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. The foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is a United States federal law that outlines and defines the procedures for the surveillance and collection of physical and electronic intelligence in the United States of America. As with any search and seizure operation the surveying agency must obtain a warrant by a court judge to proceed with the spying; FISA went ahead and established its own court by which it obtains its warrants for surveillance. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court was created under FISA for the oversight of all surveillance warrants by federal police agencies. This court is served by a body of eleven judges placed there by the chief... ... middle of paper ... ...constitution-to-conduct-domestic-surveillance MacAskill, G. G. (2014, April 28). NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others. Retrieved from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-2%20Special%20trail:Network%20front%20-%20special%20trail:Position1 O'NEIL, D. E. (2014, April 20). White House Begins New Effort to Defend Surveillance Program . Retrieved from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/politics/23cnd-wiretap.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 STEPHEN BRAUN, A. F. (2014, May 9). Secret to Prism program: Even bigger data seizure. The big story, p. 1. Wu, E. Y. (2014, April 28). 3 DOMESTIC SPYING AND WHY AMERICA SHOULD AVOID THE SLIPPERY SLOPE. Retrieved from lawweb: http://lawweb.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/rlsj/assets/docs/Wu_Final.pdf
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.
McCraw, David, and Stephen Gikow. “The End to a Unspoken Bargain? National Security and Leaks in a Post-Pentagon Papers World.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 48.2 (2013): 473-509. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.
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.
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.
The Web. 4 Dec. 2013. Calamur, Krishnadev. A.P.S. & B.A.S. 5 Things To Know About The NSA's Surveillance Activities. NPR.com - "The New York Times" NPR, n.d. -
LEE, J. (2014, March 20). TED2014: NSA responds to Edward Snowden's video talk . .
... (2013). Obama administration asks Supreme Court to allow warrantless cellphone searches. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/19/obama-administration-asks-supreme-court-to-allow-warrantless-cellphone-searches/
It is a well-distinguished fact that the government loves using surveillance – a surveillance’s easy accessibility, regardless of the threat they pose, verifies the government’s love. Surveillance is a part of the government’s life. According to ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), just six weeks after the September 11 attacks, the government passed quite a lot of legislative acts, such as the USA/Patriot Act, that would allow the government to watch doubtful actions. The act was a revision of the nation's surveillance laws that allowed the government's authority to spy on the citizens. The Patriot Act made it easier for the system to gain access to records of citizens' actions being held by a third party. Similarly, Section 215 of the Patriot Act allowed the FBI to force many people - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and Internet service providers - to turn in information on their clients (“Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act”).
Gellman, Barton. "NSA Broke Privacy Rules Thousands of times per Year, Audit Finds." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 21 Aug. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.
Major tech companies unite to fight government surveillance. The New American. American Opinion Publishing, Inc., 6 Jan 2014. Web. 3 Apr 2014.
Edward Snowden, the famous “whistleblower”, shocked the world with his revelations about the NSA’s database and the programs which allow the organization to access personal information not only of citizens of other nations, but also of citizens of the U.S. The most shocking revelation of all was not the existence of these programs, but the fact that the Obama administration allowed those programs to exist in direct violation of every U.S. citizen’s right to privacy.
The United States government is up to its ears in the personal information it has collected from its citizens. Americans are becoming increasingly “aware of these slowly eroding walls of privacy,”(Hirsh) and more than half polled admit concern “about the overall accumulation of personal information about them “by […] law enforcement, government, […] and other groups,” though “they accept it as an unavoidable modern phenomenon” (Hirsh). The question is, how far is too far to trust the government with the collection, proper storage, and usage of this information? Studies show that “Americans believe that business, government, social-media sites, and other groups are accessing their most personal information without their consent” (Hirsh). People should be given the ability to admit or deny access to their personal information. The government does not have a right to use whatever information it wants for any purpose it wishes. Michael Hayden, once the NSA director for seven years, says, “Even I recognize that it's one thing for Google to know too much, because they aren't putting me in jail. It's another thing for government, because they can coerce me” (Hirsh). The United States government's ability to collect information about its citizens and residents should be restricted by what kind of information it can take, how it can acquire it, and what it can use it for.
Lütticke, Marcus. "A Chronology of the NSA Surveillance Scandal." DW.DE. Deutsche Welle, 31 Oct. 2013. Web. 01 Apr. 2014.
PRISM provides admittance to the servers of websites such as Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube, Skype, Yahoo, Apple, and other companies. Private messages sent between users are made readily available. Computer histories and cookies are also recorded. An article published by International Business Times, spoke about cookies and the NSA's use of them. Cookies collect data, and can identify a person’s unique browser (Snowden Leaks). With this information, the NSA can hack computers using special software. “The first ruling against the NSA's surveillance program was handed down in December by Judge Richard Leon of Federal District Court for the District of Columb...
Lardinois, Frederic. "Google, Facebook, Dropbox, Yahoo, Microsoft, Paltalk, AOL And Apple Deny Participation In NSA PRISM Surveillance Program." Techcrunch.com. TechCrunch, 6 June 2013. Web. 23 Feb. 2014