To be able to carry out wide-scale surveillance on the entire world requires a lot of power and influence, so how did the NSA carry out such a heavy task? How did they become an omnipresent surveillance agency? Now that everyone knows about NSA operations is the price of worsening foreign and domestic relations worth keeping world-wide surveillance to better government security? The key to the heavy lifting of the surveillance within U.S. borders must be credited to the highly complex program called PRISM. PRISM is a program that sorts through all of the metadata, a set of data that describes and gives information about other data, for key words hostile to government security.
would be “exceptionally vulnerable” (Head of FBI, Robert Mueller). But referring to the previous arguments against government spying (i.e. being in violation of our privacy, being illegal, and trust issues) why should we then let the government keep spying on us? Since 2001 up until now, that’s 15 years, spying has not only been done illegally to supposedly expose suspected “terrorists” it has done us no good; The Justice Department’s inspector general said that the “FBI agent’s can’t point to any major terrorism cases, they’ve cracked thanks” to the aforementioned government digital intrusions. It is simply a violation of one 's privacy which what every man, woman, and child should be entitled to in this country famed for “freedom” but unfortunately, this is not the
Many Democratic politicians during the time accused the White House of passing down to much power to the N.S.A, allowing them to break domestic and international laws. They even received the nickname “No Such Agency,” becoming one of the worl... ... middle of paper ... ...enator Antonio Rubio. He has enforced the idea that government surveillance is a means of protecting peoples freedom and rights and that with strong intelligence agencies these rights are best protected. Rubio has stated that “every other country in the world, certainly those that are hostile to our interests, has robust intelligence programs.” At the moment, their is little change when it comes to eliminating these programs. Even though many Americans feel uncomfortable that the government is “spying” on them, these programs remain an important aspect of the countries security.
It let them know that if a terrorist was within our borders again, much like the terrorists of 9/11, the government would have a higher chance of catching him, making the chan... ... middle of paper ... ... the government to monitor the Internet is not without flaws. It is still a violation of privacy, but it is one that many were willing to give up in those days following the 9/11 attacks. When America was at her most vulnerable, laws were established in the hopes of never having it happen again. Looking at the Patriot Act as unconstitutional is both right and wrong. The biggest problem with the Patriot Act is that it is not a black and white matter.
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.
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?
Having that same agency also spy on their own citizens is tremendously worse for domestic relations, protests and rallies have been organized to raise awareness and attempt to put a stop to these heinous acts of privacy invasion. What is worse is that the United States government has been actively trying to pass bills and acts, in secret courts, to make the collection of all this data easier. The government attempts to justify these acts of privacy invasion by claiming that it is really for the protection of society. If there was a benefit to this mass collection of data it would be moot in comparison to all the unlawful activity and detriments spying on pretty much everyone causes. At this point the inter... ... middle of paper ... ...ot want to be spied on.
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.
The government gives each American citizen a set of unalienable rights that protect them from the government’s power. These rights cannot be broken, yet the government violates the Fourth Amendment daily to find ways to spy on the American public under the guise of protecting against terrorism. In 2007 President Obama said the American administration “acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our securities – it is not.” Americans need to understand that their privacy is worth the fight. The people need to tell their neighbors, their congressmen, and their senators that they will not allow their internet privacy to be violated by needless spying. American citizens deserve the rights given to them and need to fight for the right to keep them by changing privacy laws to include Internet privacy.
Digital privacy concerns, which have been a major issue in our country since 2001, increasingly violate our basic human rights as global citizens. The growing amount of government surveillance has manifested in the enactment of acts such as SOPA and CISPA. Although their intent on stopping digital piracy and attacks were clear, both were immediately met with harsh criticism; they allowed big corporations to violate our privacy rights by sharing our personal information with both other companies and the government. Our President, although publicly expressing his acknowledgement of the issue, failed to discuss an array of other pressing dilemmas regulated by the recently exposed National Security Agency (NSA), especially those involving the mass data stockpiles and the rights of foreigners against immoderate and disproportionate surveillance by the US. Furthermore, the intentions of the NSA still remain unclear; why is the collection and the extended retention of this data useful?