Is it worth giving up privacy for security that may not protect anyone after all? Recently Edward Snowden a former National Security Agent (NSA) said that the reason he leaked government information was to warn the United State citizen of the danger they are facing from the government surveillance programs. According to Snowden, the NSA is gathering phone calls context and internet information on every American, storing this mass of information to use in the future to against the people they are supposed to protect. The government claims they had an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) that allow them to collect metadata information from the Verizon telephone company, Facebook, Google, Microsoft and others, to analyze the information for a possible threat to the United State. The problem with this is that the government collection of information of all Americans violates the fourth and fifth amendments of the US constitution, which protects Americans from intrusion to their private lives from the government.
Snowden, as reason for his security breach said “I don’t want to live in a society that does these sorts of things.” In this statement he refers to the immense secrets that the U.S. government is keeping from its people. So, the debate still goes on: Yes Edward Snowden broke the law, but was it for a good reason? Now, as to who the breach went to. At first he planned on telling the story to the New York Times, but in the end he decided not to because he found out that the New York Times had a great scoop in “the election year of 2004- that the Bush administration, post 9/11, allowed the NSA to snoop on U.S. citizens without warrants- but had sat on it for a year before publishing.” Snowden said that “this was the turning poin... ... middle of paper ... ...art a new life for himself in Russia. Now, the debate rages on: Is Edward Snowden an American hero or an American villain.
Digital privacy concerns, which have been a major issue in our country since 2001, increasingly violate our basic human rights as global citizens. The growing amount of government surveillance has manifested in the enactment of acts such as SOPA and CISPA. Although their intent on stopping digital piracy and attacks were clear, both were immediately met with harsh criticism; they allowed big corporations to violate our privacy rights by sharing our personal information with both other companies and the government. Our President, although publicly expressing his acknowledgement of the issue, failed to discuss an array of other pressing dilemmas regulated by the recently exposed National Security Agency (NSA), especially those involving the mass data stockpiles and the rights of foreigners against immoderate and disproportionate surveillance by the US. Furthermore, the intentions of the NSA still remain unclear; why is the collection and the extended retention of this data useful?
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... ... middle of paper ... ...potential terrorist activity. WORK CITED McCutcheon, Chuck. "Government Surveillance." CQ Researcher 30 Aug. 2013: 717-40.
This is not what the Patriot Act was passed for; they have gone over their limits and are getting involved with things that don’t entirely concern them. This is exactly what infuriates the people because they are getting out of their boundaries to make a big fuss out of some minor crime that has nothing to pertain to terrorism. While the Patriot Act was put into place to stop terrorism, it has had a nasty after math. People suspected of terrorist activity have no civil rights. They are put in prison and held without due process regardless of whether they are innocent or not.
To fully protect Americans from future terrorist attacks monitoring, the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, and the Patriot Act have been essential components. Many complain the war on terrorism has invaded their right to privacy. People are worried their phone conversations and internet use are being monitored. The truth is only those suspected of terrorists acts are being closely monitored by the government. The fact is we need military tribunals, detention programs, monitoring of internet and phone activity and attorney-client conversations to protect all Americans from future terrorists attack (Ashcroft).
New measures that have little to no effect on terrorism and national security are emerging and they question our society’s freedom as they will unquestionably persist past the post-9/11 terrorism crisis (Higgs 66). Citizens are having their rights revoked with a strong likelihood that those rights will never be returned. After the World Trade Center terrorist attacks, there was an obvious sense of insecurity in the nation and Americans “‘leaned hard to the security side and put certain conc... ... middle of paper ... ...hts that is guaranteed to all people in the Bill of Rights. Interrogation tactics have become so brutal and infringed on civil liberties without a second thought in order to help the CIA’s job of interrogating potential terrorists easier. After the World Trade Center attacks, the government violated citizen’s civil liberties by enacting unnecessary policies, treating civilians incorrectly, and utilizing cruel interrogation tactics.
During Bush?s State of the Union speech, he emphasized that a key role of our government was to protect us from foreign terrorists. However, if the Bush Administration continues to advocate such measures as the Patriot Act, then an important question is raised: Who will protect us from our own government? I conclude my stance with a quote from Senator Russel Feingold the sole senator who voted in opposition to the USA Patriot Act, Feingold passionately states ?Preserving our freedom is one of the main reasons that we are now engaged in this new war against terrorism. We will lose that war without firing a shot if we sacrifice the liberties of the American people. ?
The NSA phone surveillance program started after the passage of the U.S PATRIOT Act after the terrorists attacks of 9/11. At the time this program seemed necessary to prevent another attack, but since then the people have come to see the program is unnecessary and overreaching. The National Security Agency phone surveillance program is illegal because it violates the 4th Amendment, has not helped significantly in counterterrorism, and is an illegal use of taxes. The NSA phone surveillance is highly illegal and violates the 4th Amendment. The Bill of Rights clearly states under the 4th Amendment that, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
From prohibition, to gun laws, the outcomes of these legislations have not always been good. In a post 9/11 era, the American people were devastated by the attacks on the world trade center. Politicians rushed in a bipartisan agreement to push and enact the Patriot Act with the intent of keeping the United States safe. Immediately after 9/11, a panic broke out and many Americans supported the idea of giving up their rights for safety without any hesitation. Now, twelve years later, many skeptics call in to question the Patriot Act and the agencies created as a result of the legislation.