More handpicked essays just for you.
Surveillance in america
Government surveillance in the united states
Government surveillance in the united states
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
How do you feel about the government being able to watch what you are doing twenty-four seven? The government should not be allowed to track every move of our citizens. They should not invade our privacy. The general public, until proven guilty of a crime, has not posed a threat to society. Surveilling the general public is just direful. The crimes in the past generations are the same as this generation, we are not any safer now than we were then. The government should not, to any extent, be allowed to monitor our citizens in the general public.
Whether we are at the airport or the grocery store, our whereabouts shouldn’t matter to the government. They shouldn’t be allowed to track our every move. Our day to day life is ours to do with as we freely choose. Tracking devices should be placed in our prison system to monitor those that have committed crimes. Why can’t we track what the government is doing if they can track what we are
…show more content…
That’s just direful! Have you ever felt like someone is watching you? That uneasy feeling creeps over you. The government should to no extent cause you to feel this way. If a person from the general public behaved in this manner, they would be considered a “creeper’. What makes it ok for the government to behave in such a detestable way. The government typically argues that if you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. Surveilling the general public is direful.
Do you know the reasons that The 4th amendment was put into place? It was put in place by the Framers of our country. The cause of this amendment was due to the British tax collectors going door-to-door performing questionable searches and seizures. Their ethics to collect the taxes went unchecked until local peace officers were established to ‘assist’ in these collections. The 4th amendment
The 4th Amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
According to the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Without the Fourth Amendment, people would have no rights over their own personal privacy. Police officers could just enter people’s houses and take anything that they could use as evidence and use it against them. With the advancement in today’s technology, it is getting more and more difficult to define what exactly privacy is to us, and whether or not the Fourth Amendment protects it.
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found in the unlawful search and seizure must be excluded as per the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th amendment violations. Before a remedy can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court must determine whether the 4th amendment is applicable to a particular case. The 4th Amendment only applies when certain criteria are met. The first criterion is that the government must be involved in a search or seizure via government action.
The Fourth Amendment provides protection against unlawful warrants, searches and/or seizures with insufficient evidence, and what will constitute the terms of a warrant. The Fourth Amendment is based on three main principles. The first principle is that the authorities must have sufficient evidence as to why they believe the desired piece of evidence would be located in the area. For example, if the authorities were in search of a murder weapon they must have sufficient forensic evidence that would provide enough support that the weapon would be located at the specific spot. The second principle is that when searching an individual’s private home the reason should be focused on evidence to support the search. For instance, if the cops were to search the home of an individual accused of a crime any types of writings or plans that may be present in the home may be confiscated if they are deemed necessary in support of the search. The final principle is that a blanket warrant must not be used as a method of bypassing the first two principles. For example, if the authorities could not solve what kind of weapon was used or where the evidence would be located they cannot have a warrant that covers any possible scenarios in a broad range. The original notion of the Fourth Amendment was to enforce the belief that “each man’s home is his castle”
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.
“The Fourth Amendment wasn't written for people with nothing to hide any more than the First Amendment was written for people with nothing to say.” (Dave Krueger). The Fourth Amendment protects the people's values, including the right of privacy. The Fourth Amendment includes, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure, shall not be violated.” When the founding fathers created the Constitution they ensured the people fundamental laws that would be used to any issue portrayed in the Supreme Court. That gave the people a relief that no one is ever above the law that is created. The privacy of the people was a very big value enforced by warrants. In the case of the
In the late 1700's the 4th Amendment was written because of strong objections to the Writs of Assistance or general warrants. The Writs Assistance gave officials the right to enter any home and seize belongings without a reasonable cause. (Grolier Encyclopedia) The 4th amendment was ratified in the Bill of Rights on December 15, 1771. This amendment protects the people's right to privacy and security. (Encarta Online)
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
A-58). It also requires “a warrant that specifically describes the place to be searched, the person involved, and suspicious things to be seized” (Goldfield et al. A- 58). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people by preventing public officials from searching homes or personal belonging without reason. It also determines whether “someone 's privacy is diminished by a governmental search or seizure” (Heritage). This amendment protects citizens from having evidence which was seized illegally “used against the one whose privacy was invaded” (Heritage). This gives police incentive to abide by the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects a person’s privacy “only when a person has a legitimate expectation to privacy” (FindLaw). This means the police cannot search person’s home, briefcase, or purse. The Fourth Amendment also requires there to be certain requirements before a warrant can be issued. The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant “when the police search a home or an office, unless the search must happen immediately, and there is no opportunity to obtain a warrant” (Heritage). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of the people, but also the safety of the people. When there is probable cause, a government official can destroy property or subdue a suspect. The Fourth Amendment prevents government officials from harassing the public.
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
One of the foremost reasons the government is monitoring the populace is to discover those people in the general public that are involved in major crimes or terrorism activities. Many supporters of state surveillance are of the view that in order to discover those people involved in major terrorist or criminal activities the government must actively monitor all of its citizens through the use of surveillance. Since the government casts such a broad net of monitoring, they are using citizens as a means to an end. Whistleblower Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, leaked classified NSA flies that expose mass surveillance operations carried out by the NSA (Greenwald, 2013)
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.
On one side of this debate, many may say that the government watching us is invading our privacy and takes our freedom away as U.S citizens. That’s very true, knowing that the government is watching everything you do is invading our privacy. Parents are more concerned with “ Big Brother†watching because they know that their children are being watched. People now feel the need to watch everything they do because