Most people have either read or heard of the book 1984 in some point in their high school career. Some may see it as just fictional literature that we learn in English class, but it could become seeing as to how our government is handling national security. In 1984, the author, George Orwell talks about a society in which one group of people runs society and everyone is under surveillance. This was something that people in the 1980s would not think possible, so how could Orwell have thought of this plot when writing the book during the 1940s? It could have been due to the progress in technology such as radio, film, television. The fear of government interference could have also been produced because World War II was present the time 1984 was created, from which Orwell twists in his book. What is even more interesting is that the Cold War is somehow described in 1984 and it pretty much became true. With the Cold War having taken place, U.S. citizens were worried that people among them could be a Communist; the enemy of the U.S. and capitalism. Because of their fear, people started to accuse one another of being communists, which led to them being imprisoned with little and what was, invalid evidence. This is now referred to as the ‘Red Scare’ where ‘Red’ symbolized Communism. After this so called war, there was a time of peace where the likelihood of there being another ‘Red Scare’ was very unlikely, until the unforgettable date, September 11, 2001, or often referred to as 9/11 where the government’s fear of terrorist presence begun. With the government’s fear of another 9/11, preventing this from reoccurring is very crucial to the United States politicians and so through the use of modern technology, they are willing an... ... middle of paper ... ...geles Times, 29 Dec. 2011. Web. 28 May 2012. . Williams, Carol J. "Telecom Customers May Sue Government over Wiretapping, Court Says." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 29 Dec. 2011. Web. 28 May 2012. . Williams, Carol J. "Telecom Customers May Sue Government over Wiretapping, Court Says." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 29 Dec. 2011. Web. 28 May 2012. . Wing, Nick. "Indefinite Detention Blocked: District Judge Rules On Controversial Provision Of NDAA." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 16 May 2012. Web. 28 May 2012. .
The novel, 1984, written by George Orwell, gives readers an insight to a possible frightening future where one government has complete and definite control of the people. But “control” might not be the term to describe such a rule. The Party dominates every aspect of life. There is not a single thing that is not under the Party’s rule. Feelings, history, language, statistics, and even human nature are submissive to the Party. They corrupt the mind so much that there is no longer a line that separates truth from a lie. Slogans are repeated through telescreens on a daily basis so the people are gradually forced to believe in illogical statements. Upon first glance, it may seem that a 1984 society is not even imaginable in the world we live in currently. But is it really logical to make such an assumption so quickly? Do we know that what we see on the news and read in our history textbooks is completely accurate? The Internet is one of the most powerful technologies our world has, consisting of an insurmountable amount of information, which is not always what it seems. Ultimately, there are so many things that we do not know, some of which is being held a secret from us. Modern day society shockingly has evidence of a transformation into a menacing 1984 society because of similar government actions and abuse of advanced technology.
American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved March 9, 2014, from https://www.aclu.org/fusion-centers-force-multiplier-spying-local-communities
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.
.... "State Cops Can Track Residents' Cellphones." Daily Tribune Media. N.p., 28 Mar. 2014. Web. 06 Apr. 2014. .
A short background on the laws concerning surveillance will help clear up some misconceptions on the NSA. Back in 1968, the Wiretap Act protected citizens from the government listening to their phone call...
... was not accepted by many of the Court Justices. One of the Concurring decisions was that because the information, which was acquired through the Stored Communications Act needed to be obtained with a warrant, the Stored Communications Act was Unconstitutional. This was argued because, for ISP’s to collect information about everyone that uses there services, they would have to present a warrant to everyone who they serve, and they didn 't yet have probable cause. The case ended in a decision that the government had infringed on Warshak’s 4th amendment rights, and that any obtaining of information through the Stored Communications Act (deemed legal) would have to be obtained with a warrant. This upheld Katz v. US to say that because Warshak used a private means of communication for his correspondence, a warrant must have been obtained to ask the ISP for the emails.
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
Gellman, Barton. "NSA Broke Privacy Rules Thousands of times per Year, Audit Finds." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 21 Aug. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.
Carr, Pete. “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty, With Real Dangers.” The Wall Street Journal. 6 Aug. 2010. Web.
Micek, John L. “Is your cellphone protected by the 4th Amendment? Maybe not: What do you think?”The Patriot-News. (29 Apr. 2014).Web. 29 Apr. 2014
Kashi, J. (2004, May). Wireless insecurity. Law Practice Today. Retrieved September 27, 2008, from http://www.abanet.org/lpm/lpt/articles/tch05041.html
O'NEIL, D. E. (2014, April 20). White House Begins New Effort to Defend Surveillance Program . Retrieved from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/politics/23cnd-wiretap.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Many believe that this mass seizure of information on the unsuspecting American is unconstitutional. This belief is understandable to say
Cell phone privacy has become quite an issue over the past few years now that cell phone use is prevalent among most of the world. There have been many articles and news stories circling around about how the government is tracking every move on our cell phone. This includes the government and other entities recording our conversations. Many people view this as a violation of privacy because their expressed thoughts and feelings are being recorded and listened to by someone somewhere. Another ethical concern that this brings about is the violation of the privacy protections of the fourth amendment. Law enforcements officials have the right to access personal location data without giving probable cause to the judge (ACLU 1). While this can create an unnerving feeling I believe the government has taken these measures to keep the country safe. If the government can prevent...
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...