In the following critical review of, “Enemy of the State” I will be addressing the obvious issue of the government’s infringement upon the privacy of United States citizens by the National Security Agency (NSA). However, before I do so, I would like to begin by outlining some initial pieces of information that is imperative for setting the context in which I will be viewing this issue of privacy invasion. I will begin by first giving a brief overview of the United States Government and where it’s initially receives the power to exercise authority over its citizens, and its responsibility to us as the citizens. I will also be briefly discussing our role as citizens and out biblical obligations to the government. After doing this I will give a brief background to how we secured out right to privacy, and then the remainder of this paper will be dedicated to relating that right to privacy to specific violations within the movie. Despite my previous elusion to me analyzing, and critiquing this movie against a presupposed biblical basis, I would now like to explicitly state my intention to do so in the proceeding portion of this critique.
I will now give a brief background to where the government has its basic foundation from a biblically rooted point of view. Within the Bible, God only sets in place three institutes. The first institute that is ordained by God is marriage, which we can see is an arrangement that allows two separate humans, male and female, to enter into a covenant with each other before God in an attempt to better fulfil the roles which God has set in place for each of them. The second institution that God set in place is the church. The church is set in place in a hierarchical manner to organize its members so that...
... middle of paper ...
...e absolute power that this privacy bill would have implicated. He stated that the government knew and had recorded and cataloged anything that was on “every wire, every airwave!” this corruption would be inexcusably unconstitutional the questions raised in this movie go far beyond the limits of even my generation, and require a lifetime of thought, which is unfortunately longer than I believe the evidence points to before the implications of this movie become a reality. So I conclude with a statement made in the film by Larry King, who succinctly summarizes the very questions that fuels this privacy debate, “how do we draw the line – draw the line between protection of national security, obviously the government’s need to obtain intelligence data and the protection of civil liberties, particularly the sanctity of my home? You’ve got no right to come into my home!
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.
Glenn Greenwald, a talented and widely read columnist on civil liberties for the Guardian newspaper, failed in his attempt to alarm his readers to the flagrant and widespread violations of American privacy. Although his article was full of facts, documentation, and quotes from top rank officials, the article did not convey any sense of wrong doing or outrage. Rather it was dull, lacked passion and a sense of persuasion. In fact, the only attention grabbing part in the whole article is the title.
Today’s America has a magnitude of issues, spanning from social (gay marriage and abortion) to political (immigration and Obamacare) to economic (tax cuts and higher wages). Problems have been accumulating over the years and we yet do not know the solutions to any of them. But, some of the answers may have been already addressed by our founding fathers, especially to the controversial NSA Surveillance in the United States. As one of the Founding Fathers, Patrick delivered the “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech, expressing his view on the topic of autonomy and freedom therefore; he would discourage and fully go against the NSA surveillance in the United States today.
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.
In early June 2013, Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former defense contractor who had access to NSA database while working for an intelligence consulting company, leaked classified documents reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) is recording phone calls of millions of Americans along with gathering private data and spying foreign Internet activity. The Washington Post later broke the news disclosed PRISM, a program can collect data on Internet users. The leaked documents publicly stated a vast objection. Many people were shocked by the scale of the programs, even elected representatives were unaware of the surveillance range. 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...
Long a polarizing issue, a balance between civil liberties and national security has constantly trailed America’s pursuit of happiness. Civil liberties are defined as rights for each individual person that serve to protect said individuals, by law, from unjust governmental interference, and encompasses all interference that may infringe on given rights. Incidentally, America has sucumb to such infringments within its lifetime, some early in its history, and some with recurring now with vestiges of the more prominent liberty violations which had reigned before. A much more recent example, terrorist attacks offended on September 11 shook our nation and brought with it government reform that many had not seen before. And with these governmental reforms, America has begun to backlash after more and more information about these unjust offenses has begun to leak from both prolific media outlets and workers in government themselves. The attacks committed on September 11, 2001. Although initially intended to protect America, the war on terror has begun to encroach on civil liberties and the ...
Throughout many years in the United States, there has been controversy over whether or not government surveillance and other technology is a violation of human rights. Ever since the publication of George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, there has been an increase in debates on the subject. The novel itself exemplifies what a surveillance-based society is like, providing the reader with a point of view of what could happen to their own society. Discussion over the usage of information that the government has gathered has become one of the foremost topics being analyzed to this day. The information that is being viewed by surveillance would otherwise be private, or information that people would not want to be leaked out. Therefore, surveillance executed by the government and companies has become an infringement to the right of privacy, and United States citizens should take actions upon it before the world reflects the Orwellian vision of the future.
A clash that arises when we talk about privacy is the question of what should be given preference - our rights or our safety (which the State claims is taken into consideration and is usually the driving force for the creation of surveillance projects). Those who agree with the State assert that they’ve got nothing to hide and therefore have nothing to worry about . Trent Lott, a former Senate majority leader asked rhetorically whether the reason for
When one hears the words National Security and Privacy together the terms Snowden, NSA, and Patriot Act are often at the forefront of any discussions. It has become common knowledge that the way the United States deals with national security has changed. Since the implication of the Patriot Act in 2001, the way that the United States has dealt with security and antiterrorism issues has created a never ending fight with civil liberty groups regarding such laws being constitutional or not. Those civil liberty groups argue that such laws infringe upon the fourth amendment, imposing unwarranted searches on civilians who have shown no probable cause to endure such invasion. But the question remains: what is considered probable cause? While
It’s so ironic that Harry Jackson and Tony Perkins publish the “Personal Faith, Public Policy” in 2008 when the United States is experiencing such a major shake with the Federal Government. The question was asked, what kind of government do you want (Jackson, Perkins, 2008)? Then the choice was given: honest, efficient government that has security for property, life and personal freedom (Jackson, Perkins,2008). All the above choice is necessary; however, the government is on the Lord shoulder (Isaiah 9:6). God has ordained four institutions of authority: self-government meaning (I Peter1:15-16) the biblical standards of conduct; the institution of family, how it is structure (Ephesians 6:1-4); the institution of civil government meaning
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”(Benjamin Franklin). Privacy is considered a civil liberty issue. It reflects the American fundamental values such as civil liberties, limited government, and individualism. It covers the whole range of civil liberties spectrum and it holds every aspect of our life. It plays a major role on our daily lives and it is also a main structure in the future of democratic political system (Wemmer, 2012.) Privacy has evolved overtime, privacy can be interpreted from the First ,Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Fourteenth Amendments in the Constitution; however Americans don’t consider the importance of privacy until cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479, 1965), Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113, 1973), Mapp v. Ohio (367 U.S. 643, 1961) are brought to the court.
Government has filled a spot in the American Society that once belonged to the churches. People regularly attended church throughout American history and use the church as a place of instruction, guidance, support, and charity. The government now fills a larger role in American’s lives and at the same time church attendance is diminishing. The government is growing at a rapid pace and the expanded social programs have more influence on Americans than the church. America is a nation of immigrants which most fled from large governments (sometime oppressive) and now the American government is poised to grow larger than ever. The ideas behind the growth of government can have noble intentions, but more often than not results in wasted money and harm to the peoples it intends to help, and is replacing the roles churches once filled as a guiding and supportive structure in peoples lives.
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.
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
With continuing revelations of government surveillance, much has been said about the “trade-off” between privacy and security and finding the “right balance” between the two. As Michael Lynch, a professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut, wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times, “this way of framing the issue makes sense if [one] understand[s] privacy solely as a political or legal concept.” In this context, the loss of privacy might seem to be a small price to pay to ensure one's safety. However, the relevance of privacy extends far beyond the political and legal sphere. Privacy – or the lack thereof – affects all aspects of one's life; it is a state of human experience. In this sense, privacy, from the symbolic interactionist position that the self is created through social interaction, is a necessary precondition for the creation and preservation of the self. The “self” entails personhood, autonomy, and identity.