For decades, America has dealt with national security threats. Although our federal government could not have prevented some attacks on American soil, for example the September 11 attacks, or the Boston Bombings. In the future, some of these threats could be eliminated due to citizens giving up several privacy rights. During a time of a national crisis, the government needs to strip some privacy rights. Temporarily eliminating some of these rights could decrease the amount of national threats, better protecting citizens, and would only involved citizens with possible information on a national security threat. Therefore, when involving national security in America, some privacy rights should be temporarily eliminated in order to protect …show more content…
The Department of Homeland Security would then gain that individual’s information, and only look for information pertaining to the particular threat and no other illegal activity. If Homeland Security found evidence of any other illegal activity from looking for information on the threat, the government could not hold the individual accountable, giving the individual immunity due to violating their privacy rights to eliminate a security threat. The federal government would be able to quickly determine if the individual’s information would be helpful. If the information was not helpful, the government would dismiss the records, and find a different strategy to remove the security threat. Many people fear that the government would continue to monitor individual’s private messages after the threat was removed. However, once the authorities determined the value of the information, they would no longer monitor the individual’s private messages. Additionally, the government would only detain an individual’s privacy rights if the authorities believed the individual had information of a national …show more content…
Today, private information is gained through hacking accounts without individuals knowing. Although there are laws protecting individual’s privacy rights, hacking is common in America and will not stop due to current privacy laws. The government would look at private messages to eliminate security threats, while hackers break into individuals’ phones and laptops, to steal the individual’s identity. To ease the minds of American citizens, before the government looked through their private messages and phone records, the individual would receive a notification from the Department of Homeland Security explaining the government’s reasoning behind this investigation and the individual’s necessary role in the investigation. Individuals would then understand the government’s reasoning behind their actions, and how ultimately several privacy rights will have to be seized for national security reasons. Therefore, citizens would not feel targeted when the government was trying to stop a threat and citizens would help eliminate national security
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...
...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).
Since the terrorist attacks at Sept. 11, 2001, the surveillance issue often has turned away the table in the debate of individual privacy or counterterrorism. By passing the Patriot Act, Congress gave President Bush an immense law enforcement authority to boost U.S's counterterrorism, and the President used his enlarged powers to forward specific programs in order to reduce the threat of terrorism and defend the country’s safety.
Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up one value in order to gain another. This concept of individual right goes beyond the simple idea of “individual comfort.” Personal liberties cannot be surrendered and are not to be compromised since these liberties are intangible. Individuals should not have their personal liberties exchanged for national security because individuals are guaranteed protection to these rights.
Security is the state of being free from danger or threat. The increase of terrorism in America had aroused a legislative request for heightened security. Strengthening security would also lead to invading Americans' privacy. Privacy is the state of being free from being observed or disturbed by other people. While numerous people feel that security for the whole nation dominates over the privacy of an individual, many others think that heightened security measures will invade their personal privacy and will allow the government to exceed moral limits. Regardless to the political circumstances or the climate, protecting individual rights is predominant to strengthening security in several ways. Americans constitutional rights would be taken away and people would no longer feel safe anywhere if they believed that someone was always watching them. Also, protecting individual rights is paramount to allowing the government to overstep their boundaries and abuse their power. Documents A, B,
The aftermath of the attacks on September 11 demonstrated that this was necessary. The Constitution is not designed to render the nation defenseless against people who have no value for human life, and who will use whatever means necessary to harm others to advance their goals. In conclusion, the Patriot Act gives the government the tools in which are necessary to keep America and its citizens safe.
In this research paper, I am going to discuss the plan that the Department of Homeland Security has set forth for the years of 2012-2016. This plan outlines the entire vision of the department to essentially accomplish their missions and goals. The plan consists of missions varying from border security to cyber security. We must not forget the men and women on the front line working hard to ultimately secure and provide safety for the United States of America.
Domestic Surveillance Citizens feeling protected in their own nation is a crucial factor for the development and advancement of that nation. The United States’ government has been able to provide this service for a small tax and for the most part it is money well spent. Due to events leading up to the terrifying attacks on September 11, 2001 and following these attacks, the Unites States’ government has begun enacting certain laws and regulations that ensure the safety of its citizens. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 to the most recent National Security Agency scandal, the government has attempted and for the most part succeeded in keeping domestic safety under control. Making sure that the balance between obtaining enough intelligence to protect the safety of the nation and the preservation of basic human rights is not extremely skewed, Congress has set forth requisites in FISA which aim to balance the conflicting goals of privacy and security; but the timeline preceding this act has been anything but honorable for the United States government.
This old argument of privacy vs. national security is one that many people, I hope, will agree should be in favor of the people. I understand that the times we live are truly turbulent and violent times but that does NOT excuse the government’s apparent overreach of its initial powers and duties just to satisfy its own ego! Privacy is something that we as citizens should not be nor ever expected to sacrifice to any degree, for the nationwide expectance of n...
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.
In recent years the threat of global terrorism has risen and the United States government has depended on surveillance to combat it. Some believe that this is a small issue compared to what may happen if no precautions were taken, but this student believes that this is a bigger issue than just terrorism is concerned; among other things, it also involves respecting constitutional freedoms.
Over the course of the history of the United States of America, the country has had struggles with its own borders and the protection of those borders. Illegal immigration is a big problem and the smuggling of drugs, weapons, and cash over our borders into our country has evolved into a bigger problem. The United States has over seven-thousand miles of border to cover each day. That is quite a bit of land, but the only problem with this is there is a lack of manpower to cover every single mile of border. The US shares its borders with Canada and Mexico. All along these borders are small communities and cities that are occupied by US citizens. This means that these cities and communities require the protection of our Homeland Security Agency.
In this case, people hardly feel secure when their private information is being used for the unclear purpose without their permission. Moreover, the private information being collected is easily disclosed due to insufficient safeguards over personal information (Spencer). Any database is vulnerable to invading. When the government stores a large amount of innocent citizens’ private information, it puts them in danger in a way that their private data may be obtained by other parties. Thus, practicing mass surveillance on Americans for the purpose of the security will increase the risk of exposing their private data to outsiders rather than making them feel
A major reason the U.S. needs to increase restrictions on the type and amount of data collected on individuals from the internet is due to the fact that the United States government can track communications and browsing histories of private citizens without warrant or cause. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, ...
First, one must discover the real reason why the government feels the urgency it does to spy on America’s people. The biggest argued reason is due to national security. In fact, just a few short weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the USA Patriot Act was passed. The Act was a revision for national surveillance laws and how far the government could really go when it came to watching Americans in their own homes. During the frightening weeks and months after September 11th, when Americans were looking to feel safe again, the Patriot Act gave them a sense of security. It let them know that if a terrorist was within our borders again, much like the terrorists of 9/11, the government would have a higher chance of catching him, making the chan...