In the following critical review of, “Enemy of the State” I will be addressing the obvious issue of the government’s infringement upon the privacy of United States citizens by the National Security Agency (NSA). However, before I do so, I would like to begin by outlining some initial pieces of information that is imperative for setting the context in which I will be viewing this issue of privacy invasion. I will begin by first giving a brief overview of the United States Government and where it’s initially receives the power to exercise authority over its citizens, and its responsibility to us as the citizens. I will also be briefly discussing our role as citizens and out biblical obligations to the government. After doing this I will give a brief background to how we secured out right to privacy, and then the remainder of this paper will be dedicated to relating that right to privacy to specific violations within the movie. Despite my previous elusion to me analyzing, and critiquing this movie against a presupposed biblical basis, I would now like to explicitly state my intention to do so in the proceeding portion of this critique.
I will now give a brief background to where the government has its basic foundation from a biblically rooted point of view. Within the Bible, God only sets in place three institutes. The first institute that is ordained by God is marriage, which we can see is an arrangement that allows two separate humans, male and female, to enter into a covenant with each other before God in an attempt to better fulfil the roles which God has set in place for each of them. The second institution that God set in place is the church. The church is set in place in a hierarchical manner to organize its members so that...
... middle of paper ...
...e absolute power that this privacy bill would have implicated. He stated that the government knew and had recorded and cataloged anything that was on “every wire, every airwave!” this corruption would be inexcusably unconstitutional the questions raised in this movie go far beyond the limits of even my generation, and require a lifetime of thought, which is unfortunately longer than I believe the evidence points to before the implications of this movie become a reality. So I conclude with a statement made in the film by Larry King, who succinctly summarizes the very questions that fuels this privacy debate, “how do we draw the line – draw the line between protection of national security, obviously the government’s need to obtain intelligence data and the protection of civil liberties, particularly the sanctity of my home? You’ve got no right to come into my home!
Glenn Greenwald, a talented and widely read columnist on civil liberties for the Guardian newspaper, failed in his attempt to alarm his readers to the flagrant and widespread violations of American privacy. Although his article was full of facts, documentation, and quotes from top rank officials, the article did not convey any sense of wrong doing or outrage. Rather it was dull, lacked passion and a sense of persuasion. In fact, the only attention grabbing part in the whole article is the title.
Today’s America has a magnitude of issues, spanning from social (gay marriage and abortion) to political (immigration and Obamacare) to economic (tax cuts and higher wages). Problems have been accumulating over the years and we yet do not know the solutions to any of them. But, some of the answers may have been already addressed by our founding fathers, especially to the controversial NSA Surveillance in the United States. As one of the Founding Fathers, Patrick delivered the “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech, expressing his view on the topic of autonomy and freedom therefore; he would discourage and fully go against the NSA surveillance in the United States today.
...merican soil, the question remains as to how much privacy Americans really possess. Yes, security in the person and home is still at the discretion of law enforcement, but how far will the government reach in what seems to be an elaborate effort to gain total control over what the Constitution defines as a free society? This, and many other questions remain unanswered today, but it must be remembered that this is a government of, for, and by the people, not a dictatorship that it has come to be in today’s world.
Edward Snowden’s National Security Agency(NSA) leaked affair brought attention to American Citizens causing many arguments. Some argue they trust their government and wouldn’t change a thing about being monitored while others argue that their privacy being invaded is unconstitutional, and as a society living in surveillance, Americans need to reform the ECPA Act, and tell Congress to pass The USA Freedom Act.
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.
Long a polarizing issue, a balance between civil liberties and national security has constantly trailed America’s pursuit of happiness. Civil liberties are defined as rights for each individual person that serve to protect said individuals, by law, from unjust governmental interference, and encompasses all interference that may infringe on given rights. Incidentally, America has sucumb to such infringments within its lifetime, some early in its history, and some with recurring now with vestiges of the more prominent liberty violations which had reigned before. A much more recent example, terrorist attacks offended on September 11 shook our nation and brought with it government reform that many had not seen before. And with these governmental reforms, America has begun to backlash after more and more information about these unjust offenses has begun to leak from both prolific media outlets and workers in government themselves. The attacks committed on September 11, 2001. Although initially intended to protect America, the war on terror has begun to encroach on civil liberties and the ...
If that is the realm that the government controls, then what authority should the church practice over people? The answer is none over unbelievers (for that is God’s position to judge), but we are to hold those within the church accountable to God’s Word (1 Cor. 5:9-12). After all, will we not one day experience the perfect unity of religion and government in Christ’s perfect Kingdom? Stead aptly sums up what can bring about a true change in a society and a nation as he says “Believers need to be reminded that there can be no healthy or lasting change of social structures without a redemptive change in people, which is why Christ came two thousand years ago.” (52)
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”-Benjamin Franklin. We live in an age where governments invade the private lives of its citizens in the name of safety. Ironically, anyone who displaying a hint of paranoia when it comes to government surveillance or secrecy is automatically labeled a conspiracy theorist or a kook. It seems that in the U.S., it has become frowned upon to believe that our government would ever infringe on our rights, unintentionally or deliberately. After all, they can’t, it says so in the constitution! But, alas, it turns out “Big Brother” has been very busy the past decade. It seems as though every year new government scandals arise, from cover ups to spying on U.S. citizens. Law enforcement and government agencies are slowly finding “loopholes” through problematic areas of the constitution, with little regard for citizens’ rights. It is our duty as citizens, to not tolerate violations of the law that our nation was founded upon. By examining history and other countries’ policies regarding privacy and freedoms, it becomes clear that if these breaches of our rights are allowed to go on, we will be living in a country of fear and oppression.
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.
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.
Some believe that privacy and safety can go hand in hand, while others believe you can 't have one without giving up another. In our ever growing and ever changing world, these two sides continue to drift further and further apart when we are forced to ask the question, “What is too much”? When it comes to personal liberties and privacy, how much should we allow into the government 's hands under the promise of national safety and security? The NSA’s recent scandal has put this in the forefront of every American’s mind. Before we as a nation make a decision, we should consider every side of the problem.
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.
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.
Along with Privacy and security comes the issue of terrorism, Constitutional rights, and Prisoners of War (POW). The privacy vs security debate has two sides to it. Many think that it has influenced governmental interaction with citizens. Sometimes the law focuses on the wrong interests. Just as security cameras are made for thief’s, there come along violations within a person’s workspace or personal life. Privacy emerged early on including Jewish and Roman laws safeguarding against surveillance. Once populations began to grow citizens around the world started filing complaints about noise and unlawful search and seizures. Security and Privacy become an internationally growing issue that affected the world. Security is known as a sort of Independence from danger. Privacy is a freedom from the Undesirable. “He noticed that the needle on his gas gauge was getting low and decides to pull over. As he walks into the gas station he pays for the gas with his credit card, steals a pack of cigarettes and a newspaper without the clerk knowing. B Horton proceeds out the doors and recognizes a security camera as he walks to his car. Later he is contacted and tried for theft. Some believe the camera was an invasion of his privacy but others say that Horton took from society” Webster 21) In America this was and still is a serious issue. The founders saw it coming and implanted laws against home invasions based on national security or to protect others. The fourth amendment in the Bill of Rights is one plan of action that the founding fathers implemented into the United States Constitution to give people a sense of privacy from law enforcement. Also the Fifth Amendment placed a specific procedure on how police go about arresting an individual. ...