How much privacy do we as the American people truly have? American Privacy is not directly guaranteed in any manner under the United States Constitution; however, by the Fourth Amendment, Americans are protected from illegal search and seizure. So then isn’t it ironic that in today’s modern world, nothing we do that it is in any way connected to the internet is guaranteed to remain discreet? A Google search, an email, a text message, or even a phone call are all at risk of being intercepted, traced, geo located, documented, and stored freely by the government under the guise of “protecting” the American people. Quite simply, the Government in order to protect us and our rights, is willing to make a hypocrite of itself and act as though our right is simply a privilege, and without any form of consent from the people, keep virtual tabs on each and every one of us. In the words of Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis “The right to privacy is a person's right to be left alone by the government... the right most valued by civilized men." Privacy isn’t just Privilege, it is nonnegotiable right, and deserves to be treated as such.
With the introduction of the internet being a relatively new phenomenon, the act of cyber espionage is not something that has been properly acknowledged by society. The American Government has done a stand up job of keeping its methods in the shadows and away from the eyes of its people since its documented domestic surveillance began on October 4th, 2001; Twenty three days after the Twin Towers fell President George Bush signed an order to begin a secret domestic eavesdropping operation, an operation which was so sensitive that even many of the country's senior national security officials with the...
... middle of paper ...
...ots and in effect saved a great many lives, however Edward Snowden has stated that “Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it.” We are in more danger of death by falling out of our bathtubs of being killed by the people who “protect” us than we are by being killed by a terrorist, and yet our government would ignore that, and use terrorism as a false pretense to freelance monitor its people.
The greatest irony of all lies in one word “protection”, the police are meant to protect us and yet it is more likely that we should be killed by one of them than it is we be killed by a terrorist, and the government who protects us by spying on us. Our privacy is our right, not our privilege, and the government should not protect our rights, by violating them.
As technology continues to advance at lightning speed, the world as we used to know it is beginning to disappear. Publically available data has replaced much of the espionage tactics that the CIA depended on after WWII and into the Cold War. Information that used to take years to obtain through covert missions is now readily available on social media, commercial databases, or through Signals intelligence (SIGINT). As the world becomes more technologically advanced and intelligence sources display new opportunities, the Intelligence Community (IC) has been there to exploit the data to gain the upper hand on the enemy, and support decision makers. Advancements in technology have made the IC what it is today, however, the path of learning the correct methods of exploitation is littered with abuses. In the 1950’s and 60’s, the CIA’s newest technology was a proposed mind control drug, and project MK-ULTRA was born. The Central intelligence Agency (CIA) performed rogue tests on an unknowing public without their knowledge and severely tainted the image of the agency. In 2013, the public found out about the National Security Agency’s (NSA) Top Secret PRISM program that obtained the phone and internet records of the public without their consent. These two programs were separated by decades, yet the similarities are undeniable. Both MK-ULTRA and PRISM resulted in intelligence oversight reforms aimed at managing these types of operations before they occur. While the government does not always have the ability to foresee how advancements in technology will affect the public, intelligence oversight mechanisms over the past 20 years provide the necessary safeguards that are needed to protect each American’s privacy, provide for th...
One of the most sacred ideas that we hold dear is our right to privacy. It a simple correlation between being free and doing what we want, legally speaking, in our own homes and lives. Unfortunately, our lives seem to become less...
...merican soil, the question remains as to how much privacy Americans really possess. Yes, security in the person and home is still at the discretion of law enforcement, but how far will the government reach in what seems to be an elaborate effort to gain total control over what the Constitution defines as a free society? This, and many other questions remain unanswered today, but it must be remembered that this is a government of, for, and by the people, not a dictatorship that it has come to be in today’s world.
Government seems to take away more privacy than they say they protect. In 1984 the citizens were constantly being monitored no matter where they were, there was no escape. "It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away" (Orwell 62). Members of the party were constantly being monitored, at even the slight sign of disloyalty they would be apprehended by the Thought Police, striking fear into the people. People had no privacy due to the government and this can now be seen today. Referring to the NSA "The agency has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or digital scrambling, that guards global commerce and banking systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical records, and automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches, Internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the world"(Lopez np). Growing use of internet and technology makes it easier for the government to spy on us. Like in 1984 they will soon be able to track our every move. There is no way to completely remove ourselves from technology, there's are steps to take to protect privacy. A solution is to keep more records on paper instead of online. Also, what is posted on social networks should be limited. The less information you give them, the less the government knows.
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.
Which is more important, your privacy or your safety? This question often arises when the inclination of the United States government spying on American citizens is approached. The United States of America has a far-reaching history with National Security Agencies (NSA). The NSA is a United States intelligence agency responsible for the production and management of intelligence and information assurance for the United States government. The concept that American citizens should place their trust in government efforts to spy and do right by the people with national security in there hands posses too many dangers. Although the government claims to be spying on its citizens for their own protection, the question still remains, should the United States government have the authority to spy on American citizens to avoid terrorism?
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.
...vil rights and losing protection. Protection is more important but unnecessary spying should not be tolerated. “The sad truth is that most Americans have already lost the battle when it comes to keeping personal information absolutely private.”( Lee, M.Dilascio, Tracey M.4).
We must go through a lot of loss of privacy living here in America; security cameras constantly watch us, our credit cards are monitored, and even things like our social media life is monitored closely. Obviously we are not as monitored as countries such as North Korea, but we are still more monitored than we think we are. America is being watched around the clock, one great example is the Xbox One, which has its camera always on and monitoring.
However, evidence from previous events prove that the government is still incapable of preventing such incidents from happening. Concerning the Boston Marathon Bombing, the Washington Post asserts that there was “much technological overreach, yet counterterrorism officials still couldn’t do basic police work and catch the Boston bombers” (Dowd). Not only does this disprove the opposition’s claim, it also strengthens the fact that surveillance is not beneficial for the United States. While others may believe that government surveillance helps society in becoming a safer place, the Boston Marathon Bombing shows that surveillance has proven itself to have no critical use in matters of the country’s
Benjamin Franklin once said “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” It should be every rational citizen’s question if we should exchange our civil liberties for safety. How far do we have to go to keep our civil liberties from being violated? We are consistently surveyed by the government in every step. The government is going through our phone calls, text messages, private emails and social media. It’s almost impossible to keep anything privates nowadays. In my opinion, there should be a limit on how much of our privacy is surveyed by the government.
The recent terrorists attacks of 9/11 has brought security to an all-time high, and more importantly brought the NSA to the limelight. Facts don 't change however, terrorist attacks are not common as history has shown. So what has domestic surveillance actually protected? There are no records to date that they have stopped any harm from being caused. If it is well known by every American that they are being watched, then why would a terrorist with the intention of harming use these devices to talk about their heinous acts? The real criminals are smarter than this, and it has shown with every attack in our history. Petty acts of crime are not what domestic surveillance should be used for. Terrorism has been happening for decades before any electronics were introduced, and even in third world countries where electronics are not accessible. The government needs a different way to locate these terrorists, rather than spy on every innocent human being. Andrew Bacevich states in his article The Cult of National Security: What Happened to Check and Balances? that until Americans set free the idea of national security, empowering presidents will continue to treat us improperly, causing a persistent risk to independence at home. Complete and total security will never happen as long as there is malicious intent in the mind of a criminal, and sacrificing freedoms for the false sense of safety should not be
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...
...onal privacy dead?” brings up many other questions along with it. But there is no doubt that the government is doing all of what they are doing for safety reasons. They claim to want to make the United States as safe as possible, and this has proved to ring true in many situations. But now the inevitable new question becomes: How far is too far? Is safety more important than privacy? To know these answers, one must ask themselves and know their own opinion on the situation. But whatever their answers may be, and despite the multiple other questions that are brought up along with the topic of personal privacy, there is still one thing that is known for sure: personal privacy is dead. And unless the use of technology becomes less critical to the United States, personal privacy will always be dead. The bigger the role technology has; the less personal privacy there is.