Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Right to privacy essay
Right to privacy essay
Constitutional rights to privacy essay business law
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In his cartoon, “Government is Watching”, Nate Beeler establishes an accusatory tone using critical irony and an exaggerated symbolism to condemn the American government’s intrusive spying and deprivation of its citizens’ right to privacy.
Nate Beeler evidently displays, in his work, a frustrated sentiment towards the American federal government, indirectly addressing the National Security Agency. Deliberately, one evident technique added into this cartoon is the use of pathos. Bluntly, Beeler included a scared and anxious man sweating on his forehead to emphasize the paranoia effect excessive surveillance induces. From the man’s face itself, it is apparent that he is urgently searching for a safe place where the eyes cannot track him. Indisputably, through irony, Nate Beeler exhibits his stance
…show more content…
Likewise, Beeler used the exaggerated symbolism of eyes intimidatingly watching from every possible angle to represent that all of our actions are witnessed by the government. Alarmingly, with the domineering capacity of the government to spy on civilian lives, this can develop a society consumed of poisoning suspicion with one another. Furthermore, this analogy was highlighted to appeal for a defined boundary that restricts the government to snoop and have access to Americans’ private lives. Significantly, the inclusion of this analogical symbolism was intentionally used to accentuate the government violation of the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Notably, the fourth amendment states that without a warrant and probable cause or suspicion, the NSA has no power to access and invade a citizen’s privacy. Although government surveillance supporters may argue that the Americans should just cooperate for the greater good to prevent domestic terrorism, they fail to protect individual liberties. Hence, Nate Beeler bestow upon his audience one serious question: Is it acceptable to live in a
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.
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.
The novel 1984, by George Orwell, made me paranoid. It made me suspicious of our government's power and intentions. I became aware of the potential manipulation which the government could impose upon us. I came to see that the people I believe to be wholly dedicated to the well-being of society, the people I rely so heavily on to provide protection and security have the power to betray us at any given time. I realised that in my naivety I had gravely overlooked the powerful grip government has over society, and what it can do with that power.
The citizens experience a deficiency of identity as a result of the way the government physically controls them. Big Brother monitors every move each individual makes; nothing goes unnoticed. Every face made, the way one’s body reacts to different situations, everything said and everything done, is overseen by the government. If the way one acts is abnormal, it is believed that citizen is rebelling: “The smallest thing could give you away. A nervous tic, an unconscious look of anxiety, a habit of muttering to yourself…” (Orwell 65). The Party keeps everyone under constant surveillance using telescreens. A telescreen is a device that is both a television and a security camera. Big Brother also exercises physical control by forcing all citizens to watch specific broadcasts, wear specific clothing and perform specific tasks. Citizens are forced to pa...
Taylor, James Stacey. "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance." Public Affairs Quarterly July 2005: 227-246.
1984, a novel by George Orwell, represents a dystopian society in which the people of Oceania are surveilled by the government almost all the time and have no freedoms. Today, citizens of the United States and other countries are watched in a similar way. Though different technological and personal ways of keeping watch on society than 1984, today’s government is also able to monitor most aspects of the people’s life. 1984 might be a dystopian society, but today’s condition seems to be moving towards that controlling state, where the citizens are surveilled by the government at all times.
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.
Domestic Surveillance: Is domestic surveillance worth the hassle? In 2013, whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to the American people that the National Security Agency had been spying on them. Not only that, but also on world leaders. Domestic surveillance is understood as the first line of defense against terrorism, but it has many downsides, not only it violates Americans lives, also it spies on our social media, it puts a fine line on their privacy, and it is a big stab at the freedom of speech. According to John W. Whitehead, “The fact that the government can now, at any time, access entire phone conversations, e-mail exchanges, and other communications from months or years past should frighten every American.”
In early June 2013, Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former defense contractor who had access to NSA database while working for an intelligence consulting company, leaked classified documents reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) is recording phone calls of millions of Americans along with gathering private data and spying foreign Internet activity. The Washington Post later broke the news disclosed PRISM, a program can collect data on Internet users. The leaked documents publicly stated a vast objection. Many people were shocked by the scale of the programs, even elected representatives were unaware of the surveillance range. A nationwide debate over privacy rights have been sparked. Although supporters claim that the NSA only does its best to protect the United States from terrorists as well as respecting Americans' rights and privacy, many civil rights advocates feel that the government failed to be clear about the limit of the surveillance programs, threatening Americans' civil...
In 2007, the NSA started a program called PRISM, where they can request information from large companies such as Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple without probable cause. This program reduces our freedom and privacy (largely), but by doing so, the NSA is keeping us safe from terrorists and many more threats. In 1984, the government had posters of Big Brother on every wall, on coins and virtually everywhere you look. Also, there are telescreens in the workplace, in the streets, in the cafeteria, and in peoples homes. As stated in 1984, “Nothing is your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull” (Orwell 24).There is no escape. These telescreens are constantly watching you and “at any rate, they could plug into your wire,” (2). However, in 1984, the government is surveilling the people for a completely different reason. They want to stay in control and don’t want people to rebel. But nowadays, the heavy surveillance is for counter-terrorism and protecting the people. For that, I am willing to give up a small amount of my freedom. But, in 1984 giving up your freedom means giving up your freedom of choice, way of life, and basic inalienable
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 attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what the ‘law is”, causing a lack of circulated rule. The actual leaders with political purposes jeopardize our individual privacy rights, liberties, and freedoms.
The American government used to be able to keep the people in happy ignorance to the fact that they watch every move they make. After certain revelations of people like Edward Snowden, the public knows the extent of the government spying. On June 5, 2013 Edward Snowden leaked documents of the NSA to the Guardian (The Guardian 2). The whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to the world how the American government collects information like cell phone metadata, Internet history, emails, location from phones, and more. President Obama labeled the man a traitor because he showed the world the illegal acts the NSA performs on US citizens (Service of Snowden 1). The government breached the people’s security, and now the people are afraid because everyone is aware of how the US disapproves of people who do not agree with their programs. Obama said that these programs find information about terrorists living in the US, but he has lit...
James Madison once said “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” To gain a better understanding of a society, one must gain knowledge of the needs and wants the citizens’ demand from the country’s representatives. In every country the needed to protect its citizens is the same. In some nations, security is a higher priority which causes sacrifices to be made to obtain an indefinite protection against all rivals. In Peter Singer’s essay titled “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets” he states that there is a way that governments can collect information by using technology; to allow more ‘openness’ and exposure as an increase of unknown surveillance that the public is not aware of. Singer’s essay also talks about how also with the rise of secrecy within politics; organizations such as ‘WikiLeaks’ and ‘Anonymous’ reveal to the world what is really going on within their privacy. Benefits come from both sides in a world where surveillance exists to the highest priority with or without privacy.
“The 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of my country, Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and numerous statutes and treaties forbid such systems of massive, pervasive surveillance. While the US Constitution marks these programs as illegal, my government argues that secret court rulings, which the world is not permitted to see, somehow legitimize an illegal affair. These rulings simply corrupt the most basic notion of justice – that it must be seen to be done.”(Telegraph, 2013)