More handpicked essays just for you.
Importance of the 4th amendment
Why privacy verses national security is better
Why privacy verses national security is better
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Importance of the 4th amendment
The country is in a debate on whether privacy or national security is more important. The people are claiming that spying is an illegal act, And refer to the 4th amendment; against unreasonable searches and seizures. The NSA is breaking the law every time they spy on us without permission. In 2005 the truth finally came out to the world, saying that the NSA was intercepting phone calls and emails of the citizen(EFF). The NSA purpose is to track down terrorists that are hidden inside the country and to prevent another 9/11. Even though Americans are aware of that fact. According to a survey made in 2014, 74% of Americans were against the NSA . Americans refuse to give up their privacy and freedom that has been given to them by the constitution(George
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.
...t civil liberties. The Executive Order 9066 in 1942 and the passing of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 both prompted claims of civil liberties violations. Overall, when the country is invaded, National Security trumps civil liberties.
We all have heard the quote “Life, Liberty, Land, and the Pursuit to Happiness” and that is the promise of a life here in America. As Americans we pride ourselves on these freedoms that allow us to live everyday. We are one of the only countries that have this promise and it is what draws people from all of over the world to come here. Our founding fathers of the United States of America wrote these words, having no idea the impact that they would have for the rest of this countries history. Those words were the foundation for government, and it wasn’t perfect at first but slowly it matured into what we have today, strong and powerful. To other nations America is seen as the World Power, and a somewhat perfect nation to live in. Unfortunately corruption, scandals and controversies have tainted our once golden glow, and other nations are weary of watching their steps. One of the most controversial elements to our government is the NSA. Hidden in the shadows from American and global knowledge is what the NSA is actually doing and watching out for. Only very recently has the NSA been ripped from the shadows and brought to light what exactly is going on inside those walls. They are “spying” on not only America’s personal data, but foreign leaders as well. The NSA says it’s for the safety for everyone against terrorism and attacks. However, it has gone way to far and violates a constitutional right, privacy. The NSA has overstepped their boundaries, and spying doesn’t seem to make a difference in safety.
The government definitely overstepped boundaries by spying on average Americans who wish no harm on their country. This includes violating their privacy, and going against acts and amendments. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and se...
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.
I am writing to you today to express my concerns over the current NSA spying programs. It is my right at a citizen to share my beliefs about how our government is handling its surveillance. I am a 48-year-old doctor from Oklahoma and I know I am not the only one who has concerns about the government spying on us. Firstly, what the government and NSA is doing is simply illegal. There’s no denying this. They have violated our unalienable right to privacy. The 4th Amendment of our Constitution clearly states that our privacy must not be infringed upon without a warrant. The NSA however is willing and able to monitor anyone they choose without a warrant and without notifying the person they are spying on (ACLU). For me, this poses a real threat
Is the patriot act necessary if it protects but threatens our civil liberates? The patriot act threatens civil liberates. The U.S. is spying without the people’s consent. The patriot act will prevent terrorist attacks on the United States. The patriot act can be used to catch wanted criminals. The patriot act protects the people from danger but jeopardizes their civil rights.
The NSA can trawl through the cellphone history of the entirety of America, no-one bats an eye. A man can be detained indefinitely in Guantanamo, and it is shrugged off as a triviality. When such matters are brought up the classic response from any giver politician will be along the lines, “It’s a matter of security, don’t you want to be safe?”. I don’t see the safety the claim to be weaving when they say this, I see the words of Thomas Jefferson – “Any nation that would trade freedom for security would deserve neither and lose both”. Thomas Jefferson understood that freedom was more than a beautiful idea.
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up one value in order to gain another. This concept of individual right goes beyond the simple idea of “individual comfort.” Personal liberties cannot be surrendered and are not to be compromised since these liberties are intangible. Individuals should not have their personal liberties exchanged for national security because individuals are guaranteed protection to these rights.
The United States is in a tricky situation. First and foremost, we are a country that prides itself on being free. Even the fourth amendment to our Constitution declares, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Yet we are also a country that demands security. Americans expect that our government will keep us safe. These two ideals, freedom and security, are often at odds. How can we expect our government to stop terrorism without infringing on our rights? Recent disclosures, that the government has access to American phone calls and emails, have brought this debate to the forefront of public discourse.
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 NSA was established in November of 1952 with the goal of creating another organization that keeps our country safe. They were highly regarded, however little was known about their operations until recently. In 2013, Edward Snowden, a former NSA intelligence worker leaked some information that would change the way America thinks about the NSA to this day. He exposed the NSA for allegedly spying on the American people, and recording everyone’s phone calls to keep on record. He also exposed them for internet spying on large groups of people without warrants. While all not incorrect, there is more to what they are trying to do then what is being portrayed. While there are many reasons why the NSA surveillance is good for the people of the U.S,
Ever since day one, people have been developing and creating all sorts of new methods and machines to help better everyday life in one way or another. Who can forget the invention of the ever-wondrous telephone? And we can’t forget how innovative and life-changing computers have been. However, while all machines have their positive uses, there can also be many negatives depending on how one uses said machines, wiretapping in on phone conversations, using spyware to quietly survey every keystroke and click one makes, and many other methods of unwanted snooping have arisen. As a result, laws have been made to make sure these negative uses are not taken advantage of by anyone. But because of how often technology changes, how can it be known that the laws made so long ago can still uphold proper justice? With the laws that are in place now, it’s a constant struggle to balance security with privacy. Privacy laws should be revised completely in order to create a better happy medium between security and privacy. A common misconception of most is that a happy medium of privacy and security is impossible to achieve. However, as well-said by Daniel Solove, “Protecting privacy doesn’t need to mean scuttling a security measure. 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”)
What's more important, privacy or security? There's an ongoing debate going on between two different groups of people, surveillance supporters and privacy advocates, over privacy. In Bruce Schneier's article, " The External Value Of Privacy", he talks about how privacy is better but in Chris Cillizza's article, " In The Battle Between Security And Privacy, Privacy Always Wins" he talks how security is more important. While Cillizza's article is more specific, it is weaker because he uses a lot of emotional appeals.
The United States government wiretapping citizens is not a new thing, in fact in 1940 ‘The Security Intelligence Section of U.S. Naval Communications famously intercepted communication directed to the Japanese embassy in Washington shortly before Pearl Harbor’ (Socolow). Again after September 11, the post 9/11 Patriot Act was put to use and citizen’s phone records were pulled for NSA surveillance. What I want to know is why, why do we as people wait until it’s too late to do what is best for our country?