More handpicked essays just for you.
Government surveillance and privacy issues
Is security more important than privacy
Government surveillance and privacy issues
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Government surveillance and privacy issues
Does Privacy Still Exist?
Privacy is a fundament right as a citizen of the United States, but do we truly have any? By definition, privacy is the state or condition of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. So that brings up the question of how do I truly feel about the program that was run by the NSA and made public knowledge by Edward Snowden? When it comes down to it I have very mixed feeling about the program that surveys the entire public and not just the bad guys. To get a true understanding of what exactly all of this entailed I watched United States of Secrets, Why Privacy Matters by Glenn Greenwald, Surveillance by John Oliver, and CitizenFour. Each one of these videos helped me have a greater understanding
…show more content…
Google tracks all of your navigation the web to supply ads for you in things that they think you would like, but they don’t see this as an invasion of privacy because it has some benefit to us. But when Glenn Greenwald asked the CEO of Google for him to email him all of the passwords for his personal emails he wouldn’t turn them over. So there is truly a double standard of what privacy is because companies and the government don’t feel it as a violation when there is some good being done from it but yet wouldn’t want their privacy invaded in the same way that they do on a daily basis to the public. So you can find arguments on both side that are for it and against it that can back up your opinion but at the end of the day the same question is asked: Does privacy still matter? In my opinion, it matters because if we have no sense of privacy why even have the first and fourth amendment at all. For if nothing is truly private are we on our way to a society like in the book 1984 where people were watched at all times and were in constant
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.
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:
Carnivore is the FBI's latest toy. All the time we hear about how it is an invasion to privacy, and while I do agree it does have serious problems it also has some moral dilemmas. For example who is subject to Carnivore and where is it located? How much and What kind of information is the FBI interested in getting?
Snowden's leaks provided the people with important information proving The NSA was and still is collecting and storing massive amounts of data on billions of innocent U.S Citizens without warrants or probable cause to help keep the people safe from foreign and domestic enemies. It is believed to be one of the biggest leaks in history of government information. Most societies already lives in constant surveillance outside of their homes. There are cameras watching people most everywhere they go. Schools, shopping malls, and the streets they walk and drive on. In a technological age while living in surveillance, getting any kind of privacy is difficult for a citizen. Privacy is what a person does while thinking that no other person but them is watching or listening, but a moment believed as private is known as an illusion. In the United States, privacy and freedom is a huge part of the people's rights being that the United States is based on Democracy which is liberty, equality and justice for all. Being monitored without knowledge to this extent leaves privacy and freedom in the dust. “In a democracy, the people are sovereign—they are the highest form of political authority” (Diamond, 2004)
George Orwell’s novel, 1984, depicts a dystopian vision of the future, one in which its citizens thoughts and actions are controlled by Big Brother government. This novel relates the ruthless surveillance and lack of privacy of the citizens to government actions today. Totalitarianism, surveillance, and lack of privacy may all be common themes in Orwell’s novel 1984, but are also prevalent in modern day society and government. Many people today have and will continue to dismiss the ideologies mentioned in 1984 as unrealistic predictions which could never occur in the democratic run system they live by today. But, are Orwell’s ideologies completely implausible, or have his predictions already played a hidden role in society? Many citizens today are truly unaware of how much of their private lives are made public. Especially with new technological advances, the modern democratic government can easily track and survey citizens without their knowledge. While the government depicted in 1984 may use gadgets such as telescreens and moderators such as the Thought Police these ideas depicted can be seen today in the ever evolving democratic government known to be the "equivalent" of the people's voice. Orwell may have depicted a clearer insight into modern day surveillance then one may have imagined from this "fictional" novel.
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
Privacy is a complex concept with no universal definition as its meaning changes with society. Invasion of privacy occurs when there is an intrusion upon the reasonable expectation to be left alone. There has been a growing debate about the legitimacy of privacy in public
The internet and all technological advances give us easier communication and increase productivity, however, at what cost? The loss of one's privacy. It is okay only when it is violated for one's own protection. There are different reason, good and bad, for the loss in privacy. In 1984 the characters don't have privacy due to big brother always watching,the NSA does more snooping than securing, social media does more than connect friends, and technological advances make our lives easier.
It transcends the line between public and private identity. When all of someone 's private information is being watched, then who are they as a person? Citizens cannot allow their identity to be confiscated for the protection of the unknown. Tamara Thompson states in her article Overview: What is Domestic Surveillance? that, the NSA has constructed a program that lets it hijack almost anything. Using this skill, most American 's information is automatically taken in, without a purpose. What is America 's deepest and darkest secret? Because what might be a secret, will be known to someone. With the hindsight of constantly being over watched, then how can America freely do what they please? Insecurities will consume the mind with the thought that the NSA, or someone like it is watching us. Not only is it hurting America emotionally, but it is hurting America physically with the economy. These government agencies are making numerous unnecessary purchases every day with the attempt at securing our homeland. Why is it necessary to live in constant paranoia if the majority of America is doing nothing wrong? There are other ways to stop terrorism, and spying on the public is not one of them. Domestic surveillance is not necessary by any
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
Privacy is defined by many as the ability for a person to act as they desire -these actions being legal of course- without being observed by other people. 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 effects 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
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
2) It is getting ever easier to record anything, or everything, that you see. This opens fascinating possibilities-and alarming ones.”
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.
Despite existing laws and privacy enhancing technological methods, the US is progressively taking full advantage of its dominant position not just as the home of companies like Facebook, Google and Twitter but also acknowledging jurisdiction on all websites registered in the US. Therefore, countries such Brazil, Iran, Russia, India and China “are now challenging United States hegemony of the Internet and even calling for the creation of a new governing body to oversee Internet policy” (Brooke, 2012, p.245).