Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
essay on government persavice surveillance
why government surveillance is necessary
government surveillance
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: essay on government persavice surveillance
Government Surveillance For The Greater Good With new advances in technology each day it’s becoming easier to communicate with each other. Talking to friends and family around the world has now become easier. Yet with all these new forms of communication there have been unpleasant side effects, since this new advanced technology is not only for harmless interaction it is also used to plot against governments and countries. Governments have found themselves under attack and have had to resort to monitoring their citizen’s online and phone activities. The thought that the government is watching them is often very off putting for many Americans. They feel as their right to privacy has been invaded and defiled. What they fail to see is that government surveillance prevents terrorists attack not only from the outside but also from the inside. It has brought to justice those that have launched or planned to launch an attack, and yes it has even has given americans a sense of security. To some government surveillance seems like a threat to their rights but it is only ensuring the security and safety of the nation. Government Surveillance was not designed to spy on american people’s lives as some would lead to believe. It was and still is intended to help prevent terrorists attacks thus protecting american citizens. The chief of the National Security Agency recently reported that the organization has “prevented 13 terrorists attacks in the U.S” (Kelly). While this may seem like a small number it is a crucial number, since only one terrorist attack could kill millions of innocent people. Yet to do this the NSA must be able to know what these terrorists are doing and who t... ... middle of paper ... ... The New York Times, 30 Apr. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. “Patriot Act”. Wikipedia. Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia, 13 Nov.2013.Web.15 Nov.2013. Perez, Evan. "In a First, U.S. to Use NSA Surveillance against Terror Suspect." CNN. Cable News Network, 26 Oct. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. "Primary Documents in American History." 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress). Library Congress, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. Schorn, Daniel. "Terrorists Take Recruitment Efforts Online." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 11 Feb. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. "U.S. Senate: Reference Home Constitution of the United States." U.S. Senate: Reference Home Constitution of the United States. United States Senate, 1994. Web. 18 Nov. 2013.
The United States has lived through an age of terrorism and the citizens have come to realize that they would rather ensure the safety of the masses than protect their privacy. Works Cited Cunningham, David. A. "The Patterning of Repression: FBI Counterintelligence and the New Left." Social Forces 82.1 (2003): 209–40. JSTOR.com - "The New York Times" Oxford Journals.
Is the American government trustworthy? Edward Joseph Snowden (2013) released to the United States press* selected information about the surveillance of ordinary citizens by the U.S.A.’s National Security Agency (N.S.A.), and its interconnection to phone and social media companies. The motion picture Citizenfour (2014), shows the original taping of those revelations. Snowden said that some people do nothing about this tracking because they have nothing to hide. He claims that this inverts the model of responsibility. He believes that everyone should encrypt Internet messages and abandon electronic media companies that track personal information and Internet behavior (op.cit, 2014). Snowden also stressed to Lawrence Lessig (2014) the importance of the press and the first amendment (Lessig – Snowden Interview Transcript, [16:28]). These dynamics illustrate Lessig’s (2006) constrain-enable pattern of powers that keep society in check (2006, Code: Version 2.0, p. 122). Consider Lessig’s (2006) question what is “the threat to liberty?” (2006, p. 120). Terrorism is a real threat (Weber, 2013). Surveillance by social media and websites, rather than the government, has the greater negative impact on its users.
The aftereffects of the September 11, 2001 attacks led to Congress passing sweeping legislation to improve the United States’ counterterrorism efforts. An example of a policy passed was Domestic Surveillance, which is the act of the government spying on citizens. This is an important issue because many people believe that Domestic Surveillance is unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, while others believe that the government should do whatever is possible in order to keep the citizens safe. One act of Domestic Surveillance, the tracking of our phone calls, is constitutional because it helps fight terrorism, warns us against potential threats, and gives US citizens a feeling of security.
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.
Domestic Surveillance: Is domestic surveillance worth the hassle? In 2013, whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to the American people that the National Security Agency had been spying on them. Not only that, but also on world leaders. Domestic surveillance is understood as the first line of defense against terrorism, but it has many downsides, not only it violates Americans lives, also it spies on our social media, it puts a fine line on their privacy, and it is a big stab at the freedom of speech. According to John W. Whitehead, “The fact that the government can now, at any time, access entire phone conversations, e-mail exchanges, and other communications from months or years past should frighten every American.”
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.
Ravinsky, Jeremy. "Snooping states: NSA not alone in spying on citizens." Christian Science Monitor 12 June 2013: N.PAG. Master FILE Premier. Web. 15 Nov. 2013.
The recent terrorists attacks of 9/11 has brought security to an all-time high, and more importantly brought the NSA to the limelight. Facts don 't change however, terrorist attacks are not common as history has shown. So what has domestic surveillance actually protected? There are no records to date that they have stopped any harm from being caused. If it is well known by every American that they are being watched, then why would a terrorist with the intention of harming use these devices to talk about their heinous acts? The real criminals are smarter than this, and it has shown with every attack in our history. Petty acts of crime are not what domestic surveillance should be used for. Terrorism has been happening for decades before any electronics were introduced, and even in third world countries where electronics are not accessible. The government needs a different way to locate these terrorists, rather than spy on every innocent human being. Andrew Bacevich states in his article The Cult of National Security: What Happened to Check and Balances? that until Americans set free the idea of national security, empowering presidents will continue to treat us improperly, causing a persistent risk to independence at home. Complete and total security will never happen as long as there is malicious intent in the mind of a criminal, and sacrificing freedoms for the false sense of safety should not be
Adam Penenberg’s “The Surveillance Society” reminds Americans of the tragic events of September 11, 2001 and the instant effects the that attacks on the World Trade Center had on security in the United States. Penenberg discusses how the airports were shut down and federal officials began to plot a military response. Although those were necessary actions, they were not as long lasting as some of the other safety precautions that were taken. The Patriot Act, which makes it easier for the government to access cell phones and pagers and monitor email and web browsing, was proposed. Politicians agreed that during a war civil liberties are treated differently. From there, Penenberg explains that for years before September 11th, Americans were comfortable with cameras monitoring them doing everyday activities.
It is illegal to make privacy of one's life. Surveillance is a commonplace occurrence in the society today. It exists in every corner of a nation from the corner of streets to discussion topics in movies, lecture halls, theater arenas and books. The privacy word is mentioned many times till its losing taste of its meaning. Surveillance is the exercise of keeping a close watch on something, somebody or set of activities (Richards 56). Many people say that Surveillance is unscrupulous. Nonetheless, we mainly do not distinguish the reason. People only have vague intuition the fact, and this accounts the reason the courts of justice do not protect it or the victim of circumstance of such. We recognize we don’t like it, and by the virtue that it contains something too with privacy, but past that, the revelations can be ambiguous (Boghosian 67). We have been to stay in this state of operation substantially because of the threat of constant Surveillance has been consigned to the realms of scientific studies and fictional activities and moreover to unsuccessful authoritarian states. Nevertheless, these warnings are no longer fictions due to
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.
However, evidence from previous events prove that the government is still incapable of preventing such incidents from happening. Concerning the Boston Marathon Bombing, the Washington Post asserts that there was “much technological overreach, yet counterterrorism officials still couldn’t do basic police work and catch the Boston bombers” (Dowd). Not only does this disprove the opposition’s claim, it also strengthens the fact that surveillance is not beneficial for the United States. While others may believe that government surveillance helps society in becoming a safer place, the Boston Marathon Bombing shows that surveillance has proven itself to have no critical use in matters of the country’s
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.
One of the many details shown is that mass surveillance has not had an apparent impact on the prevention of terrorism (Greenwald, 2013). 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...
Video cameras are being deployed around the nation to help with crime solving, but some people are concerned about their privacy. Having cameras to monitor public areas have shown to be useful in situations such as identifying the bombers of the Boston marathon in early 2013. There have also been issues with these cameras however, as people are concerned they are too invasive of their privacy and have been misused by police officers in the past. Some people want to find a balance in using cameras in public so that they can continue to help with crime solving while making sure they are not too invasive and are properly used.