When one hears the words National Security and Privacy together the terms Snowden, NSA, and Patriot Act are often at the forefront of any discussions. It has become common knowledge that the way the United States deals with national security has changed. Since the implication of the Patriot Act in 2001, the way that the United States has dealt with security and antiterrorism issues has created a never ending fight with civil liberty groups regarding such laws being constitutional or not. Those civil liberty groups argue that such laws infringe upon the fourth amendment, imposing unwarranted searches on civilians who have shown no probable cause to endure such invasion. But the question remains: what is considered probable cause? While …show more content…
Further, a local news outlet for Hanover, Massachuetts reported that police responded to reports of explosives being used only twenty-one days prior to the horrific act at the Boston Marathon (Burridge). Had investigators been able to use data mining tactics, “the possibility of putting together disconnected facts to point the finger at a suspect whom the government would not otherwise have suspected, (Data Mining, Dog Sniffs, and the Fourth Amendment),” might have pointed said finger right at the Tsarnaev brothers and Martin Richard might have been celebrating his tenth birthday this …show more content…
This can be countered by not only creating information matrixes in which intellegince must use in order to persue deeper into a person’s privacy, but by also implementing and strictly enforcing policy on the matter. Europe and Canada have an extensive intelligence gathering protocol laid out in its Making Intelligence Accountable Handbook (Born and Leigh 30). In it, emails and other forms of electronic means can not be gathered or flagged based on a person’s religion, sex, sexual orientation, race, political orientation, or the like (32). Religious bias is something that unfortunately does happen during intelligence gathering; recently this form of discrimination has been felt heavily by the American Muslim community since 9/11 and other recent events. But limiting emails to flagged words (or combination of flagged words), phone calls to certain known terrorist numbers, and focusing on specific terriorest organization social media activites can help to hinder this form of
The events of March 5, 1770 should and have been remembered as momentous and predictable. Perhaps not the night or city specifically, but the state of affairs in Boston, if not throughout The English Colonies, had declined to the point that British troops found themselves frequently assaulted with stones, dirt, and human feces. The opinions and sentiments of either side were certainly not clandestine. Even though two spectators express clear culpability for the opposing side, they do so only in alteration of detail. The particulars of the event unfold the same nonetheless. The happening at the Custom House off King Street was a catastrophic inevitability. Documents from the Boston Massacre trial, which aid us in observing from totally different perceptions. The depositions of witnesses of the event prove to be useful; an English officer Captain Preston and a colonial Robert Goddard give relatively dissimilar details. In spite of these differences, they still both describe the same state of affairs.
In a world where terrorism, war, and economic instability are ever looming threats it’s not a wonder why the limits on the freedom of the individual can come into question. This is especially true when the country where these limits are brought into question is one of the world’s leading powers in: democracy, economics, social welfare, military force, and foreign politics in general. This country, of course, is the United States. Unfortunately, even with the country’s democratically centered government, there is still a debate on whether Americans have enough protections for civil liberties or not. A few key areas of argument on civil liberties and hopefully provide enough information to the reader so that he/she may deduce an educated opinion as to whether Americans have enough protection for civil liberties or not.
On March 5th, 1770 the colonists were going to protest against the British rule because they were being unfair to the colonists, with taxes being passed without the colonists’ approval. The proclamation of 1763 didn’t help stopping people from settling across the Appalachian mountains even though people fought for it. Also each house had to house and feed a soldier. Many other taxes on different items also caused colonists to be angry. Many started to protest one of these protests had the colonists in front of government building with weapons the British soldiers then fired killing five and injuring others. There was not a massacre on March 5, 1770 in Boston because there was not a massacre on March 5, 1770 in Boston because less than ten colonists
The Boston Massacre is considered by many historians to be the first battle of the Revolutionary War. The fatal incident happened on March 5 of 1770. The massacre resulted in the death of five colonists. British troops in the Massachusetts Bay Colony were there to stop demonstrations against the Townshend Acts and keep order, but instead they provoked outrage. The British soldiers and citizens brawled in streets and fought in bars. “The citizens viewed the British soldiers as potential oppressors, competitors for jobs, and a treat to social mores'; (Mahin 1). A defiant anti-British fever was lingering among the townspeople.
On March 5, 1770 a fight broke out in the streets of Boston, Massachusetts between a patriot mob and British soldiers. Citizens attacked a squad of soldiers by throwing snowballs, stones and sticks. British Army soldiers in turn killed five civilians and injured six others. The presence of British troops had been stationed in Boston, the capital of Province of Massachusetts Bay since 17681. The British existence was increasingly unwelcome. The British troops were sent to Boston in order to protect and support the crown-appointed colonial officials attempting to enforce unpopular Parliamentary legislation.
The Boston Massacre was a fundamental event at the beginning of the American Revolution. The massacre became part of anti-British propaganda for Boston activists and fed American fears of the English military in both the North and South. The Boston Massacre was the first “battle” in the Revolutionary War. Although it wasn’t until five years after the Boston Massacre that the Revolutionary War officially began, the Boston Massacre was a forecast of the violent storm to come.
The book The Patriot Act : Issues and Controversies outlines some of the ways that the act has worked to surveil individuals and suppress civil rights entrenched in the Bill of Rights. The first amendment of freedom of speech is suppressed by the Patriot Act by targeting and wiretapping groups that would be seen as potential threats to the state and arbitrarily arrest these perceived threats without due process, a lawyer, or a jury which infringe on the fourth, fifth and sixth amendments respectively (Smith, Cary Stacy, Hung, Li-Ching 2010, 191-194). The act also breaches on human rights and the eight amendment which allows for authorities to use utmost force during detainment such as torture. Also without warrant their house may be searched and personal items such as documents and computers may be seized by the authorities breaking the Freedom of Information Act (Smith, Cary Stacy, Hung, Li-Ching 2010, 199). All of these severe actions may be used in the name of government security and government surveillance though many of them break civil and human right laws. The Patriot act exemplifies the real harm that Greenwald discusses in his article, the oppressive nature of government surveillance that quashes dissent and uses fear
Today, in the United States, national security is a major issue. With countless terrorist attacks being inflicted on the U.S., government officials seek to fix the problem by any means possible. In 2001, shortly after the attack on September 11, the George W. Bush administration drafted legislation designed to prevent future terrorist attacks; however, controversy broke out concerning people’s rights to privacy. In effect, The Patriot Act was passed to support the public’s demand to combat terrorism in the wake of 9/11 and resulted in the expansion of the surveillance of federal law-enforcement, and controversy regarding the violation of basic constitutional rights.
Throughout history, events are sparked by something, which causes emotions to rise and tensions to come to a breaking point. The Boston Massacre was no exception; America was feeling the pressure of the British and was ready to break away from the rule. However, this separation between these two parties would not come without bloodshed on both sides. The British did not feel the American had the right to separate them from under British rule, but the Americans were tired of their taxes and rules being placed upon them and wanted to succeed from their political tyrants. The Boston Massacre would be the vocal point in what would be recognized, as the Revolutionary War in American history and the first place lives would be lost for the cost of liberty. Even though the lives were lost that day, eight British soldiers were mendaciously accused of murder when it was clearly self-defense. People who are placed in a situation where their lives are threatened have the right to defend themselves. History does not have the right to accuse any one event those history may have considered the enemy guilty when they are fighting for their lives.
The government’s use of surveillance and metadata collection has greatly increased since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. Many Americans feel that this increase in surveillance is violating their privacy rights and the Constitution. The government can, and should, do everything it can to protect the lives and freedoms of its citizens. The National Security Agency is not violating the Constitution by electronically collecting information from American citizens, and the data collection is necessary to keep Americans safe by preventing future terrorist attacks.
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.
On September 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by a group of Islamic terrorists who hijacked four airplanes and carried out three simultaneous suicide attacks against the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. As a result of the multiple crimes, the United States’ government increased national security and prioritized our nation 's’ defense, often at the expense of the people’s privacy, by enacting policies like the Patriot Act (What is the USA Patriot Web 2011). This left personal emails, text messages, internet history, and personal belongings exposed to the government. Although the government reduced the public’s rights to privacy, it is a necessary step to ensure national safety and security.
The use of profiling as an investigative technique has been used for many years. Profiling is a prominent tool used in the field of criminal justice and criminology to better understand behavior, personality characteristics, and certain types of criminals. Using such characteristics as religion, race and sex have always been frowned upon but sometimes are needed to better categorize certain types of crimes and offenders. The three major goals of profiling are to provide a social and psychological assessment of the offender, to provide a psychological evaluation of belongings in possession by the offender, and to provide interviewing suggestions and strategies when captured. (Oconnor, 2011) By achieving each of these goals when profiling different offenders, links between certain characteristics of offe...
Sales, Nathan A. "The PATRIOT Act Does Not Violate Americans' Right to Privacy." Espionage and Intelligence. Ed. Sylvia Engdahl. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 10 Feb. 2014.
A major reason the U.S. needs to increase restrictions on the type and amount of data collected on individuals from the internet is due to the fact that the United States government can track communications and browsing histories of private citizens without warrant or cause. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, ...