Police Track Down Criminals

Some people might say that it is a good thing that people's information can be accessed by others because the police can use that information to track down criminals. There is a program that lets the police track down the people that are most likely to commit crimes. John Eligon and Timothy Williams state that, “the authorities have turned to complex computer algorithms to try to pinpoint the people most likely to be involved in future violent crimes- as either predator or prey.” (Eligon and Williams). The police can track down people that have criminal records and they will be able to stop criminals a lot faster. The police is trying to prevent crime for happening and that is one reason as to why they are tracking down people with criminal

It was more likely for people who live in poor communities to be tracked down more that people who live in rich communities. It is unfair that the police would track down more people who are poor than people who are rich because both groups of people commit the same grade of crime. Even if the police is tracking down people to ensure safety in communities it could be possible that the way they are doing it is not legal. Eligon and Williams state that, “Civil liberties groups take a dim view of the strategy, questioning its legality and efficiency, and asserting that it may actually worsen the rapport between the police and civilians.” (Eligon and Williams). There is a possibility that the way that the police is tracking down people is no legal and that it might not be as efficient as they think it is. There is also a possibility that the community won't be as safe as the police is trying to make it be and that more people could get hurt rather than be

Fred Ramen claims that “The court has been faced with two basic kinds of electronic surveillance: wiretapping, the use of equipment to listen in on private telephone calls, and the use of electronic ‘bugs’ to listen in on private conversations. Both kinds of surveillance are the same in that the people who are being overheard do not know that they are being monitored.” (Ramen 86). People can listen to private conversations if they know how to use wiretapping. The Fourth Amendment protects the people from being searched. There was a case in 1928 in which the federal agents used wiretapping to listen to a private conversation between a man named Olmstead and a bootlegging ring. Olmstead and the members of the ring argued in court that the agents had violated their rights from the fourth amendment. Fred Ramen states that “The evidence was used to convict the members of the ring, who had appealed, claiming that the agents had violated their Fourth Amendment rights.” (Ramen 87). The Fourth Amendment did not apply to the listening of private conversations. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Justice Louis Brandeis argued that the use of wiretapping was illegal and that the government should not be allowed to use wiretapping even if it is to convict a criminal. A law was later