More handpicked essays just for you.
Pros and cons of government surveillance
Electronic surveillance and privacy
Essay on why we should have government surveillance
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 …show more content…
Andrew Guthrie Ferguson thinks that people should be able to choose what areas they want to be secure from “physical and sense-enhancing invasion.” Another scholar, Joel Reidenbuerg, believes that current views of privacy do not fit well with the current technology, instead surveillance is dependent on “the nature of the acts being surveilled.” One more scholar, Chris Slobogin, believes that “the justification for a search should be roughly proportional to the intrusiveness of the search” (Hartzog, 2015). Point is, legal issues surrounding government surveillance is a complex topic without a perfect all-encompassing solution; each situation is different and should be treated …show more content…
The government must prove that the records are relevant and helpful in capturing a target first, but essentially the government can make a company give them private information.
One example would be the NSA collecting telephone billing records, but “it does not intercept the content of the call, nor does it know the identity of the subscriber” (YOO, 2014). They were only interested in tracking phone numbers of suspect Al Qaeda members who send messages back home in order to show “probable cause” to the FISC. In this case, there was not really any invasion of privacy as the contents of the calls and the names of the caller were not revealed. It was only done to prove someone had connections to Al Qaeda and then it would be considered probable cause to investigate further.
Collecting metadata on phone calls does not violate the Fourth Amendment in anyway. The Fourth Amendment only protects the “rights in the content of communication, but not in their addressing information” (YOO, 2014). In the Smith v Maryland case, the supreme court ruled that calling information is not protected under the Fourth Amendment because phone users voluntarily hand over their information, to the phone company, and personal privacy cannot be expected once handed over to someone else (YOO,
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.
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...
“Many opponents have come to see the patriot act as a violation of the fourth amendment to the U. S constitution.” (Belanger, Newton 2). The side effect of the patriot act is that it weakens many rights. This act weakens the fourth amendment which is our privacy protection. The fourth amendment allows citizens to be protected from unreasonable searches without a warrant. The police search suspects mainly because of their race or ethnic group.
(Whitehead). The NSA has collected masses of raw data from the web throughout the years, data like phone conversations, emails, and other kinds of communications with the consent of the American people. This kind of data collection clearly violates the privacy principles. After the devastating terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bomber, the American people are trading their liberty and freedom and basic human rights, for a phantom of so-called safety.
The critical issue that needs to be addressed in the argument for or against the use of public surveillance system in the USA is which one takes precedence, viz, whether safety of the public and property at large or the invasion of the rights of the individuals who are subjected to some sort of interference in their privacy. In other words, does a citizen have an unfettered right to privacy even when it comes to issues relating to the enforcement of law in prevention of terrorist attacks, crime and restoring security and peace of the citizens at large? I propose to argue in this paper in favor of the need for public surveillance system by advancing the reasons for its imperative and take the view that it does not amount to prima facie violation of individuals' rights and in contravention to the rights guaranteed under the constitution...
Mallow, Michael L. and Reilly, Christine. “California federal court requires pre-recording notification of all cell phone calls under California Invasion of Privacy Act”. Loeb & Loeb LLP. (17Apr. 2014).Web. 28 Apr. 2014.
“They may identify potential leads with respect to folks who might engage in terrorism, if these folks — if the intelligence community then actually wants to listen to a phone call, they’ve got to go back to a federal judge, just like they would in a criminal investigation.”(Obama’s remarks) President Obama said this in an interview regarding the NSA’s work on surveillance to protect the country while also following the Fourth amendment’s Guidelines. The fourth amendment can be beneficial to the government by allowing them to legally conduct search and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also allows law enforcement to access suspect’s phones and any electronic devices. It also allows law enforcement to access all suspects’ files. Even though, The Fourth Amendment can help Law Enforcement it can also invade privacy. Although some believe the Fourth Amendment promotes invasion of privacy, it is beneficial to the government because it helps protect citizens from illegal search and seizures, allows the IRS to access foreigners, and in some cases American’s emails/phones, and helps law enforcement access suspects’ files.
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 right to privacy is listed out in the fourth amendment. The constitution is considered the supreme law of the land. The fourth amendment has three components. The first is that U.S. citizens have the right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." The second protects U.S. citizens by prohibiting “unreasonable” search and seizures, which are without probable cause. The third component states that “no warrant may be issued to a law enforcement officer unless that warrant describes with particularity "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" ("Legal Dictionary"). The three components of the fourth amendment lay down the ground work so that U.S. citizens like us have certain rights, which are expressly written.
Some believe that privacy and safety can go hand in hand, while others believe you can 't have one without giving up another. In our ever growing and ever changing world, these two sides continue to drift further and further apart when we are forced to ask the question, “What is too much”? When it comes to personal liberties and privacy, how much should we allow into the government 's hands under the promise of national safety and security? The NSA’s recent scandal has put this in the forefront of every American’s mind. Before we as a nation make a decision, we should consider every side of the problem.
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
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.
... potentially criminal. Similar to the collection of consumer data, the information gathered by the government is also subject to abuse by people who are granted access privilege. For example, in 2007, a federal agent was charged with using a government database to track the travel pattern of his ex-girlfriend (Lee).
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
Have you ever felt concerned of being watched and not knowing when or where? This term is called surveillance. Surveillance is a close observation that monitors behavior and activities through cameras. The purpose of surveillance is to influence, manage, or to protect individuals at all cause. Since technology has grown over the past years, surveillance has become easier to monitor through time. Surveillance is used by the government and owners in order to prevent crimes and to protect others. Because surveillance began as a way to point out the cyclical nature of domestic surveillance, it helped combat the dangers of the US leaders. Today surveillance is used for a similar purpose; for example, it is a way to protect and monitor others behaviors