The twenty first century has been a century of technology thus far, and this technology is getting more advanced and more involved in our lives. Governments around the world are using this new technology as a means of surveillance and to spy on their citizens. Some people believe that these are necessary means to prevent terrorism. Governments need to reduce their surveillance of their citizens because it is an invasion of privacy, the surveillance technology isn’t always used as it is intended, and there aren’t enough laws protecting the privacy of its citizens. When governments engage in surveillance of their citizens, it is an invasion of their citizens’ property. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows the government …show more content…
The purpose of a license plate reader (LPR) is to track down stolen or wanted cars but some cities use it to find cars of illegal immigrants. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is then able to access this data to track down these immigrants. Since they can technically do this without cooperating with local law enforcement, they can avoid sanctuary city laws. This is clearly not being used to catch terrorists; it’s not even being used for its intended purpose. The issue isn’t necessarily that the technology is being used to hunt illegal immigrants, it’s that the technology is being blatantly misused and used as a work around for certain laws. If governments and law enforcement can’t be trusted to use surveillance property, their ability to use it should be limited. Cities that collect this data often distribute it to federal clearing houses that store this data. Private companies are also forming their own databases based on information collected in the same way. When this information is shared it has a much greater chance of being misused or exploited. For example, it’s databases like these that ICE gets its data from. This is just another way that this technology can be misused by government agencies like ICE. In an article written in the Los Angeles Times, it was stated, “Lawmakers may have little idea what exactly they're approving and usually don't …show more content…
These people argue that erecting new privacy laws will make it harder to detect terrorists before they strike. Their claim is that it would affect the ability to gather data from foreign targets who communicate with Americans and that this data is a crucial counterterrorism measure. However, most privacy laws that would affect this ability would still give congress the ability to access this data in an emergency situation. In reality, privacy laws would protect our information while still giving the government access to the foreign targets they want. Advocates also cite the fact that surveillance has been effective in the past. One such example they use is, “In 2009 the National Security Agency used 702 to collect emails in which an unknown person in the U.S. asked an al Qaeda member in Pakistan for advice on making explosives. Those emails led the FBI to Najibullah Zazi, a Colorado man with imminent plans to bomb the New York subway system”(Klein, A.15). While they are correct in saying that it has been effective before, they are incorrect in assuming that it would only be effective in its current form. This system still has plenty of room to be reformed for the sake of privacy, and it could be argued that it would make the system better overall. They also are against the idea of making
To better understand the topic at hand it is important to understand what electronic surveillance is pertaining to Foreign Intelligence. The definition of “electronic surveillance”, as written is FISA, can be summarized best as acquisition of data from wire or radio communications using “an electronic, mechanical, or other surveillance device”. There are four specific criteria that further define electronic surveillance in more detail also included in FISA under Title 1, Section 101. This section also included definitions for those groups that surveillance may be authorized against. [2]
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.
It was reassured from the Department of Justice that any searches made under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, data will be used in compliance with guidelines and procedures, and it does not provide a way to get around the requirement of a court order before targeting any U.S. citizen under the FISA. A considerable amount of the NSA's bulk data collection is actually substantiated under section 702. This gives permission for the collection of communications without an individual warrant for each case, as long as there is a reasonable belief that the communications are both foreign and in another nation.
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.
The feeling that someone is always watching, develops the inevitable, uncomfortable feeling that is displeasing to the mind. For years, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been monitoring people for what they call, “the greater good of the people” (Cole, February 2014). A program designed to protect the nation while it protects the walls within as it singles people out, sometimes by accident. Whether you are a normal citizen or a possible terrorist, the NSA can monitor you in a variation of ways. The privacy of technology has sparked debates across the world as to if the NSA is violating personal rights to privacy by collecting personal data such as, phone calls and text messages without reason or authorization (Wicker, 2011). Technology plays a key role in society’s day to day life. In life, humans expect privacy, even with their technology. In recent news, Edward Snowden leaked huge pieces from the NSA to the public, igniting these new controversies. Now, reforms are being pressed against the government’s throat as citizens fight for their rights. However, American citizens are slammed with the counterargument of the innocent forte the NSA tries to pass off in claims of good doing, such as how the NSA prevents terrorism. In fear of privacy violations, limitations should be put on the NSA to better protect the privacy of our honest citizens.
Domestic Surveillance: Is domestic surveillance worth the hassle? In 2013, whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to the American people that the National Security Agency had been spying on them. Not only that, but also on world leaders. Domestic surveillance is understood as the first line of defense against terrorism, but it has many downsides, not only it violates Americans lives, also it spies on our social media, it puts a fine line on their privacy, and it is a big stab at the freedom of speech. According to John W. Whitehead, “The fact that the government can now, at any time, access entire phone conversations, e-mail exchanges, and other communications from months or years past should frighten every American.”
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
...e administration plans to introduce legislation that would alter the N.S.A’s privacy breaches and end its illegal data collections. Citing an identical argument, that the government cannot indicate terrorist attacks that have been stopped by the intelligence gathering programs, a review group of the Administration “called for major changes to the program; the latter also concluded that the bulk collection is illegal.”3
Surveillance cameras have helped hundreds of law enforcement agencies solve thousands of crimes throughout the nation. They have become so helpful that most law enforcement agencies are planning on setting them up on street corners, buildings, publication parks, and on their own officers. There are many cities across the nation that have began to use surveillance cameras. Setting up cameras is a pivotal technique to solving and preventing crimes. Although, it is often argued that having law enforcement surveillance cameras set up throughout the nations communities is an invasion of privacy, citizens should sacrifice a little bit of privacy in return for their safety and protection of civil rights against criminals and police officers.
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...
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”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
One of the many details shown is that mass surveillance has not had an apparent impact on the prevention of terrorism (Greenwald, 2013). Most of the information gathered has not been used to impede a terrorist attack. Surveillance does not protect the rights to life, property and so on from being violated by terrorists. However it gives the citizen...
Video cameras are being deployed around the nation to help with crime solving, but some people are concerned about their privacy. Having cameras to monitor public areas have shown to be useful in situations such as identifying the bombers of the Boston marathon in early 2013. There have also been issues with these cameras however, as people are concerned they are too invasive of their privacy and have been misused by police officers in the past. Some people want to find a balance in using cameras in public so that they can continue to help with crime solving while making sure they are not too invasive and are properly used.
Privacy is not just a fundamental right, it is also important to maintain a truly democratic society where all citizens are able to exist with relative comfort. Therefore, “[Monitoring citizens without their knowledge] is a major threat to democracies all around the world.” (William Binney.) This is a logical opinion because without freedom of expression and privacy, every dictatorship in history has implemented some form of surveillance upon its citizens as a method of control.