Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
just and unjust laws essay
just and unjust laws essay
just and unjust laws essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: just and unjust laws essay
Martin Luther describes a “just law” as a manmade code that squares with the moral law and an “unjust law” as code that is out of harmony with the moral law. The development of the Internet has contributed to major technological advancement in terms of acquisition and sharing of information. Most individuals in the modern society use social network platforms to communicate and share personal information with friends and family. In addition, major organization collects and store information regarding their customers and employees on different digital platforms (DeZao, 2016). The government engages in massive surveillance of the domestic communication records of most of the American citizens without their knowledge. In 2002, the President of …show more content…
Most of the American citizens and residences are prone to security threats regardless of their location in the world. In this case, the authorities justify the utilization of the surveillance content to enhance the security of its citizens within the United States borders as well as in different parts of the world. Despite the importance of surveillance to the national security, some individuals view the initiative as a reflection of moral decay among the lawmakers (Norvell, 2008). Obtaining personal data from the citizens without their authority is an indication of the inability of the authorities to uphold the guidelines of the rights of the …show more content…
The surveillance laws are generally not morally upright because of the consequences of their implementation. The use of personal data by rogue officers or cyber criminals to access personal documents and finances of the citizen is a morally degraded activity that occurs due to the implementation of the surveillance (Rice, 2015). Moreover, the citizens do not free when providing sensitive information regarding illegal activities in the society because of the notion that the authorities can use their personal data to intimidate or destabilize their lives. The adoption of the mass surveillance policy promotes discrimination in the society. The main goal of the establishment of these policies was to enhance national security by predicting the activities of criminals in the society (Rice, 2015). In this case, the authorities would acquire information about terror plans by tapping into the telephone call of the citizens. The laws however promote religious and racial discrimination in the society, which undermines the aspect of morality in the laws. Most of the terror activities in the United States are associated with certain religious and racial characters; the implementation of such laws shifts the focus of the authorities from the general population to individuals with specific religious and racial
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.
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.
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 government is always watching to ensure safety of their country, including everything and everyone in it. Camera surveillance has become an accepted and almost expected addition to modern safety and crime prevention (“Where” para 1). Many people willingly give authorization to companies like Google and Facebook to make billions selling their personal preferences, interests, and data. Canada participates with the United States and other countries in monitoring national and even global communications (“Where” para 2). Many question the usefulness of this kind of surveillance (Hier, Let, and Walby 1).However, surveillance, used non-discriminatorily, is, arguably, the key technology to preventing terrorist plots (Eijkman 1). Government surveillance is a rising global controversy; and, although minimal coverage could possibly result in safer communities, too much surveillance will result in the violation of citizen’s privacy.
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.
Privacy is central to our understanding of freedom of expression and thus on a larger scale democracy. Mass surveillance is an invasion of common man’s privacy. Recent development in the way in which technology can invade privacy has heightened the need for greater protection freedom of expression. However, a major problem in this area is that the public are not provided with adequate information to act against such invasion of their rights. To date, there has been little agreement to what extent mass surveillance should be allowed in the name of providing security to the citizen of the country and to what extent privacy of the citizens of other countries should be respected.
Throughout many years in the United States, there has been controversy over whether or not government surveillance and other technology is a violation of human rights. Ever since the publication of George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, there has been an increase in debates on the subject. The novel itself exemplifies what a surveillance-based society is like, providing the reader with a point of view of what could happen to their own society. Discussion over the usage of information that the government has gathered has become one of the foremost topics being analyzed to this day. The information that is being viewed by surveillance would otherwise be private, or information that people would not want to be leaked out. Therefore, surveillance executed by the government and companies has become an infringement to the right of privacy, and United States citizens should take actions upon it before the world reflects the Orwellian vision of the future.
The critical issue that needs to be addressed in the argument for or against the use of public surveillance system in the USA is which one takes precedence, viz, whether safety of the public and property at large or the invasion of the rights of the individuals who are subjected to some sort of interference in their privacy. In other words, does a citizen have an unfettered right to privacy even when it comes to issues relating to the enforcement of law in prevention of terrorist attacks, crime and restoring security and peace of the citizens at large? I propose to argue in this paper in favor of the need for public surveillance system by advancing the reasons for its imperative and take the view that it does not amount to prima facie violation of individuals' rights and in contravention to the rights guaranteed under the constitution...
It is illegal to make privacy of one's life. Surveillance is a commonplace occurrence in the society today. It exists in every corner of a nation from the corner of streets to discussion topics in movies, lecture halls, theater arenas and books. The privacy word is mentioned many times till its losing taste of its meaning. Surveillance is the exercise of keeping a close watch on something, somebody or set of activities (Richards 56). Many people say that Surveillance is unscrupulous. Nonetheless, we mainly do not distinguish the reason. People only have vague intuition the fact, and this accounts the reason the courts of justice do not protect it or the victim of circumstance of such. We recognize we don’t like it, and by the virtue that it contains something too with privacy, but past that, the revelations can be ambiguous (Boghosian 67). We have been to stay in this state of operation substantially because of the threat of constant Surveillance has been consigned to the realms of scientific studies and fictional activities and moreover to unsuccessful authoritarian states. Nevertheless, these warnings are no longer fictions due to
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...
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
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
How many of you have every been arrested? Hopefully none, but how many of you have seen those online videos of American Citizens or even Legal Aliens from across the country getting pulled over and asked a series of question with trying to prove their citizenship and being asked to where their final destination is? Some reply with “Am I free to go,” or even “If I’m being detained what law do you suspect me of breaking or committing?” These traffic stops or police checkpoints have been a controversy in today’s society for quite a while and have yet to be completely figured out by today’s justice system. When Thomas Jefferson said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that
However, government agencies, especially in America, continue to lobby for increased surveillance capabilities, particularly as technologies change and move in the direction of social media. Communications surveillance has extended to Internet and digital communications. law enforcement agencies, like the NSA, have required internet providers and telecommunications companies to monitor users’ traffic. Many of these activities are performed under ambiguous legal basis and remain unknown to the general public, although the media’s recent preoccupation with these surveillance and privacy issues is a setting a trending agenda.