Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Privacy issues on internet surveillance
Government surveillance systems
Government surveillance systems
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Privacy issues on internet surveillance
" Technology around the world today is burgeoning at an extreme rate. From smartphones to laptops, almost all U.S. citizens carry some form of technology. With so many Americans carrying technology today, the frightening truth is that the American government has full control over this technology. A decade before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the government has been using a secret national surveillance system to monitor American’s phone calls. However, even with this national surveillance system, the U.S. government was unable to stop the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Although the American government does have an important duty of monitoring internet content, the government needs to establish certain limitations on internet monitoring to respect the …show more content…
The American government believes that the use of this national surveillance system has kept America relatively safe for the years following 9/11. But the real question that needs to be answered is: How does the American government determine whether internet communications are related to espionage, terrorism, or criminal activity? Although it is the government’s duty to protect American citizens from terrorism, there needs to be a compromise between government internet monitoring and the personal privacy of American citizens. A compromise that would satisfy both the American people and the U.S. government, would be if there was a surveillance system that would be able to search for keywords or other kinds of data that related to espionage, terrorism, and criminal activity in internet traffic. To further ensure the privacy of the individual, the governmental organization conducting surveillance would need some sort of approval from a judge and would be only allowed to listen to the individual’s conversation during a certain period of time. If more suspicion is arising, then the government would have the freedom to monitor the individual’s internet freely. This would be similar to the idea of probable cause. If there is enough suspicion, then the government should be allowed to search freely, similar to how if a policeman has enough suspicion through probable cause, then he or she has the right to search freely without a
The aftereffects of the September 11, 2001 attacks led to Congress passing sweeping legislation to improve the United States’ counterterrorism efforts. An example of a policy passed was Domestic Surveillance, which is the act of the government spying on citizens. This is an important issue because many people believe that Domestic Surveillance is unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, while others believe that the government should do whatever is possible in order to keep the citizens safe. One act of Domestic Surveillance, the tracking of our phone calls, is constitutional because it helps fight terrorism, warns us against potential threats, and gives US citizens a feeling of security.
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.
With the introduction of the internet being a relatively new phenomenon, the act of cyber espionage is not something that has been properly acknowledged by society. The American Government has done a stand up job of keeping its methods in the shadows and away from the eyes of its people since its documented domestic surveillance began on October 4th, 2001; Twenty three days after the Twin Towers fell President George Bush signed an order to begin a secret domestic eavesdropping operation, an operation which was so sensitive that even many of the country's senior national security officials with the...
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.
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
Many people live in fear that they are constantly being watched. Michael Jackson sang it best in the 80 's by saying, "I always feel like, somebody 's watching me," in his hit song with Rockwell. That 's exactly what the NSA and other government organizations are doing today with domestic surveillance. Everywhere Americans go and every corner they turn there is a camera, and every website or email they send is being monitored closely. So what can society do about this? Educate others on the situation and stand up for what is right. Some people believe they must give up some freedoms for protection, but at what cost? What is happening in America is not what the founding fathers fought for. Domestic surveillance should not be allowed because
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.
Mass surveillance is a word that has been thrown around every so often in the last few decades, especially ever since George Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four. Although this book was released over 60 years ago, some aspects of the book are seeming to become true in the United States, and other parts of the world today. The idea of mass surveillance isn’t so taboo anymore, as there are several programs ran by sovereign countries around the world which monitor their domestic citizens, as well as citizens and leaders of other foreign countries. With all of our technological communication advances since 1949, this age of information is only going to get more severe, and more tracking and monitoring will be done. The biggest offender of doing this is the NSA, shortened for National Security Agency. The NSA is an organization that was made by the US Government to monitor intelligence, and collect, translate and decode information. What’s important about the NSA, is that this most recent summer, a program named PRISM was revealed by a whistleblower, and in summary, PRISM monitors everything it can, including our own citizens in the United States. This “scandal” had a lot of air time for many months, and is still in the news today. The revelation of what the NSA is doing behind our backs is what made the basis of this essay, and made me think of how similar this entire situation is to Nineteen Eighty-Four.
There are an estimated 30 million surveillance cameras in the United States, proving to be a normal feature in American lives (Vlahos). This is no surprise because in the past several years, events such as the 9/11 attack and the availability of cheaper cameras have accelerated this trend. But conflicts have come with this and have ignited, concerning the safety of the people versus the violation of privacy that surveillance has. Although camera surveillance systems are intended to provide safety to the public, the violation of privacy outweighs this, especially in a democratic country like America.
However, government agencies, especially in America, continue to lobby for increased surveillance capabilities, particularly as technologies change and move in the direction of social media. Communications surveillance has extended to Internet and digital communications. law enforcement agencies, like the NSA, have required internet providers and telecommunications companies to monitor users’ traffic. Many of these activities are performed under ambiguous legal basis and remain unknown to the general public, although the media’s recent preoccupation with these surveillance and privacy issues is a setting a trending agenda.
There are, in some cases, instances where the government should not be able to have the duty in monitoring internet content. The Fourth Amendment states that the government can not perform unreasonable searches upon citizens that are deemed under the law. If the government is monitoring internet content for no reason it would breach this amendment causing the observation to be unlawful and unreasonable. If you ask me the government should have the duty in monitoring internet content when there appears to be a threat marked against the country or its
Digital privacy concerns, which have been a major issue in our country since 2001, increasingly violate our basic human rights as global citizens. The growing amount of government surveillance has manifested in the enactment of acts such as SOPA and CISPA. Although their intent on stopping digital piracy and attacks were clear, both were immediately met with harsh criticism; they allowed big corporations to violate our privacy rights by sharing our personal information with both other companies and the government. Our President, although publicly expressing his acknowledgement of the issue, failed to discuss an array of other pressing dilemmas regulated by the recently exposed National Security Agency (NSA), especially those involving the mass data stockpiles and the rights of foreigners against immoderate and disproportionate surveillance by the US. Furthermore, the intentions of the NSA still remain unclear; why is the collection and the extended retention of this data useful? Those in power believe that the collection of this information allows them to preempt terrorist attacks; a very difficult claim to prove. Our lack of clear answers demonstrate the need for a larger audience who support government transparency. The NSA’s misconduct has dealt multiple blows to the rights of millions both at home and abroad, and the amount of secrecy involving this agency shrouds it in obscurity, inhibiting public debate about these crucial matters.
Since the ( infamous ) September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the rising trend of radicalism as well as the “ lone wolf terrorist ” in recent times have brought the dangers of terrorism ever closer to the hearts of our homes and cities. The war on terrorism has changed the stakes in ( fundamental ) ways. No longer are countries fighting against threats ( oceans / miles ) away, instead, the war has come into our homes and onto our streets. In response, both the general public and states have continued to urge as well as seek for a solution that would improve their ability to discover and pre-empt such plots. One of the more controversial suggestions has been that of state surveillance, which would allow states to monitor for suspicious activities, and better identify as well as carry out more accurate investigations on such people-of-interest, allowing them to forestall potential attacks before they can occur.
To protect its citizens, the United States government invades the residents’ privacy so it can collect information possibly useful in efforts to keep America’s population safe. Though the United States government invades the privacy of its residents by collecting data about them and recording their interactions, the prevention of major losses of life outweigh the injustices committed in the effort to retain safety in the United States. American surveilling agencies do not act maliciously when collecting information, also giving the American public necessary aid in their protection. Security and antiterrorist agencies in the United States protect the public’s information by storing it in secure databases protected by professionals using highly sophisticated hardware. Surveilling agencies use highly trained employees to analyze the data collected for possible threats against the United
As can be seen, from the information presented, the need for laws and restrictions concerning internet data collection is greatly needed. Moreover, the government can search private citizens data without warrant or cause. Also, companies are not only collecting internet user data but also selling it. The companies and agencies who commit such crimes should be fined or either closed down. In closing, the privacy and security of individuals on the internet should be upheld by the United States government.