Recently, James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, strongly blamed Edward Snowden, NSA whistleblower, for leading the development of user-friendly and widely available powerful encryption. Due to the Snowden revelations, the outbreak of commercial encryption has accelerated during last seven years. He said that the shortened timeline has accompanied a serious implications on their ability to accumulate information, especially against terrorists. He argued that the maturation and installation of commercially available encryption was accelerated, due to the revelation of the leaks. Technologists have been continuously studying a way to strengthen encryption. However, Snowden’s revelations about the pervasiveness of mass surveillance …show more content…
First of all, mass surveillance can invade personal privacy. Snowden eloquently says, “arguing that you do not care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is equal to saying you do not care about free speech because you have nothing to say” (Kleeman, “In One Quote, Snowden Just Destroyed the Biggest Myth About Privacy”). In other words, the right to privacy, just like the right to speak freely, is essential for all people. He added that people who think in such a way do not really understand the basic foundation of human rights. Basic and innate rights mean that nobody should be required to justify why they need the rights : one person agreeing to disregard one’s right to privacy does not mean everyone should follow suit. Also, Rand Paul, who conducted a filibuster about the renewal of the Patriot Act, claims that the majority of American people want to see mass surveillance reformed or ended (Kleemman, “In One Quote …show more content…
After the carnage in San Bernardino, California, by self-proclaimed IS supporters, Cruz opposed many politicians in his own party who were calling for consolidated government surveillance powers. Cruz argued that the accumulation of enormous records of ordinary American citizens could not prevent the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino, Boston, or elsewhere. When the focus of law enforcement and national security is on ordinary citizens rather than targeting terrorists and criminals, we tend to neglect them, at the same time, violating the constitutional rights of American
"The Triumph of Technique – The Logic of the NSA." LibrarianShipwreck. WordPress.com, 22 June 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
...vil rights and losing protection. Protection is more important but unnecessary spying should not be tolerated. “The sad truth is that most Americans have already lost the battle when it comes to keeping personal information absolutely private.”( Lee, M.Dilascio, Tracey M.4).
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...
Edward Snowden, the former National Security Agency (N.S.A) subcontractor turned whistle-blower is nothing short of a hero. His controversial decision to release information detailing the highly illegal ‘data mining’ practices of the N.S.A have caused shockwaves throughout the world and have raised important questions concerning how much the government actually monitors its people without their consent or knowledge. Comparable to Mark Felt in the Watergate scandals, Daniel Ellsberg with the Pentagon Papers, Edward Snowden joins the rank of infamous whistleblowers who gave up their jobs, livelihood, and forever will live under scrutiny of the public all in the service to the American people. Edward Snowden released information detailing the extent of the N.S.A breaches of American privacy and in doing so, became ostracized by the media and barred from freely reentering America, his home country.
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.
Much has changed in our governments view on what is considered to be violations of our individual rights. The argument is not about the ideal of privacy or the ideal of security, it is about the improper use of data collected by the government that is misrepresented and improperly utilized in violation of our very own Civil Rights and Liberties. This is allowed through silver tongued legal representation sponsored by the government for the government to exercise the ability to use loopholes in the legal system. The very Supreme Court in which we entrust to make the legal and moral decisions on privacy versus security is a judge nominated by the same political system (government) that has enacted such distrust. Our forefathers warned us in their speech and tried to save us in their laws. We have failed them by our actions and with our greed.
James Stacey Taylor's article, "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance" begins reviewing the concept of "Big Brother" as it was originally presented in George Orwell's 1984. The Big Brother started off as a fictional character in 1984-- a dictator of Oceania within a totalitarian state. Set within a society in which everyone is under complete surveillance by the authorities, mainly by telescreens, the people are constantly reminded of this by the phrase “Big Brother is watching you” (Wikipedia) . Taylor goes on to explain some examples of recent surveillance technology and how it is applied in lives today. An interesting note and comparison between today’s technology and that of the telescreens in 1984, is that people could be sure that they could not be watched by Big Brother’s telescreens by going out of the cities into the country, where they only had to take care that their conversations were not monitored by hidden microphones (Taylor 227). He contrasts the two, highlighting the fact that “Such an escape is not impossible, for spy satellites can be used to monitor people wherever they go” (277). From there, Taylor perpetuates the framework for his position on the Big Brother notion. Taylor argues that, "rather than opposing such an expansion of surveillance technology, its use should be encouraged -- and not only in the public realm" (227). Taylor’s argument presented in a more formal construction is as follows:
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.
Hulnick A.S. 2004 “Espionage: does it have a future in the 21st century” Brown Journal of World Affairs.
In the 21th century our lives are circled around technology, most noticeable our computers and smart phones. They encompass our business plans, private text messages, a hint in our political affiliation and the identity of our peers and family. In the June 2013 Edward Snowden, a former system administrator for the CIA leaked classified documents about NASA surveillance programs domestically and internationally. The sparked a fire of debate again between the balance of nation security over an individual’s private data. Snowden released information about the NSA’s PRISM program and collection of metadata. Under section 702 of the FISA (foreign intelligence surveillance act of 1978), it allows NSA to use information about non-domestic communications
It is important to not only know the two sides to the argument of a friend or foe, but to also know the facts as well. My goal in this paper is to present the facts without bias and to adequately portray the two sides of the argument. To give the full picture of Edward Snowden I must start with his role in the government. Edward Snowden never graduated from high school, nor did he graduate from community college (Yann 1). In 2003 he joined the U.S. Army briefly until he was discharged when he broke both his legs in a training accident (BBC 1).
Video cameras are being deployed around the nation to help with crime solving, but some people are concerned about their privacy. Having cameras to monitor public areas have shown to be useful in situations such as identifying the bombers of the Boston marathon in early 2013. There have also been issues with these cameras however, as people are concerned they are too invasive of their privacy and have been misused by police officers in the past. Some people want to find a balance in using cameras in public so that they can continue to help with crime solving while making sure they are not too invasive and are properly used.
Privacy is a right granted to all American citizens in the Fourth Amendment which states “people have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and lives against unreasonable search and seizures”. Although our founding fathers could have never predicted the technological advancements we have achieved today, it would be logical to assume that a person's internet and phone data would be considered their effects. This would then make actions such as secretive government surveillance illegal because the surveillance is done so without probable cause and would be considered unreasonable search or seizure. Therefore, access to a citizen’s private information should only be provided using probable cause with the knowledge and consent of those who are being investigated.
Americans’ personal privacy is being to be ruined by the rise of four different types of surveillance system. The four are: federal government agencies; state and local law enforcement entities; telecoms, web sites and Internet “apps” companies; and private data aggregators .The right to privacy is not derived from any source; however the Declaration of Human Rights states that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor attacks upon his honor or reputation"(Stone 348). The right to protection is also secured by the Privacy Act of 1974 and found through the in the first, fourth and fifth amendments of the United States Constitution.
I think there is a right to privacy. What privacy means is “the right to be left alone, or freedom from interference or intrusion” (IAPP,1). Every American citizen has the right to privacy whether it be privacy in their homes, the words in their emails, or daily activities. But not only do the American people have the right to privacy from other citizens, we also have the right to privacy from the government. If the government can keep their conversations, actions and secrets under lock and key then Americans can as well. But unfortunately, the Constitution does not explicitly say anything about “privacy” for the American people, it is left for open interpretation in multiple amendments. The main amendment that screams “privacy” is the fourth amendment.