Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Wire tapping and The Fourth Amendment
Government control surveillance
Wire tapping united states
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
You greet your friend as you are talking to him on your Samsung Galaxy S7. You have the most casual conversation, but there is one thing neither you nor your friend does not know. The government is hearing every word you say. The NSA (National Security Agency) tracks every single phone call made in the country. Some find it okay; however, others find it an invasion of their privacy. I firmly believe that government phone tapping is lawful and should still exist, because it deters crime, most people are not against it, and it hinders terrorism.
Back in 2001, the Patriot Act was passed, saying that the government is allowed to track and access phone records. Those who are against government phone tapping state that the law is unconstitutional, because it violates the Fourth Amendment. According to the law.cornell.edu website, the Fourth Amendment, passed in 1791, says: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and
…show more content…
the persons or things to be seized.” In this case, the NSA would technically need a search warrant, but it is a major government agency. It can override the law, because it is pretty much its own search warrant. It has been proven to help security; therefore it is not “unreasonable”. When you tap a phone, you can hear all that they spoke, so if they spoke “Let’s sell drugs at the black market,” then the police would be able to track them down with their caller ID and arrest them before they could commit a crime. Those who are against government wiretapping are a great quantity.
On debate websites like debate.org, more than half argue no, but according to a December 2015 poll, more than half of the American population found phone tapping as acceptable: 56% to be exact. Besides, other countries support wiretapping too. As a matter of fact, the United Kingdom does more wiretapping than the USA. Countries such as Canada and Australia also wiretap on their citizens as well, proving that the issue at stake is not nationwide, but global. The people in those countries are fine with it, and though the UK does more phone tapping than the NSA, the English are satisfied, believing that it greatly improves their overall security. Here, too, if more than half of our population is for it, why repeal it? Most would be
disappointed. On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda hijacked three planes, destroying the World Trade Center, hitting the Pentagon, and crashing the last of the planes into a field in Pennsylvania. Since then, a War on Terror has been declared. As previously stated, the Patriot Act was passed, allowing the government to have “access to records and other items,” most notably our phones. Phone tapping may be an invasion of privacy, and it may override our basic rights we have as US citizens guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but it does help our nation’s security. According to the NSA, they have thwarted 54 terrorist schemes since 9/11. “Of these 54: 12 involved cases of material support to terrorists; 50 led to arrests or detentions; 25 occurred in Europe; 11 were in Asia; 5 were in Africa; 13 had a homeland nexus.” Two of them were plots on the New York Stock Exchange and a New York subway station. Would you rather have one of your rights be taken away or see the US collapse when terrorists attack us for the twentieth time? That is the effect wiretapping has on us, and it is well worth the invasion of privacy. Some people may never be convinced that government wiretapping is good for us, and sometimes we must sacrifice our liberties as US citizens for the greater good of our country. Also, for most of us, there is no reason why we should even worry about government wiretapping. If we have nothing bad to hide from them, why fret? Chances are, you would not care at all that the NSA knows that you said “Hi” to your friend. There may be many terrorist attacks worldwide, but the NSA phone tapping program has made ISIS/ISIL and other terrorist groups half as powerful as they would be. Just sit back and enjoy the high level of security that the US government provides us.
How would you feel if everything you did on the internet, every text you sent, and every call you made was seen by someone? That is what the NSA is doing right now. According to Wikipedia, the National Security Agency is a national-level intelligence agency of the United States of Defense, under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence.[1] They have been a controversial topic since the 1970s when it was revealed that they had been wiretapping Americans’ telephones. Their surveillance has only grown since then, even though most Americans disagree with it. [2] The NSA’s domestic surveillance is unconstitutional, ineffective, and a violation of privacy that needs to be stopped.
The Patriot Act violates many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, for example, gives American citizens freedom of speech, press, and religion. The Patriot Act allows the government to monitor the religious and political papers and institutions of citizens that are not even reasonable suspects for criminal activity. Church,
Privacy comes at a cost. It brings people who fight for the people the privacy of others when it is violated together. Cops not being able to search when they seize a cell phone makes them risk their lives because how people these days are, there could be bombs in the phone. Even though this amendment was ratified, people to this day still don’t have privacy they rightfully deserve. This effects me because I’m able to keep special information to myself. Also, if a police pulls over a family member and ask for their phone to investigate without giving a proper reason or having a warrant, that family member could say no. If a police hasn’t given you a good reason to hand something over, you have the right to resist or else the police are being unconstitutional. This amendment gives people the safety to do what they want(that’s legal). It also makes life better, but harder. Life is harder with this amendment because you have to watch out for who you trust that they won’t do anything to jeopardize your safety. This is relevant because a man in Indiana was tracked down by a GPS. It didn’t violate his 4th Amendment because the police got a warrant to put a tracking device in his mom’s car. This case represents how technology gives advantages and disadvantages. An advantage was that they were able to track him down for a burglary. The disadvantage would be that if they hadn’t gotten a warrant, he could have filed a lawsuit against
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.
According to the Fourth Amendment, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Without the Fourth Amendment, people would have no rights over their own personal privacy. Police officers could just enter people’s houses and take anything that they could use as evidence and use it against them. With the advancement in today’s technology, it is getting more and more difficult to define what exactly privacy is to us, and whether or not the Fourth Amendment protects it.
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.
middle of paper ... ... The Patriot Act does not infringe upon the rights of citizens; it ensures that those who wish to harm this country have limited means to do so. The Patriot Act was passed as a means to allow better protection of citizens, given the current state of technology today.
The Fourth Amendment states, 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.' (Encarta Online) In the court case of Katz v. United States it was said that, 'the 4th Amendment protects the people and not certain areas against search and seizure.' (Katz v. U.S.) Without this amendment people would have no claim over their personal privacy, or security. Any officer could enter homes and take any evidence that could be used to make an arrest or that could be used for prosecution in court.
The U.S. Patriot Act was set in place to better serve our country against terrorism. The U.S. Patriot Act is an Acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Acts (Lithwick). This act is to punish terrorist actions and improve law enforcement not only in the United States but also around the world. The United States Patriot Act consists of over 1,000 sections that describe the act in great detail. The sections include, but are not limited to, the power extended to the government by The U.S. Patriot Act to deport and incarcerate non citizens. With the U.S. Patriot Act a person’s phone line can be tapped, records of any and all purchases checked, and even library records searched. This Act also has sections to help money laundering, expand our country’s border protection, strengthening the extent of criminal laws and provide for people suffering from any type of terrorism acts (Huffman).
There are two hundred ninety pages in the USA Patriot Act; many of these pages are discussing subjects that change the rights of American citizens forever. The act was passed in a little over a month, which suggest that few, if any, congressmen thoroughly read this detailed act. In times of crisis, history has proved that United States citizens willingly compromise their right of privacy without considering the consequences. Many people have openly accepted this act without knowing what it is, most people have never even heard of the USA Patriot Act. The USAPA (USA Patriot Act) has not gone under the scrutiny that any normal act would have, yet this could be more important than any other act to date. The USAPA allows national or domestic law enforces (from the NSA, FBI, and CIA all the way down to the local police) to tap your computer or voice mail with a simple search warrant issued by a judge. Only one out of ten thousand of these search warrants requests are rejected. The law enforcers are also allowed to tap electronic devices without telling the victim about the warrant or that they are being monitored. Also, the CIA and other foreign agencies are allowed to share information with the domestic law enforcement. This means that agencies that were once not allowed to intervene in the affairs of the USA can do so without punishment. These are few of the many la...
Cell phone privacy has become quite an issue over the past few years now that cell phone use is prevalent among most of the world. There have been many articles and news stories circling around about how the government is tracking every move on our cell phone. This includes the government and other entities recording our conversations. Many people view this as a violation of privacy because their expressed thoughts and feelings are being recorded and listened to by someone somewhere. Another ethical concern that this brings about is the violation of the privacy protections of the fourth amendment. Law enforcements officials have the right to access personal location data without giving probable cause to the judge (ACLU 1). While this can create an unnerving feeling I believe the government has taken these measures to keep the country safe. If the government can prevent...
We can also have a different approach, which will make phone tapping a good thing for the community. The government uses phone tapping to investigate some people in order to keep the safety of the people or the community in a good condition. For example, if the government knew before the incident on 9/11 though the conversation of the terrorist, they would have saved a lot more people who died not knowing that they were targeted.
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 lives 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 investigated.
Nearly every major international agreement on human rights protects the right of individuals to be free from unwarranted surveillance. This guarantee has trickled down into national constitutional or legal provisions, protecting the privacy of communications.