Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Government surveillance and privacy issues
Government surveillance and privacy issues
Government surveillance
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Government surveillance and privacy issues
In the recent year and a half, citizens of almost every nation were exposed to information regarding the mass surveillance used by many governments to spy on their citizens. This information, released by Edward Snowden, confirms the long held theory that mass amounts of data regarding the personal habits and communications of individuals were being collected and stored. This revelation has given rise to a serious new debate: just how many civil liberties and rights should citizens allow their government to ignore in the name of “security”?
Continuing this trend, the government of the United Kingdom has recently enacted legislation that presents an alarming step forward in the world of government surveillance. This legislation allows the government to create a “pornography filter” for its citizens Internet, blocking all sites deemed pornographic by the government (Penny). This filter has sparked a massive debate over the rights of the government to censor its citizens and choose what material/information they want to be available to the public. The government, currently headed by David Cameron, claims this filter is to protect the youth from pornography and preserve the decency of society in the United Kingdom (Penny).
In reality, this legislation is an affront to the privacy and security of those browsing the web. This filter can, and in some cases has already been, be extended to block other ideas and information the acting government wants to hide from its public (Killock). After serious inspection, it is clear that this filter is essentially pointless for the governments stated use. In my opinion, this legislation is a very serious threat to both the privacy of individuals and free speech and the democratic process
One of...
... middle of paper ...
...eates for the modern west. While the United States is more enamored with the concepts of free speech and the absence of government interference in our daily lives, it is not hard to imagine our government passing similar legislation. Already, we have passed legislation like the Patriot Act that greatly restricts our freedoms. With the exposed power that the National Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency wield in Washington, a bill benefitting the surveillance community by providing information on citizens who want access to banned content stands a chance of being enacted into law. One can only hope that the Cameron led government is held responsible for its actions in the next elections for the United Kingdom and is removed from power. Only then can a more reasonable, pro-democracy government will take power and strike down this dangerous legislation.
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
It has become a sad and upsetting fact that in today’s society the truth is that the right to one’s privacy in the I.T (information technological) world has become, simply a joke. In an electronic media article “No place to hide”, written by James Norman, two interesting and debatable questions were raised: ‘Are we witnessing the erosion of the demarcation of public and private spaces brought on by the networked economy and new technology?’ Also, ‘What roles do government, industry and citizens have in regard to censorship and privacy?’ These statements ultimately end with the fact that it is impossible for Net users to expect privacy online, because online privacy doesn’t exist. However, one must ask, ‘What will be done about the problem?’ while keeping in mind that yes, the thin line between public and private spaces has been severed as a result of new technology. It is vital that everyone as users of the internet, be it government, Internet Service Providers (ISP’s), or individuals, need take the issue of internet privacy very seriously, while basing all actions towards the issue with the moral statement of, ‘Rights aren’t free, they’re earned’.
to communicate with each other, sending and receiving messages, so on. It was sort of difficult, but because it was part of their daily life, they did not really take it as a problem. Contrarily to the ancient time, the modern life is completely the inverse. Social media is here and used by everyone, it was made to replace the ancient life to a modest and pleasant life that’s present today. Communication is easier, as well as sending and receiving messages, follow by email, and also it entered the educational purposes. However, those who took the most advantage of it is teenagers, growing up in a place where technology is already settled, well they do not know the real life of the ancient time and cannot even live off the grid. The adolescent generation encounter a society where there is an easy access to technology anytime and anywhere. But do they have in mind that these technologies can actually be harmful and that there is no privacy in it?
The freedom of speech that was possible on the Internet could now be subjected to governmental approvals. For example, China is attempting to restrict political expression, in the name of security and social stability. It requires users of the Internet and electronic mail (e-mail) to register, so that it may monitor their activities. In the United Kingdom, state secrets and personal attacks are off limits on the Internet. Laws are strict and the government is extremely interested in regulating the Intern et with respect to these issues.10 Laws intended for other types of communication will not necessarily apply in this medium.
The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what the ‘law is”, causing a lack of circulated rule. The actual leaders with political purposes jeopardize our individual privacy rights, liberties, and freedoms.
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.
In this age of rampant digital communication, cellphones play an ever increasing role in the lives of people around the world. This can lead to major controversies surrounding them and their use. One of the big stories on the news at the beginning of the year was the issue of the ongoing case between the FBI and Apple. Many people sided with the FBI, but many people also sided with Apple. What the case came down to, in the end, was this: how much privacy must be sacrificed for the sake of security? In the words of Benjamin Franklin “those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”
The invention of the internet has been one of the major advances of the modern world. It has allowed people from all over the globe to communicate with each other and ideas to be shared. In addition to this it is a free platform. Unlike television and radio it doesn’t cost anything to put your idea on the internet, making it a base of personal expression. This freedom coupled with the global access attracts around a billion users worldwide. Unfortunately, just as easily as the information is produced it is abused. The internet, although mostly used appropriately does harbour all manner of illegal activities. These range from phishing scams, trying to steal someone’s personal details, viruses, malicious code that attacks a person’s computer and websites that are morally questionable or illegal under Australian law. To combat this, the Rudd government has started action to impose an internet service provider level internet filter. An internet service provider is any company that provides internet services to its customers. Most notable of these is Telstra which is one of the top internet service providers in Australia. This filter will prevent a list of websites, the blacklist, from being accessed in Australia. In theory this is an excellent plan, but in reality, once implemented it will have little effect on preventing the illegal activity which occurs on the internet. The major arguments against the proposed filter are, cost of the filter, the ineffectiveness of the filter to stop illegal activity and the possibility of the blacklist expanding to block anti-government websites.
Privacy is not just a fundamental right, it is also important to maintain a truly democratic society where all citizens are able to exist with relative comfort. Therefore, “[Monitoring citizens without their knowledge] is a major threat to democracies all around the world.” (William Binney.) This is a logical opinion because without freedom of expression and privacy, every dictatorship in history has implemented some form of surveillance upon its citizens as a method of control.
Recently there has been a lot of discussion about privacy on the internet and if kids should be able to use it. A great number of people think that you deserve more privacy on things like social media. Others think that we have enough privacy you just have to be smart about what you do on the internet. When you search or click on something it gets tracked by a cookie, cookies determine what ads you get on websites. When using social media it is very easy for someone to look at your account and see anything and everything you have ever shared about yourself. Some people think that it is very easy to keep your social media private, all you need to do is be smart about it.
In the United States high schools dealing with student’s privacy are becoming more of a huge problem and more students are feeling that schools are validating their privacy rights. In recent discussions of teen privacy in school, is whether if schools go overboard sometimes and feel they can search the student’s because they are using school property or are on school property. Some people feel that students do need more privacy from their schools because they need their privacy just like everyone else, and with this more reasonability they will have to get them ready when they leave school. On the other hand, some think that by giving more privacy to the student’s more poor decisions would come out of it than strong ones. Students that have
Although the right to privacy has been used to sway the outcome of many U.S court cases, including the famous Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs. Wade, there is still some debate over how the “right to privacy” should be viewed. For example both Judith Jarvis Thompson, and James Rachels agree that the right to privacy is indeed a right that is bestowed upon citizens, however their perception of how one is granted this right is quite different.
Free speech on the Internet is a very controversial subject and has been the key problem surrounding the Internet today. The attempt to regulate and govern the Internet is still pursued by government officials. This subject has been intensified due to terrorist attacks against the United States and around world within the past years. The government believes that by regulating the Internet, it will protect the general public from criminal actions and eliminate the exposure of children to pornography or vulgar language. Senator Jim Exon of ...
I think there is a right to privacy. What privacy means is “the right to be left alone, or freedom from interference or intrusion” (IAPP,1). Every American citizen has the right to privacy whether it be privacy in their homes, the words in their emails, or daily activities. But not only do the American people have the right to privacy from other citizens, we also have the right to privacy from the government. If the government can keep their conversations, actions and secrets under lock and key then Americans can as well. But unfortunately, the Constitution does not explicitly say anything about “privacy” for the American people, it is left for open interpretation in multiple amendments. The main amendment that screams “privacy” is the fourth amendment.
The Internet is ruled by no governing body and it is an open society for ideas to be developed and shared in. Unfortunately, every society has its downside and the Internet is no exception. The nature of the Internet makes policing this new domain practically impossible. During the past few years the Government has stepped in to control this form of communication. This issue of whether it is necessary to have censorship on the Internet is being argued all over the world. Censorship would damage the freelance atmosphere on the Internet where freedom to express ideas is what most of us enjoy so much. If the Government steps and ceases control of the Internet it wouldn’t be any different than Communism or even Dictatorship. Therefore our Government should not encourage censorship. To underst...