The problem with this is that the government collection of information of all Americans violates the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which protects Americans from intrusion to their private lives from the government. In a recent article by Julian Sanchez a research fellow from Cato Institute said on a recent cyber attack on Google that, "The Google hackers appear to have been interested in … gathering information ... ... middle of paper ... ...but fear that the government who is suppose to protecting them will turn around and use this information against them in the future. It is important that the government come up with a solution to protect the privacy and security of all Americans with out violating the law. Works Cited McQuade, Samuel C. "government intelligence programs." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society.
The problem is, some citizens believe of these acts of surveillance violate the fourth amendment. This subject effects the people of the United States as a whole regardless of their internet and computer usage. The policies that the government has placed indirectly affect everyone from child to adult, rich and poor. Even though government surveillance may prevent some acts of terrorism, the government should not have the right to spy on its citizens. This surveillance should be stopped because it violates the people’s right to privacy, violates the constitution and could be a precedent for further invasions of privacy.
Some save our rights to privacy and others allow government spying. (#5) The Patriot Act was formed in 2001 to prevent terrorism, which allows the government to spy on law-abiding citizens, just to make sure they don’t do anything suspicious. (#10) Many Americans argue that this is unconstitutional, and that spying is against the law and should be for the government as well. Then there are the people that really don’t care or agree with the government. Safety is a big concern among the American people, so if the government says they are doing something to protect them, people will believe it, even if the government is stretching the truth.
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. Recently in global news, the name Edward Snowden has became quite popular as he snatched millions of people’s attention along with breaking news headlines. Snowden released numerous documents via internet that were private to the NSA; these leaks revealed the dirty work the NSA and government have ... ... middle of paper ... ...A was watching their every moment at this very second?
The Master Key to Iphones is Unethical The San Bernardino vs Government case has been in the news for the last months since the terrorist attack last December. It has reminded the world the importance of encryption which is essential for our lives and privacy in this new era of technology. After the attack, the FBI asked Apple for help to access an iphone that belonged to Syed Rizwan Farook one of the perpetrators of the attack, Because the FBI could not access it due to the modern encryption and security features new iphones have. Apple was not completely oppose to help the FBI. The company helped with everything could without violating the privacy of its customers.
When someone contacts a know terrorist organization, or if there is reasonable suspicion that a person is tied to a terrorist plot, the NSA just has to look in its database to find the information it needs to prevent the attack (Turner). If the NSA did not have a database that stored these phone records, terrorist organizations would not be able to be stopped and identified as efficiently. Since the government only uses this information to stop terrorist plots, innocent Americans should have nothing to fear, or hide, by letting the government access their phone records. If giving up some personal information is what it take... ... middle of paper ... ...pare for an epidemic, which increases efficiency and decreases ER wait time (Lehrman). This demonstrates just how crucial metadata collection is to national security.
Despite the victim’s criminal status, basic rights the law guarantees such people are being defiled. The government has taken action in an attempt to improve national security, but many of those actions do not correspond with civil liberties citizens are insured. After September 11th, the government violated citizen’s civil liberties by enacting unnecessary policies, treating civilians incorrectly, and utilizing cruel interrogation tactics. After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001, the United States government infringed upon civil liberties by enacting unnecessary policies. New measures that have little to no effect on terrorism and national security are emerging and they question our society’s freedom as they will unquestionably persist past the post-9/11 terrorism crisis (Higgs 66).
The notion that the FBI can ‘censor’ books by putting people on a watch list for reading them in a public domain is terrible, especially since the government is against censoring and banning books due to free speech rights. The idea that the government can stop a person’s expression because it ‘aids’ terrorism is also a horrible one. They might as well say that criticizing the government aids terrorism, and therefore should be punishable. The USA Patriot Act was an effective system when it was created. Without it, capturing the remaining terrorists in the United States would have been next to impossible.
Those that are against the government’s interference and monitoring of the Internet believe that they are entitled to privacy and the freedom of self-expression. The Clinton Administration wanted to enable a way to trace potential threats to the United States Government by accessing confidential information, tapping into conversations through the Internet and phone calls. “While privacy faces threats from both private and government intrusions, the existing motley patchwork of privacy laws and practices fails to provide comprehensive protection. Instead, it causes confusion that fuels a sense of distrust and ske... ... middle of paper ... ...at for years without many censorships and regulations. Also, if the U.N. were to take charge, the cost to deliver their services globally would be far too costly for website like google.