More handpicked essays just for you.
Electronic surveillance and privacy
Electronic surveillance and privacy
Supreme court decision analysis essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Electronic surveillance and privacy
The Supreme Court made the decision on February 26, 2013 that the lawsuit against the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will be heard no more because the plaintiffs do not have legal standing with the lack of convincing proof to show that their injuries are imminent. But there was not unanimous decision in the court but just a divided 5-4 decision. In Justice Alito’s view the respondents’ alleged injuries were based on hypothesized fears and worries. The majority of the Justices stated that the Amnesty International and other organizations did not presented with strong evidence that they electronic communications are intercepted by the government. The Court also argued that the group’s claim that they have to spend unwarranted resources
to avoid their private communication with foreign entities are not based on concrete evidence ut just on speculation and will not deserve hearing in court. The majority of the Justices who are in favor of electronic surveillance include Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas. But minority Justices have different opinion on the case. They do not believe that decision based on "certainly impending" standard was in the same way with prior decisions. Justice Breyer wrote that to be heard in court, a party need only show that they will be injured by the government’s actions. Justice Breyer argued that for a lawsuit to get a hearing in the court, it needs to present “a reasonable apprehension or reasonable likelihood” that there will be injuries by the government’ actions. He also stated that government will like to intercept the respondents’ communicatons with foreign presons and organizations because the types of target specified in the procedures are the same with their clients and friends.
The case State v. Snowden is an appeal by the defendant were the defendant pleaded guilty to an evidence charging Raymond Alien Snowden with the crime of murder of first degree. The trial of the defendant was represented by the district Court, 3rd Judicial District, Ada County, were Snowden entered judgment and sentenced of death but he appealed. Snowed was at a bar in the evening drinking and playing pool in a Boise pool room, he and other person visited another club near the one where they were playing pool, nearby Garden city. That same day Snowden and his friend visited several bars also drinking, at the end they stop at HiHo club. That same bar he met and starts having a conversation to this lady Cora Lucyle Dean, they start dancing and having a time together and they left together, while they were walking they start arguing in the street, because she wanted him to find her a cab and take her to back to Boise, but he said that he shouldn’t be paying her fare.
After the horrendous terrorist attack on the New York Trade Center a new Bill was passed by congress shortly after September 11, 2004. This bill is known as The Domestic Security Enhancement Act also called Patriot Act 2. This bill was designed as a follow-up to the USA Patriot Act to work in increasing government surveillance, detention and other law enforcement powers while reducing basic checks and balances on such powers. By the beginning of the year 2003 a draft of the legislation was available. Amongst the most severe problems the bill diminishes personal privacy by removing checks on government power, diminishes public accountability by increasing government secrecy, and diminishes corporate accountability under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Also the bill undermines fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under overboard definitions of “terrorism” and “terrorist organization” or under a terrorism pretext. Furthermore, unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism. (http://www.aclu.org/Safeand Free/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206)
Communication surveillance has been a controversial issue in the US since the 1920's, when the Supreme Court deemed unwarranted wiretaps legitimate in the case of Olmstead v United States. Since telephone wires ran over public grounds, and the property of Olmstead was not physically violated, the wiretap was upheld as lawful. However, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling in 1967 in the landmark case of Katz v United States. On the basis of the fourth amendment, the court established that individuals have the right to privacy of communication, and that wiretapping is unconstitutional unless it is authorized by a search warrant. [Bowyer, 142-143] Since then, the right to communication privacy has become accepted as an integral facet of the American deontological code of ethics. The FBI has made an at least perfunctory effort to respect the public's demand for Internet privacy with its new Internet surveillance system, Carnivore. However, the current implementation of Carnivore unnecessarily jeopardizes the privacy of innocent individuals.
According to a recent article by Scott Shane, “The U.S. is pushing to make sure that cyber programs comply with international law and international standards.” This quote shows that the government wants to make sure that cyber programs protect the citizens to the same degree as other international laws. The government wants cyber programs to have the same standards as international law and international standards to give citizens the sense of security that they are being protected. According to a recent article by David Francis “...Congress retroactively immunized the nation’s telecom giants for their participation in the illegal Bush spying programs, Klein’s claims (by design) were prevented from being adjudicated in court.” This quote means that telecom giants such as Verizon and AT&T participated in Domestic Surveillance in order to help protect citizens. Telecom giants play a role in giving US citizens a sense of security by helping the National Security Agency. Others may believe that the tracking of our phone calls does not give US citizens a sense of security; however, according to a recent article by Marshall Honorof, “Counterterrorism is not the only function of the NSA's widespread surveillance. Although it cannot report exact numbers, Lewis theorizes that the data-mining has allowed the NSA to put a stop to a number of international espionage plots.”
Glenn Greenwald, a talented and widely read columnist on civil liberties for the Guardian newspaper, failed in his attempt to alarm his readers to the flagrant and widespread violations of American privacy. Although his article was full of facts, documentation, and quotes from top rank officials, the article did not convey any sense of wrong doing or outrage. Rather it was dull, lacked passion and a sense of persuasion. In fact, the only attention grabbing part in the whole article is the title.
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.
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.
The NSA has been secretly ordered to eavesdrop by the Bush administration after the 9/11 terrorist attack. The base of where the NSA has been operating their wiretapping agenda is in Bluff Dale, Utah the building sprawls 1,500,000 square feet and possess the capacity to hold as much as five zeta bytes of data it has cost almost $2,000,000,000. The act of spying over the USA citizens even though they are suspicious is a threat to the people’s privacy and the privacy of other countries’ members are being infringed on by the NSA by the act of wiretapping. The action of wiretapping violates laws for privacy, like the Bill of Right’s Amendment Four which says “Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions”. The wiretapping controversy has caused the panic and hysteria of the citizens of the USA and USA’s allies. This panic and hysteria has troubled the government by resulting to mistrust and concern against them by both groups. The panic effect of the NSA wiretapping has caused many people such as journalist to have their freedom of speech to be restricted in fear of the NSA to stamp them as terrorist and according to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights that is an infringement of the people’s right of freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.
The Patriot Act has been under scrutiny and opposition since its creation following 9/11. When 9/11 struck it was clear that Americas intelligence was lacking in some specific way, but it was translated that America needed greater allowance for gathering information. The Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001, very close to 9/11. It can be concluded that the Patriot Act was signed with such extreme ability’s applied, because of how close it was signed after 9/11. The Act Greatly expands the liberty’s if law enforcement in their efforts to gather information, which in turn imposes on the privacy of the American people. The FBI has the ability to study any citizen suspected of terrorism, and has access to all their information. Wire Taps and other invasive action are allowed and granted by the Patriot Act. Was the Patriot Act signed to quickly? Are its measures to extreme? When is the line drawn on how much power the government can have? Is the Patriot Act effective enough that it is necessary? Should we as Americans willing to trade freedom for safety? Can the Patriot Act effectively stop or hinder terrorist attacks; has its stopped enough attacks to be validated? Another question is does America want a government that has that much power, how much are we as Americans willing to sacrifice, and how much more liberty’s is the government going take. If the government can pass the patriot act, what other legislation can they pass? In reality it all comes down to the American people, we are democracy but do we have the power in are hands? When finding all these questions one asks do we need an act that is in fact this controversial? Is the Patriot Act a necessary evil? To find this answer we have to answer all the questio...
Sales, Nathan A. “The Patriot Act isn’t broken.” March 6th 2009, Vol. 101 Issue 69, Student Research Center. EBSCOhost. Frederick Community Coll. Lib, Frederick, MD July 10th
...e administration plans to introduce legislation that would alter the N.S.A’s privacy breaches and end its illegal data collections. Citing an identical argument, that the government cannot indicate terrorist attacks that have been stopped by the intelligence gathering programs, a review group of the Administration “called for major changes to the program; the latter also concluded that the bulk collection is illegal.”3
Essentially for the past 12 years the NSA has been monitoring the cyber world and telephone activity of American citizens, as well as foreign nationals in secrecy. The NSA has been receiving digital information from several major internet and cable providers including Verizon, AT&T and Sprint. They have kept records of phone conversations of millions of Americans and internet search histories as well as all data text messages. Many of the American citizens being monitored have not been convicted of any crimes and have caused no suspicion of illicit activity. Despite the circumstances these private citizens are being unlawfully monitored by the U.S government without consent.The issue at hand is whether the new powers granted by the Patriot Act to permit the NSA to spy on its citizens are absolutely necessary to protect our national security, or if the NSA utilizing the terro...
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 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.
Civil libertarians celebrated a small victory on September 2001, when a federal appeals court judge, Alex Kozinski, ordered the administrative office to withdraw software tracking the online activities of all employees in his Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Because the recent September 11 terrorist attacks heightened national security paranoia, bureaucrats in the court’s administrative office proposed a surveillance policy entailing unrestricted administrative review of emails and Internet use of all 30,000 federal court employees, including judges. The panel of judges decided that the policy unreasonably assumed that employees had no expectation of priva...