Some believe that privacy and safety can go hand in hand, while others believe you can 't have one without giving up another. In our ever growing and ever changing world, these two sides continue to drift further and further apart when we are forced to ask the question, “What is too much”? When it comes to personal liberties and privacy, how much should we allow into the government 's hands under the promise of national safety and security? The NSA’s recent scandal has put this in the forefront of every American’s mind. Before we as a nation make a decision, we should consider every side of the problem. Many believe that this mass seizure of information on the unsuspecting American is unconstitutional. This belief is understandable to say …show more content…
It is argued that the NSA metadata collection is supported by the Patriot Act in the light of national security. The information that is gathered is only skimmed through to look for key phrases and words to find terrorist activity and then discarded after five years. It is claimed that in this day and age we can not afford to be private and that there is always reasonable grounds for investigation for the sake of national security. The FISC agency also argues that, “the production of telephone service provider metadata is squarely controlled by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Smith v. Maryland" (Barnett, 2015). Because of this statement, the court as well as many other legal experts and commenters were convinced that the NSA data collection orders can be considered constitutional. All they collect is the very information in which Smith tells us that telephone consumers have no reasonable expectation of privacy (Barnett, 2015). There have been many federal court judges deciding all across the map that, no, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy on you personal computer, smart phone and internet provider (Rumold,
...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.
It was reassured from the Department of Justice that any searches made under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, data will be used in compliance with guidelines and procedures, and it does not provide a way to get around the requirement of a court order before targeting any U.S. citizen under the FISA. A considerable amount of the NSA's bulk data collection is actually substantiated under section 702. This gives permission for the collection of communications without an individual warrant for each case, as long as there is a reasonable belief that the communications are both foreign and in another nation.
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.
The feeling that someone is always watching, develops the inevitable, uncomfortable feeling that is displeasing to the mind. For years, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been monitoring people for what they call, “the greater good of the people” (Cole, February 2014). A program designed to protect the nation while it protects the walls within as it singles people out, sometimes by accident. Whether you are a normal citizen or a possible terrorist, the NSA can monitor you in a variation of ways. The privacy of technology has sparked debates across the world as to if the NSA is violating personal rights to privacy by collecting personal data such as, phone calls and text messages without reason or authorization (Wicker, 2011). Technology plays a key role in society’s day to day life. In life, humans expect privacy, even with their technology. In recent news, Edward Snowden leaked huge pieces from the NSA to the public, igniting these new controversies. 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.
...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).
In early June 2013, Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former defense contractor who had access to NSA database while working for an intelligence consulting company, leaked classified documents reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) is recording phone calls of millions of Americans along with gathering private data and spying foreign Internet activity. The Washington Post later broke the news disclosed PRISM, a program can collect data on Internet users. The leaked documents publicly stated a vast objection. Many people were shocked by the scale of the programs, even elected representatives were unaware of the surveillance range. A nationwide debate over privacy rights have been sparked. Although supporters claim that the NSA only does its best to protect the United States from terrorists as well as respecting Americans' rights and privacy, many civil rights advocates feel that the government failed to be clear about the limit of the surveillance programs, threatening Americans' civil...
The NSA has been secretly ordered to eavesdrop by the Bush administration after the 9/11 terrorist attack. The base of where the NSA has been operating their wiretapping agenda is in Bluff Dale, Utah the building sprawls 1,500,000 square feet and possess the capacity to hold as much as five zeta bytes of data it has cost almost $2,000,000,000. The act of spying over the USA citizens even though they are suspicious is a threat to the people’s privacy and the privacy of other countries’ members are being infringed on by the NSA by the act of wiretapping. The action of wiretapping violates laws for privacy, like the Bill of Right’s Amendment Four which says “Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions”. The wiretapping controversy has caused the panic and hysteria of the citizens of the USA and USA’s allies. This panic and hysteria has troubled the government by resulting to mistrust and concern against them by both groups. The panic effect of the NSA wiretapping has caused many people such as journalist to have their freedom of speech to be restricted in fear of the NSA to stamp them as terrorist and according to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights that is an infringement of the people’s right of freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief.
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
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”-Benjamin Franklin. We live in an age where governments invade the private lives of its citizens in the name of safety. Ironically, anyone who displaying a hint of paranoia when it comes to government surveillance or secrecy is automatically labeled a conspiracy theorist or a kook. It seems that in the U.S., it has become frowned upon to believe that our government would ever infringe on our rights, unintentionally or deliberately. After all, they can’t, it says so in the constitution! But, alas, it turns out “Big Brother” has been very busy the past decade. It seems as though every year new government scandals arise, from cover ups to spying on U.S. citizens. Law enforcement and government agencies are slowly finding “loopholes” through problematic areas of the constitution, with little regard for citizens’ rights. It is our duty as citizens, to not tolerate violations of the law that our nation was founded upon. By examining history and other countries’ policies regarding privacy and freedoms, it becomes clear that if these breaches of our rights are allowed to go on, we will be living in a country of fear and oppression.
After the horrific incident on September 9, 2001, the Patriot Act was passed to help “reduce” terrorist attacks, but they have only restricted us from our rights and feeling free. Regardless of whether we have anything to hide, we deserve to feel comfortable in our own homes. They can even hack into our TVs and cameras! This is unacceptable! We have been dealing with the violation of our privacy due the Patriot Act, but this act led to the abuse of governments’ power, violation of our natural rights, and the government has been going through our texts, internet history, social media, which is breaching into the laws of the constitution.
This paper will demonstrate the importance of having a right to privacy by dissecting and analyzing the arguments enclosed in Michael P. Lynch’s “Privacy Brief”; it will closely examine the injustice associated with the violation of “constitutionally-protected interests” (Lynch, 1). In addition to contextualizing Lynch’s supporting ideologies regarding the importance of having a right to privacy, I will highlight the detriments of invading privacy and supplement my argument with reasoning for why the protection of privacy is pivotal and beneficial for society. Although Lynch’s criticisms of invading privacy are linked to surveillance and the National Security Association’s (NSA) unrestricted ability to access private information, this paper
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...
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.
As we already know, the National Security Agency has already stopped about forty-nine homegrown terrorist plots in the United States. Now had these plots actually gone through and happened, many lives would have been lost. In fact, according to President Obama, lives have been saved directly because of the program. Opponents of mass surveillance may argue that the National Security Agency is violating rights, but no rights are being violated at all. People still possess their constitutional rights, including their rights to free speech, their rights to practice their religion, their freedom of the press and other the rights provided in the Bill of Rights. According to Roger Pilon, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Cato Institute, the National Security Agency only collects metadata, or data regarding the person who made the call, the location, and other general information, but not the name of the person linked to the phone number. In 1979, in Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that using pen registers to track phone calls was not unconstitutional. Pilon goes on to state that, the names linked to the phone number are only granted once the National Security Agency is granted a warrant, just as required by the Fourth Amendment. Furthermore, once a warrant is granted to view the contents of the communication, that content can only be used for matters of national
Keeping your privacy is getting harder and harder to do, but even though the privacy setting can help to an extent, they don’t always work the way they should. Putting information out for the public eye to see can be a risk but could also be used to the Facebook users advantage. With this comes a loss of privacy that the user has to deal with. No matter how many privacy settings are used or are changed they never a guaranty of full privacy. The only real way to guaranty this is to stay away from social media completely. With that we would lose the connected world we have today.