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 people’s apprehensiveness does not come from the government’s ability to monitor their phone calls. It is the idea that they are listening to their individual conversations. The government needs to communicate to its citizens on the capabilities of the program. Most of the information on the limits of PRISM has come from the data leaks of Edward Snowden. The common consensus is that the government is able to access information by merely advising a meeting with a judge that is not withheld to the public. However, contrary to the popular belief that they are listening to phone calls, they are merely collecting the date and length of each phone call (Stray).
A short background on the laws concerning surveillance will help clear up some misconceptions on the NSA. Back in 1968, the Wiretap Act protected citizens from the government listening to their phone call...
... middle of paper ...
...N. Cable News Network, 23 Jan. 2014. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
Richards, Neil M. "The Dangers Of Surveillance." Harvard Law Review 126.7 (2013): 1934-1965. Academic Search Elite. Web. 8 Feb. 2014.
Rotella, Sebastian. "How the NSA’s High-Tech Surveillance Helped Europeans Catch Terrorists." Top Stories RSS. ProPublica, 2013. Web. 06 Feb. 2014.
"Security & Surveillance." Center for Democracy & Technology. Center for Democracy & Technology, 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
Stray, Jonathan. "FAQ: What You Need to Know About the NSA’s Surveillance Programs." Top Stories RSS. N.p., 5 Aug. 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
"The Triumph of Technique – The Logic of the NSA." LibrarianShipwreck. WordPress.com, 22 June 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
Zetter, Kim. "World’s Top Surveillance Societies — Updated with Link." Editorial. Wired.com. Conde Nast Digital, 31 Dec. 2007. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
In times of great terror and panic, the citizens of a nation must decide what they value most: their right to privacy or the lives of the innocent. Government surveillance is criticized, however there are times in a nation’s history where, in order to ensure the safety of their citizens, they must surveill the country for potential hazards that might exist in the world. The government-issued program, COINTELPRO--a series of illegal projects during the twentieth century organized by the Federal Bureau of Investigation--while heavily criticized for its unconstitutional grounds--was justified because it benefitted the nation during a period of upheaval. COINTELPRO is popularly condemned by historians and professors such as Brandeis University Professor of Sociology, David Cunningham, who asserts that the FBI counterintelligence program was only a form of repression that allowed for the government to suppress matters that they consider bothersome (234) This however was not the case. COINTELPRO was necessary because of the great social unrest, individuals posed threats to society, and creating operations that were beneficial to the United States.
What is the historic context of surveillance, whose current form is electronic? We now know that the N.S.A. has no fewer than 46 surveillance programs (three in conjunction with the UK’s GCHQ) as described by surveillance reporter Julia Angwin (2014). For example:
Communication surveillance has been a controversial issue in the US since the 1920's, when the Supreme Court deemed unwarranted wiretaps legitimate in the case of Olmstead v United States. Since telephone wires ran over public grounds, and the property of Olmstead was not physically violated, the wiretap was upheld as lawful. However, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling in 1967 in the landmark case of Katz v United States. On the basis of the fourth amendment, the court established that individuals have the right to privacy of communication, and that wiretapping is unconstitutional unless it is authorized by a search warrant. [Bowyer, 142-143] Since then, the right to communication privacy has become accepted as an integral facet of the American deontological code of ethics. The FBI has made an at least perfunctory effort to respect the public's demand for Internet privacy with its new Internet surveillance system, Carnivore. However, the current implementation of Carnivore unnecessarily jeopardizes the privacy of innocent individuals.
Edward Snowden’s National Security Agency(NSA) leaked affair brought attention to American Citizens causing many arguments. Some argue they trust their government and wouldn’t change a thing about being monitored while others argue that their privacy being invaded is unconstitutional, and as a society living in surveillance, Americans need to reform the ECPA Act, and tell Congress to pass The USA Freedom Act.
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.
Within any society, information gathering and surveillance mechanisms exist. The sophistication of this information gathering varies, but at all levels; the information gathered can be received voluntarily or involuntarily. The collection of information, whether it is surveillance received at a traffic road crossing, or satellite images from outer space, occurs every day. Everyday life is subject to monitoring, checking and scrutinizing. To find a place or an activity, which is shielded from some kind of surveillance device is difficult. The ability for governments to have such surveillance capabilities is due to the growth of computer application areas and technical enhancement that are central to surveillance. The ability of nation states to guarantee civil, political, economic, and human rights is made possible only through systematic surveillance of and data-collection about their citizens. The ability of a nation to defend its borders, against aggression depends on the ability of the military to prepare for such incidents, and be capable to react. The level of surveillance and information gathering that exists continues to be discussed by scholars. There are many perspectives when discussing surveillance in nation states, each discussing an individual aspect of surveillance, and its significance. Three such perspectives include, the role of the nation state, the military and the citizenry, and how each play a role in this debate.
The events of 9/11 brought out the issue of attack prevention and the transformation of America’s intelligence community. These technology adva...
The United States government is up to its ears in the personal information it has collected from its citizens. Americans are becoming increasingly “aware of these slowly eroding walls of privacy,”(Hirsh) and more than half polled admit concern “about the overall accumulation of personal information about them “by […] law enforcement, government, […] and other groups,” though “they accept it as an unavoidable modern phenomenon” (Hirsh). The question is, how far is too far to trust the government with the collection, proper storage, and usage of this information? Studies show that “Americans believe that business, government, social-media sites, and other groups are accessing their most personal information without their consent” (Hirsh). People should be given the ability to admit or deny access to their personal information. The government does not have a right to use whatever information it wants for any purpose it wishes. Michael Hayden, once the NSA director for seven years, says, “Even I recognize that it's one thing for Google to know too much, because they aren't putting me in jail. It's another thing for government, because they can coerce me” (Hirsh). The United States government's ability to collect information about its citizens and residents should be restricted by what kind of information it can take, how it can acquire it, and what it can use it for.
Today, surveillance is heavily present in the U.S., and as a result citizens continue to face a threat of their privacy being invaded. Since 9/11, the National Security Agency, Federal Bureau of
Reynolds, Glenn Harlan . "Watching the Watchers: Why Surveillance Is a Two-Way Street." Popular Mechanics. January 2008. Popular Mechanics . 2 Mar 2008 .
Lütticke, Marcus. "A Chronology of the NSA Surveillance Scandal." DW.DE. Deutsche Welle, 31 Oct. 2013. Web. 01 Apr. 2014.
Taylor, James Stacey. "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance." Public Affairs Quarterly July 2005: 227-246.
Sempa, Francis P. "Privacy, Technology and National Security." American Diplomacy (2013). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 18 Feb. 2014.
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.
The use of electronic surveillance in the environment was basically to provide security and safety in the environment, which was used to monitor the rate of crime and other social vices in the world, providing global security to the world, and such information on security spreads faster at a snap on the Internet. But today the electronic surveillances are being used to bridge human rights and freedom, this involves the u...