attacks on September 11, 2001 and following these attacks, the Unites States’ government has begun enacting certain laws and regulations that ensure the safety of its citizens. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 to the most recent National Security Agency scandal, the government has attempted and for the most part succeeded in keeping domestic safety under control. Making sure that the balance between obtaining enough intelligence to protect the safety of the nation and the preservation of basic human rights is not extremely skewed, Congress has set forth requisites in FISA which aim to balance the conflicting goals of privacy and security; but the timeline preceding this act has been anything but honorable for the United States government.
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.
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.
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.
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