"Growing up, I have been born into a generation of internet and social media, never knowing what it felt like without. As someone who can especially vouch for this concept, I to am guilty of the dependence of the internet. Whether it be Instagram or Twitter, the need to post and tweet to update what you happen to be doing, where you are, or how you are feeling has become a societal norm. This has also led us from a more globally connected community but with underlying networks of breaching legality and criminality through this platform. This leads us into the question of whether it is the duty of the United States government to help promote and ensure safety and healthy relations through this global network. Today, there are certain regulations …show more content…
It is almost hypocritical to support government monitoring of the internet because of safety or precautions in America, but support the ownership of approximately half the guns in the entire world, and have the most gun related deaths in the westernized world. These contrasting viewpoints stand alone in how America oversteps in internet surveillance as an excuse for safety and economic measures but not support gun regulations that have caused deaths of thousands. Again, there should be a healthy middle in both of these topics instead of the opposing spectrums of both …show more content…
At the local level, there should be less monitoring as it expands with higher levels of government. Today, lower levels of government do not have access to gaining the quick information as does the state or federal level. Unless given probable cause, law enforcement especially should not have access at the local level. It is irrational to believe that the government should have no part in keeping the internet safe and the question itself lays in the extent of how it is done. The U.S. Federal Trade Commission, the federal government's main consumer privacy protection, holds precedent with internet safety. This agency has thus far promoted a healthy and pro-competitive economy. Very recently, however, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission has created regulations to regulate privacy practices of internet broadband services that would have very negative impacts on the economy. Until recently the FTC was the only federal agency that scrutinized internet practices but the emergence of the FCC represents bad economic and law practices.Their proposal of the Privacy NPRM by the FCC expands their authority through congress, decrease investments, and harm consumer welfare. It demotes the competitive economy by their strain on the internet economy. Both agencies stand in example of government trying to regulate the internet that are both negative and positive proving the need
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.
A recent and hotly debated topic among businesses, politicians, and internet users in the United States is that of net neutrality. With the rise of the internet over the past few decades, laws and regulations have struggled to keep up with the ever changing environment. As such, the problem of whether net neutrality should be enforced, and to what extent, has been a dividing issue. This problem has come into the public’s attention recently due to infringements and controversy surrounding policies by Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In the following paragraphs, I plan to first define the concept of net neutrality, related topics which are crucial for an informed ethical discussion of the topic, and also related cases in which net neutrality
This is a lot to ask, and many people are concerned about "Big Brother" controlling our communications, and they argue that the Internet should be free to regulate itself. However, there must be regulation on the Internet. The Internet allows the freest mode of expression in human history. Anyone is a publisher. With this great freedom, comes great responsibility. The framers of the Constitution never imagined the Internet, but they did imagine principles which should continue to guide us into the electronic frontier. Principles of the Commerce Clause and the First Amendment must continue to apply in the realm of cyberspace.
The United States only recently introduced net neutrality legislation. Prior to these regulations, the internet functioned in a healthy and fair manner. The rules put in place in 2015 by the Obama administration were attempting to fix a problem that didn’t exist. These rules have limited consumers options rather than protecting them. The FCC under the Obama administration used legislation from the 1930’s and the 1990’s to regulate modern telecom companies. These rules are outdated and ill fitted to regulating modern telecom companies.
I'm a car after all, and nothing get's me going like a little bit of fun.
In 2015 alone there were “3,185,996,155” internet users and today those numbers are still growing (“Internet Users”). With that in mind, internet privacy is a bigger issue than ever thanks to everyone’s obsession with technology. We now live our lives on the internet constantly posting, blogging, Tweeting, Facebooking, and Youtubeing. The list goes on and on. Each time we do these things we give away more and more information. This constant feed of data allows the government to track specious activity. But, many people feel that the constant monitoring is violating their privacy and human rights. They also just feel weird about it in general, like a “Big Brother” situation. Although the founding philosophers never discussed the internet directly, many of their core philosophies still apply and can help us better understand the issues at hand. I believe that governments in-depth tracking of specious activity and people on the internet could overall benefit society and specifically prevent terrorism, child pornography,
Riley, M. C. (2013). Anarchy, State, or Utopia?: Checks and Balances in Internet Governance. IEEE Internet Computing, 17(3), 10-17. doi:10.1109/MIC.2013.24
"In 2018 the internet is a vital part of people's everyday lives. Almost everyone has a smart phone glued to their side and is constantly surfing the web for information or using social media. Kids, teens and adults all use the internet for one reason or another. The rise of social media in recent years with websites like twitter, Instagram and Facebook has expanded internet use greatly. People use social media to share pictures and fun information about their lives. People also use the internet for endless purposes other than social media, like to read informative articles, looking up the weather, or searching for the newest viral video. The important question that has arose from this internet takeover is how much should the government monitor
Although the American government does have an important duty of monitoring internet content, the government needs to establish certain limitations on internet monitoring to respect the
I say that the government should have a limit on when they can monitor. The government is meant to keep the people safe, but that does not mean the government should know everything people do. This would include the government monitoring people’s internet content. With monitoring internet content the federal government deals with national matters, protection of private content from the government, it is for protecting the people, and schools can view students posts.
"The U.S government-Federal, State and Local- has a limited duty to monitor the internet for numerous reasons. They can violate constitutional rights and privacy. There can be serious miscommunication issues, and profiling issues.
" In the United States, the government carries out internet surveillance on its citizens mainly because of security concerns. Before the terrorists' attacks on the United States on September 11th, people and especially those in the private sectors were not comfortable with government's surveillance on their internet activities because they saw this move as interfering to their privacy. Despite this discomfort, the government increased its surveillance on the internet and to all other avenues which may be used to cause security threat in order to curb any future incidence that may occur. Since the attack, there was a significant change on the people's attitudes because the main concerned become about the security and therefore it required them to work together with the government to help improve the state of security in the country.
There are, in some cases, instances where the government should not be able to have the duty in monitoring internet content. The Fourth Amendment states that the government can not perform unreasonable searches upon citizens that are deemed under the law. If the government is monitoring internet content for no reason it would breach this amendment causing the observation to be unlawful and unreasonable. If you ask me the government should have the duty in monitoring internet content when there appears to be a threat marked against the country or its
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.
Most of the Internet regulation is imposed by the Government in an effort to protect the best interest of the general public and is concerned with some form of censorship.