Ever since the invention of the telephone and telegraph, the concept of wiretapping has been a concern. As early as the 1860’s, statutes were in place in some states prohibiting listening in on telegraph communication. As the turn of the century neared, along came the telephone, and with it, came wiretapping. From the onset, it has been illegal in the United States for an unauthorized person to listen in on a private phone conversation. It is even illegal to record your own phone conversation if the person on the other end does not know it is being recorded (Harris, 2001).
According to Harris, historically, the law has not been as strict for the government. He states, “in 1928, the United States Supreme Court approved the practice of wiretapping for the police and other government officials, though some states have banned it.” By the 1970’s, this practice was met with some provisions. Now law enforcement is required to obtain a court order to listen in on private conversations, and the information obtained can be used in court only in certain circumstances. In addition, there are limitations with the court order. Authorities are only permitted to listen in on a call for a certain length of time. Regardless of these parameters, the practice of government wiretapping is highly controversial (2001).
With the advancements in technology and explosive growth in internet communication, many new concerns have arisen. Internet communication, which is comprised of bits and bytes, can be “viewed” using something called packet sniffers, such as the FBI's Carnivore system. Internet communication, as it was not “verbal” conversation, had not been protected by the same laws that protect traditional phone use. However, by 1986, the U....
... middle of paper ...
...d Hicks, Josh. “Homeland Security is seeking a national license plate tracking system” 18 February 2014. The Washington Post. 18 February 2014.
Rouse, Margaret. “Definition of Patriot Act” April 2010. Whatis.com. April 2010.
Stone, Adam. “Video Helped Capture the Boston Bombing Suspects, But is it Preventive?” 08 July 2013. 08 July 2013.
Wilkerson, Lori. “The History of Video Surveillance – From VCR’s to Eyes in the Sky.” 23 March 2005. September 2008.
Communication surveillance has been a controversial issue in the US since the 1920's, when the Supreme Court deemed unwarranted wiretaps legitimate in the case of Olmstead v United States. Since telephone wires ran over public grounds, and the property of Olmstead was not physically violated, the wiretap was upheld as lawful. However, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling in 1967 in the landmark case of Katz v United States. On the basis of the fourth amendment, the court established that individuals have the right to privacy of communication, and that wiretapping is unconstitutional unless it is authorized by a search warrant. [Bowyer, 142-143] Since then, the right to communication privacy has become accepted as an integral facet of the American deontological code of ethics. The FBI has made an at least perfunctory effort to respect the public's demand for Internet privacy with its new Internet surveillance system, Carnivore. However, the current implementation of Carnivore unnecessarily jeopardizes the privacy of innocent individuals.
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.
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...
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.” (Whitehead). The NSA
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.
The NSA has been secretly ordered to eavesdrop by the Bush administration after the 9/11 terrorist attack. The base of where the NSA has been operating their wiretapping agenda is in Bluff Dale, Utah the building sprawls 1,500,000 square feet and possess the capacity to hold as much as five zeta bytes of data it has cost almost $2,000,000,000. The act of spying over the USA citizens even though they are suspicious is a threat to the people’s privacy and the privacy of other countries’ members are being infringed on by the NSA by the act of wiretapping. The action of wiretapping violates laws for privacy, like the Bill of Right’s Amendment Four which says “Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions”. The wiretapping controversy has caused the panic and hysteria of the citizens of the USA and USA’s allies. This panic and hysteria has troubled the government by resulting to mistrust and concern against them by both groups. The panic effect of the NSA wiretapping has caused many people such as journalist to have their freedom of speech to be restricted in fear of the NSA to stamp them as terrorist and according to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights that is an infringement of the people’s right of freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.
The same surveillance state has become the new normal in America and is disturbingly recognizable today. Over six hundred state, local, and federal agencies conduct intelligence operations through Joint Terrorism Task Forces and Fusion Centers. In 2004, the ACLU discovered an FBI spying on political advocacy groups and found out that the FBI lied to hide these improper activities from Congress and the American public. The Senate report found the intelligence gathering at Fusion Centers was “flawed, irrelevant, unrelated to terrorism, and posed a serious threat to privacy (Rhode, 2017).” The Thought Police watch people in their public and private lives through the use of telescreens, microphones, and cameras and enforce loyalty and
There are many laws in place by the United States government to protect consumers. This term paper will examine one law in particular, The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986. “The ECPA applies to both government and private entities, but appears to be more restrictive concerning government interception and access.” [1] The ECPA was put in place to protect individual’s electronic communication rights from being violated. Without a law of this type, our on-line world would be a welcome mat for anyone who wanted to invade our lives.
Kelly, Heather. After Boston: The Pros and Cons of Surveillance Cameras. CNN Tech. Cable News Network, 26 Apr 2013. Web. 3 Apr 2014.
Disclosures have shown that, until recently, the government regularly tracked the calls of hundreds of millions of Americans. Today, it continues to spy on a vast but unknown number of Americans’ international calls, text messages, web-browsing activities, and emails. It appears that the police now have a device that can read license plates and check if a car is unregistered, uninsured or stolen. Little did you know that the National Security Agency can go into your Facebook page and . And it not surprising that almost every store we go into now a day wants your home phone number and ZIP code as part of any transaction. If you’ve ever lost an iPhone, you may have used Apple’s “Find My iPhone” feature to remotely activate your phone’s GPS signal. I remember one time I was looking for a job on the internet for almost a week but couldn't find what I wanted. Then one random I started receiving random texts from this number trying if the right job for me which was sort of weird. But now I know about the NSA,which is spying on Americans, collecting data on phone calls we make, it's not as if we should have been surprised. We live in a world that George Orwell predicted in
Everyday citizens of the United States are unknowingly being stalked. The government consistently wiretaps into our electronic devices to get information on numerous things. Citizens should not have to give up aspects of personal privacy for the greater good of society. In fact, the most disturbing thing about it all is that we will never know when it is happening. This is similar to the privacy violations explored in 1984 because George Orwell is clearly exposing the wrongdoings of the government. The privacy of Americans is being violated by the government acquiring all of our messages and calls, recording through our microphone, and turning our cameras on without our consent.
Electronic surveillance. Electronic surveillance has since grown to be an extraordinary part in exercising global power. In October 2001, not content with the over invasive checks and phenomenal powers of the recently passed PATRIOT Act, President Bush commanded the National Security Agency to begin under the radar monitoring of communications thought to be private by using the nation’s telephone companies without required FISA warrants. After a little while, the NSA commenced searching the Internet for emails, financial records, and voice messaging on the dubious theory that such “metadata” was “not constitutionally protected.” Because of this, by riffling the Internet for text and the parallel Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) for audio, the NSA, at this time, had acquired ways to listen in on much of the world’s telecommunications. Toward the end of Bush’s term in 2008, Congress had created laws that not only subsequently legalized the illegal programs, but as well showed a way for NSA surveillance to grow unchecked
One of the hottest topics in privacy is regarding our phone conversation with others. It doesn't take a whole lot these days to be in someone's business, in their conversation, breaking the law of privacy with out spending that much time and money. "…Compared to an average monthly phone bill of seventy dollars, the option to wiretap the average phone line is probably worth less than twelve cents a month to police and spy agencies."1 These days, when information is transferred from one person to another, or from point A to point B, there are more people who are interested in know what they are talking about, not just to know but to benefit something out of it. This is illegal if it is done without the knowledge of the individuals involved. Since people are not giving communication privacy enough attention, it is getting to the point that it is out of control of anybody. Anybody can just get up and get in to others conversation with out their knowledge. This is having a big effect in out community these days. There are a lot of scenarios were people are involved in this situation.
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.
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.