Those that are against the government’s interference and monitoring of the Internet believe that they are entitled to privacy and the freedom of self-expression. The Clinton Administration wanted to enable a way to trace potential threats to the United States Government by accessing confidential information, tapping into conversations through the Internet and phone calls. “While privacy faces threats from both private and government intrusions, the existing motley patchwork of privacy laws and practices fails to provide comprehensive protection. Instead, it causes confusion that fuels a sense of distrust and ske... ... middle of paper ... ...at for years without many censorships and regulations. Also, if the U.N. were to take charge, the cost to deliver their services globally would be far too costly for website like google.
In the shadow of prophecy, America now sees itself stuck in a sorry state caused by digitalization undermining society and law enforcement exploiting the public’s behavior, thus exhibiting horrors of both Oceania and the World State. Age has not softened the implications of these theories on society—it has strengthened them. In the realm of modern privacy, nothing is sacred. The right to privacy is more of a luxury that is present in everyday life, but also subject to retraction by way of a committee’s decision. When officials dismiss some rights for the sake of the common good, the people themselves must protect those rights.
However, it can be argued that the United States is not acting hypocritical through mass surveillance over the internet. While there's some overlap of the issues, the existence of surveillance does not cut off the freedom of speech on the Internet. "One can recognize... there is a very large difference between censorship and spying... On some level, we know that spying and espionage is going to take place. This still doesn't mean we promote censorship." (Verveer, 2013) Undoubtedly, the censorship by the agency over the internet may make users think twice about what opinions to express, but as long as no major crimes are being planned, then the agency will not really care about what is said online, and internet users are free to say whatever they would like.
Despite the United States developing hate crime legislation that suffices to maintain justice within the judiciary system, numerous legislative experts strongly believe these most recent changes create unnecessary bias. Criminal offenses against certain groups of minorities have received mixed interpretations, but regardless of the special attention these lawsuits receive, cases almost always commence without the considerations of hate. In a Colorado Springs crime a man called Geremiah Vargas and Marshall Hamilton-Parks “fag” and “faggots” before brutally stabbing them (Steiner). Motivation remains the key to prosecuting Vargas, but circumstances that have n... ... middle of paper ... ...t one murder having more or less impact than another. The addition of hate crime charges does not potentially harm anyone else other than the criminal themselves, but the oppositions of hate crime legislation could have evolved out of jealousy for this supposed unequal advantages.
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... ... middle of paper ... ... individuals, but just as means to an end. Utilitarianism on the other hand state surveillance is ethical since the protection of citizens outweigh that of privacy. From the natural law, social contract standpoint mass surveillance is unethical and a violation of our social contract especially the right to privacy.
Although media may not directly affect court rulings, the press can certainly affect the public’s opinion, which in turn can affect a court case. Sheppard V. Maxwell Revisited—Do the Traditional Rules Work for Nontraditional Media?, an article written by G. A. Hengstler, visits the main question raised in Sheppard V. Maxwell. Hengstler does not disagree in his article that the press may not have been that threatening in decades prior when media was primitive, but he argues that media is a sure threat today. It shall be clarified that the media in the 1960’s cannot compare to today’s rapid technological advancements. The rise in technology has led to a new competitor in the news field that utterly baffles journalists—the internet.
In the book Little Brother this is displayed by the increased security and surveillance after the terrorist attacks. The extra surveillance is there to help stop any further attacks. Although it might be stopping further attacks it is also causing people to be self conscious of their lives.some people enjoy the extra security while other feel it is against their rights as a US citizen.“This sounds like you’re saying that national security is more important than the Constitution” (Doctorow 55). Marcus believes that the surveillance is breaking some of his constitutional rights. Marcus wants to fight the surveillance and get his rights back.
History has revealed that once these surveillance technologies have been put up, departments can increase the number and quality of cameras without any opposition (Sprigman). And with all of the problems and prejudices that ravage America today, the police and government will be very tempted to put more as a precaution. Right now, there is no clear line between surveillance for protection and American values. But if this continues to get out of hand, surveillance systems might change into something much more sinister. Of course, there are numerous laws and established rules that prohibit audio recording individuals without their permission.
Laws are strict and the government is extremely interested in regulating the Intern et with respect to these issues.10 Laws intended for other types of communication will not necessarily apply in this medium. Through all the components of the Internet it becomes easy to transfer material that particular governments might find objectionable. However, all of these means of communicating on the Internet make up a large and vast system. For inspectors to monitor every e-mail, every article in every Newsgroup, every Webpage, every IRC channel, every Gopher site and every FTP site would be near impossible. Besides taking an extraordinary amount of money and time, attempts to censor the Internet violate freedom of speech rights that are included in democratic constitutions and international laws.11 It would be a breach of the First Amendment.
Privacy is what allows people to feel secure in their surroundings. With privacy, one is allowed to withhold or distribute the information they want by choice, but the ability to have that choice is being violated in today’s society. Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who sacrifices freedom or liberty will eventually have neither.” And that’s the unfortunate truth that is and has occurred in recent years. Privacy, especially in such a fast paced moving world, is extremely vital yet is extremely violated, as recently discovered the NSA has been spying on U.S. citizens for quite a while now; based on the Fourth Amendment, the risk of leaked and distorted individual information, as well as vulnerability to lack of anonymity. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states, “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.” The reverse claim to this amendment would be that it does not necessarily protect the digital properties of an individual but rather the physical properties of a person.