Terrorism, it's one of the worst things that can ever happen to mankind. The NSA’s goal is to prevent this horrible threat and save lives. So far the NSA has prevented 54 terrorist attacks around the world. Take a second to think about how many lives have been able to be lived because of this. Many people would say the NSA are stalkers and should not be doing what they're doing, tell that to the thousands of lives that have been saved. As of right now the NSA is monitoring about 200 phone numbers for FBI security. That means you have less than a 1% chance of being monitored. Unless you are a terrorist with evil plots, I highly doubt that the less than 1% of people being “stalked” is you. This is why the NSA is barely an infringement on privacy. The NSA is committed to protecting our country by …show more content…
When people say that the NSA needs to stop spying they are wrong. The NSA’s goal is not spying but identifying people who are a potential threat to this country, before it is too late. That being said, as stated in the thesis, as of right now the NSA is currently monitoring about 200 phone numbers. In fact, by law the NSA is only allowed to collect information contained on the phone bill, namely the numbers dialed and the duration of the call. If they need to listen in on a call they need to obtain a warrant from a judge. This is why the NSA is barely an infringement on privacy because they only listen to your calls if they think you could be planning an attack on the U.S., if you are not then you are your calls are most definitely not being listened in on. If the NSA isn't even listing on your calls, please tell me, what are all the protests and fuss about? Exactly, they are pretty much protesting about the NSA keeping the country safe. I don't know about you but I don't think this a topic we should be protesting about, if not
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 National Security Agency or NSA for short is a United States federal government intelligence organization that is used for global monitoring and collecting data. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush implemented the NSA’s domestic spying program to conduct a range of surveillance activities inside the United States. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding this program as it allows the NSA to tap into the public’s phone calls, cameras, internet searches, text messages, and many other mediums to seek out individuals that may be potential threats to the security of the general public. Many individuals say that the tactics used by the NSA are unconstitutional as they invade people’s privacy. This is primarily
The United States has lived through an age of terrorism and the citizens have come to realize that they would rather ensure the safety of the masses than protect their privacy. Works Cited Cunningham, David. A. "The Patterning of Repression: FBI Counterintelligence and the New Left." Social Forces 82.1 (2003): 209–40. JSTOR.com - "The New York Times" Oxford Journals.
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.
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 NSA and U.S. government sifting through our private information is but a small inconvenience that we must sacrifice in order to protect our own freedom and safety. Domestic Surveillance roots back to the 1910’s, where the assassination of President McKinley, created a Bureau of Investigation that would trace the efforts of the Communists attempting an uprising in America. This would be the foundings behind Domestic Surveillance in America, and would continue on after World War II where the government created the NSA and CIA, with the main purposes
Since the terrorist attacks at Sept. 11, 2001, the surveillance issue often has turned away the table in the debate of individual privacy or counterterrorism. By passing the Patriot Act, Congress gave President Bush an immense law enforcement authority to boost U.S's counterterrorism, and the President used his enlarged powers to forward specific programs in order to reduce the threat of terrorism and defend the country’s safety.
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.
Evidence can prove that Miranda Rights should be an important right for the citizens of the United States Of America but should not be a digression or inconsequential and that shows Equality,liberty and justice. If we didn't have miranda rights we would end in a deleterious situation which would end in disaster for example, the police requirement to remember few amendment portrayed to Miranda Rights to recommend citizens that are inculpable to go to jail by police who can fabricate the situation.Evils don't have rights for other citizens like Paris which some of the victims have to be interrogated for a few days. “The Miranda warning prevents police from taking advantage of suspects who have been arrested or are in police custody. The Miranda Court determined that these protections were necessary to
Current advancements in technology has given the government more tools for surveillance and thus leads to growing concerns for privacy. The two main categories of surveillance technologies are the ones that allow the government to gather information where previously unavailable or harder to obtain, and the ones that allow the government to process public information more quickly and efficiently (Simmons, 2007). The first category includes technologies like eavesdropping devices and hidden cameras. These are clear offenders of privacy because they are capable of gathering information while being largely unnoticed. The second category would include technologies that are used in a public space, like cameras in a public park. While these devices
The recent terrorists attacks of 9/11 has brought security to an all-time high, and more importantly brought the NSA to the limelight. Facts don 't change however, terrorist attacks are not common as history has shown. So what has domestic surveillance actually protected? There are no records to date that they have stopped any harm from being caused. If it is well known by every American that they are being watched, then why would a terrorist with the intention of harming use these devices to talk about their heinous acts? The real criminals are smarter than this, and it has shown with every attack in our history. Petty acts of crime are not what domestic surveillance should be used for. Terrorism has been happening for decades before any electronics were introduced, and even in third world countries where electronics are not accessible. The government needs a different way to locate these terrorists, rather than spy on every innocent human being. Andrew Bacevich states in his article The Cult of National Security: What Happened to Check and Balances? that until Americans set free the idea of national security, empowering presidents will continue to treat us improperly, causing a persistent risk to independence at home. Complete and total security will never happen as long as there is malicious intent in the mind of a criminal, and sacrificing freedoms for the false sense of safety should not be
What Are Your Rights Worth? George Edward Peele III King &Low Heywood Thomas School. National security has been greatly enhanced by the passage of the Patriot Act. The USA PATRIOT Act is an act of Congress that was signed by President Bush in 2001. The title of the act is a ten-letter acronym that stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.
There has always been surveillance of the general public conducted by the United States government, the usual justifications being upholding the security of the nation , weeding out those who intend to bring harm to the nation, and more. But the methods for acquiring such information on citizens of the united states were not very sophisticated many years ago so the impact of government surveillance was not as great. As a result of many technological advancements today the methods for acquiring personal information - phone metadata, internet history and more - have become much simpler and sophisticated. Many times, the information acquired from different individuals is done so without their consent or knowledge. The current surveillance of people
Using surveillance and investigation the government would be able to detect if someone has committed a crime and imprison them based on the evidence. If the person did not commit the crime they would go free and their name cleared. Yet these suspects have not been jailed before hand. In this scenario, why is it ethical for the government to surveill these people? The reason that this is considered ethical is because the government knows how to carry out surveillance and the proper people trained in information gathering are carrying it out and the information is being properly handled. Police officers, detectives or other officers of the law, those who carry out surveillance are trained in it and know how to handle the information gathered. They are the correct people to verify someone’s innocence because they know how to verify innocence or guilt. Surveillance does have a valid purpose of verification and justice, and if the alternatives are worse, nonexistent or need surveillance to supplement the evidence then it would be necessary to use surveillance and the purpose is proportional to the means of surveillance. Their cause is valid, if a crime has been committed to maintain justice and the safety of the people it is
Keeping your privacy is getting harder and harder to do, but even though the privacy setting can help to an extent, they don’t always work the way they should. Putting information out for the public eye to see can be a risk but could also be used to the Facebook users advantage. With this comes a loss of privacy that the user has to deal with. No matter how many privacy settings are used or are changed they never a guaranty of full privacy. The only real way to guaranty this is to stay away from social media completely. With that we would lose the connected world we have today.