Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Role of federal government in states
Privacy on fourth amendment topics
Privacy on fourth amendment topics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Role of federal government in states
" I say that the government should have a limit on when they can monitor. The government is meant to keep the people safe, but that does not mean the government should know everything people do. This would include the government monitoring people’s internet content. With monitoring internet content the federal government deals with national matters, protection of private content from the government, it is for protecting the people, and schools can view students posts.
I say that the federal government should only focus on the national security matters. They can monitor content that can affect the whole country or internationally. They can focus on terrorism and other big national matters. The federal government can be included when the state or local government cannot handle the issue. The federal has more to worry about than what people post online. The state and local governments can deal with the issues that are affecting only small areas. The federal government needs reasonable suspicion to look at someone’s posts. The federal government would focus on stopping terrorists from making plans. This would help stop many terrorist attacks. They cannot dig deep into someone’s internet content unless they have reasonable suspicion that the person
…show more content…
If the post is public they can look at the post. Everyone else can see the post so why not the government? The posts that are not public the government cannot view. The only reason they should be able to see it is if they have a warrant to search it. The government looking at people’s posts would be an intrusion of privacy. The Fourth Amendment protects us from the government search our property. This would include our internet content. The fact that someone is watching what a person is doing would be thought as an invasion of privacy. Even people that do not have anything hide do not want the government looking into what they post. It could be seen as the government is stalking
Is the American government trustworthy? Edward Joseph Snowden (2013) released to the United States press* selected information about the surveillance of ordinary citizens by the U.S.A.’s National Security Agency (N.S.A.), and its interconnection to phone and social media companies. The motion picture Citizenfour (2014), shows the original taping of those revelations. Snowden said that some people do nothing about this tracking because they have nothing to hide. He claims that this inverts the model of responsibility. He believes that everyone should encrypt Internet messages and abandon electronic media companies that track personal information and Internet behavior (op.cit, 2014). Snowden also stressed to Lawrence Lessig (2014) the importance of the press and the first amendment (Lessig – Snowden Interview Transcript, [16:28]). These dynamics illustrate Lessig’s (2006) constrain-enable pattern of powers that keep society in check (2006, Code: Version 2.0, p. 122). Consider Lessig’s (2006) question what is “the threat to liberty?” (2006, p. 120). Terrorism is a real threat (Weber, 2013). Surveillance by social media and websites, rather than the government, has the greater negative impact on its users.
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.
“Human beings are not meant to lose their anonymity and privacy,” Sarah Chalke. When using the web, web users’ information tend to be easily accessible to government officials or hackers. In Nicholas Carr’s “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” Jim Harpers’ “Web Users Get As Much As They Give,” and Lori Andrews “Facebook is Using You” the topic of internet tracking stirred up many mixed views; however, some form of compromise can be reached on this issue, laws that enforces companies to inform the public on what personal information is being taken, creating advisements on social media about how web users can be more cautious to what kind of information they give out online, enabling your privacy settings and programs, eliminating weblining,
The government — they are watching everything you do. For many people, they would think that saying phrases like this would make someone look like a crazy or some kind of conspiracy theorist. Though it turns out that these statements are true in a sense that the many governments and not just the U.S. are surveilling its own citizens and other people around the world by tracking and recording their phone calls, e-mails, and other communications. The main way this came into the light is the recent and ongoing controversy with the NSA and leaks from whistleblowers like Edward Snowden. These revelations are raising doubts in people’s minds and they are wanting to make change or reform to the government(s). Through this revelation, made by the help of whistleblowers and news sources, there are questions on what caused this agency to get started, how are they operating, what do they know, what is causing so much attention to this specific current event, and what is driving people to demand change and reform.
The government is doing the total opposite of this. In fact, the government is invading everyone 's privacy which means that they are intruding into the personal lives of US citizens without a reason to. This should give the person whose privacy has been invaded a right to sue the government for damages against the person or entity that has been intruded. Privacy is essential to giving a person the time to reflect on events that have transpired personally, religiously, and politically. It is as essential as sleep; it helps to provide the time to formulate opinions and decisions on all minor and major things in a person 's life.
The United States government is up to its ears in the personal information it has collected from its citizens. Americans are becoming increasingly “aware of these slowly eroding walls of privacy,”(Hirsh) and more than half polled admit concern “about the overall accumulation of personal information about them “by […] law enforcement, government, […] and other groups,” though “they accept it as an unavoidable modern phenomenon” (Hirsh). The question is, how far is too far to trust the government with the collection, proper storage, and usage of this information? Studies show that “Americans believe that business, government, social-media sites, and other groups are accessing their most personal information without their consent” (Hirsh). People should be given the ability to admit or deny access to their personal information. The government does not have a right to use whatever information it wants for any purpose it wishes. Michael Hayden, once the NSA director for seven years, says, “Even I recognize that it's one thing for Google to know too much, because they aren't putting me in jail. It's another thing for government, because they can coerce me” (Hirsh). The United States government's ability to collect information about its citizens and residents should be restricted by what kind of information it can take, how it can acquire it, and what it can use it for.
The Federal Government should not be able to monitor our phone calls and emails because not only would this place an endangerment to our personal identities, but it is also a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
For example, this year Hillary Clinton was put under a microscope for the use of a private email address. When government officials learned that she had this extra email they scrutinized her continuously about it. Next, she was investigated to see if she had classified information on this email, not the private email that the government provides. This is another form of proof of the never ending government surveillance these days. Along with emails the government uses the combing through social media pages or profiles. Although most profiles of social media can be seen at all times on the internet. The government can make the private posts accounts available to themselves at all
On one hand privacy is valued but on the other privacy has to end. Mainly it ends when it comes to terrorist threats and many times pedophiles. Things that offer a danger to society, within in this context many argue that Internet surveillance is needed. The protection of innocent people outweighs the need of individual Internet privacy. Glen states in his article, “An open society, such as the United States, ironically needs to use this technology to protect itself. This truth is naturally uncomfortable for a country with a Constitution that prevents the federal government from conducting "unreasonable searches and seizures (Glenn 2012).” In the time of technology and the risk of spreading terrorism, humans cannot afford Internet privacy. As data or possible data about home born terrorist can be collected and be readily available because of technology. Then the other issue is pedophiles. Sir Iain Lobbon (2013) believes “"allows us to reveal the identities of those involved in online sexual exploitation of children.” Programs like NSA allow the surveillance to catch sex offenders. Maybe even the hope of preventing them actually damaging a child and committing offence.
The internet has been one of the most influential technological advancements of the twenty-first century. It is in millions of homes, schools, and workplaces. The internet offers not only a way of communicating with people around the world, but also a link to information, shopping, chatting, searching, and maps. This freedom to be anyone and to "go" anywhere right from the comfort of home has become a cherished item. However, there is always a down side to every up. Because of the freedom to post anything and access anything on the internet, the issue of regulation has arisen; for example, what should and should not be allowed on the internet? Who has the right to regulate this space that we cherish for its freedom?
as people should have their privacy when surfing the internet. Alternatively, the evidence suggests that the government can help tackle terrorism and stop bullying. After examining this issue closely, surely society could not argue that we should protect our country and our children by monitoring social networking sites? Works Cited http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/09/cyberbullying-mother-fight-askfm http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/19/ask-fm-cyberbully-hannah-smith-death http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/5046447/Facebook-could-be-monitored-by-the-government.html http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/08/askfm-advertisers-cameron-boycott-cyberbullying http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=catfish
At what level is Internet surveillance by the United States government acceptable to society, considering a balance between security and privacy, what are the short and long term implications, and how does it affect the rest of the world.
" What is monitoring? It is to observe/check the progress of something over a period of time. The first amendment guarantees freedom of expression or the right to say what we want without restriction. This means that we can post anything we want online. It does not guarantee that we will be safe from the repercussions that follow. The U.S. government has the right to MONITOR it. That does not mean that they have the right to change it or stop it from going out. If it is in the interest of international or national or state or local safety they have the ability to stop or change it from happening. The U.S. government has the duty and/or right to monitor its citizens because if it doesn't then the U.S. will fall apart or something potentially very bad could happen and it would be extremely hard to stop before it was too late.
To begin with, most Americans do not realize how much the government trespasses on their privacy. Some might argue government surveillance is necessary to control terrorists and harmful information exposed at the government. However, there needs to be a boundary between oppressing personal freedoms of citizens and protecting the well-being of our nation. The United States is a country that represents freedom around the world.
Government Surveillance today has changed from what it used to be. Technology has expanded through the past several decades and the government’s monitoring abilities have also expanded tremendously. Since the September 11, 2001 9/11 terrorist attacks, government surveillance has become more a part of everyday life. Government surveillance is said to help in efforts of capturing terrorists and stopping terrorist attacks before they even happen. But how much of our civil liberties are we giving up in order to maybe help capture some terrorists. The rapidly advancing technology of today and a more globalizing culture has made privacy and civil liberties come more into the forefront of our views. After about nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the government surveillance system put into place to keep the United States safe, is so massive that its effectiveness is becoming questionable.