"¬†¬†In our World, threats to our Country are common and are becoming frequent. Issues like bullying, extremism, terrorism, and even the illegal production and distribution of drugs threaten all parts of the world more than ever. Not to mention, our increasing dependence on technology for business transactions, work, school, and storage of information has opened up a medium to effectuate these actions. The use of the internet no doubt is beneficial but like anything else, it can, and has been put to ill use. Controversy has been stirred up concerning the monitoring of internet content by the government. Many believe that this action is violating their right inscribed in the fifth amendment which protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information. But with the existence of agencies such as the NSA and Acts like the USA PATRIOT Act, the government has shown that it is more concerned with the national …show more content…
Many advocate government supervision because they believe that it will ensure National Security. Others strongly oppose this preferring to have personal privacy. Espionage has been beneficial in the past and has potential to be helpful in the future but when misused, it becomes more of a hazard. The freedom of speech also should not be sacrificed in the name of National Security. In addition, there should be limit on the kind of information the government receives and the manner in which it receives it. I say all of this not to say that the government should turn a blind eye to the activities of the public, but should be more considerate of the personal lives of civilians in the process of practicing safety measures. One can’t be chosen over the other. Like Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
More was Lost than Lives The day of the September 11 attacks was a terrible day that will be forever remembered. The attacks however did not only cost Americans their lives at the World Trade Centers, the Pentagon and on those planes; the attacks also took Americans’ freedoms. Following the attacks the unconstitutional Patriot act was passed, the inconvenient and ineffective Transportation and Security Agency was formed, and the NSA’s mass surveillance program was increased. While all of these actions were done in order to protect Americans from terrorism they have only succeeded in denying Americans the very rights afforded to them in the United States Constitution.
To further support this, information that is collected is used to protect the Nation from "threats.” (2.1)Since this information is used to protect the Nation from “threats,” not to intrude on everyday citizen’s privacy, it is not an invasion of their right to privacy. Correspondingly, part of protecting citizen’s privacy is requiring a probable cause for
Nowadays, “privacy” is becoming a popular conversation topic. Many people believe that if they do not do anything wrong in the face of technology and security, then they have nothing to hide. Professor Daniel J. Solove of George Washington University Law School, an internationally known expert in privacy law, wrote the article Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’, published in The Chronicle of Higher Education in May of 2011. Solove explains what privacy is and the value of privacy, and he insists that the ‘nothing to hide’ argument is wrong in this article. In the article, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’”, Daniel J. Solove uses ethos, pathos, and logos effectively by using strong sources, using
This paper will discuss how to balance out civil liberties and security in intelligence activities; mainly surrounding the topic of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2002. With this topic and its perceived downfalls, identifying how to make both sides work efficiently will be discussed. Discussion When asked the question of “how can the United States balance civil liberties and security in intelligence activities?” the thought of the USA PATRIOT Act comes into mind; for two reasons. The first one is it caused a enormous uproar in the community after it was enacted based upon the fact it was perceived to infringe on civil liberties.
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows U.S. intelligence agencies to acquire foreign intelligence information by monitoring foreign persons in the USA and abroad. This act ensures that intelligence agencies can respond in time to terminate a security threat. The most important part of this act, the Section 702 forbids deliberate monitoring of US citizens and their communication. Technically NSA has been violating this act ever since it has been enacted in 2008 because, as we know, they have been monitoring all US citizenry.
During times of war, there is a national crisis to protect the country and the citizens living in it. Secrecy of military endeavors is of utmost importance, and disclosing facts about these topics could lose a war or risk millions of lives. The government takes away people 's rights in order to protect the country. Many people argue against the suspension of the writ of Habeas Corpus, and the Espionage and Sedition acts.
US News reports the FISA and USA Patriot Act as a "privacy scandal" (Fox, 2013). NPR News reports the concern of "civil liberty[ies] groups" protesting the USA Patriot Act and the concern for the authorities to demand business records from various companies (Johnson, 2011, p.1). What the media fails to convey to the general public is the intent of these Acts is to combat terrorism and not to invade privacy. Millions of people travel the world every day snapping photos from their digital cameras and iPhones. Perhaps to capture a memory or an unusual event, and sometimes other people in the background.
Have you ever wondered why the Patriot Act played a big part in history or why it is so important to us? Well the government has compromised our civil liberties through the use of the Patriot Act. They also abused our privacy which wasn’t fair for us. The history of the Patriot Act, the abuse of our rights, and the way everything ended made the Americans feel like they couldn’t trust their government because they felt like they were always being watched. Through the Patriot Act, the law enforcement agencies and the government are given wide optional powers to acquire information not only from suspected people but also from the law-abiding Americans.
“If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists - to protect them and to promote their common welfare - all else is lost.” Representatives, keep this quote in mind today, as President Barack Obama was absolutely correct in saying so. Now Thomas Hobbes’s theory of the social contract is clear, in which the people must sacrifice a portion of their rights for protection by the government. But this sacrifice does not and cannot have a definition. Times change, and with it, so must security measures.
As stated before, there is nothing wrong with taking measures to assure the safety of Americans, but just as has been shown, the current criteria for keeping us “safe” is flawed. What is wrong with trying to fix a flawed system by implementing an old American value that there is absolutely zero tolerance for any government overreach? Judges Marreros solution to that unconstitutional flaw, is by no means abnormal to the American style of freedom, where as it actually traces back to the root guardian constructed in our constitution: the Checks and
The 4th amendment “prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate.” In current times, the news has covered the National Security Agency’s data tracking and wire taps through the Patriot Act, a clear violation of this amendment. Therefore, this makes the 4th Amendment the most relevant of the original 10 amendments. To understand why such importance has been put on the 4th amendment in today’s world, it must first be understood where we as Americans have
Such a dramatic response could lead to a possibly dangerous shift in power, and the fall of the entire democracy. The American government is trying to protect its people, but in reality, it is only evoking a defiant response with detrimental consequences. The idea that one’s private information must be secure at all costs has swept the globe and has inspired a hysteria of ludicrous terror, according to writer David Plotz in his essay “Privacy in Overrated”. Yet, there are valid reasons on why such a terror is not absurd, but practical.
On September 11, 2001 the world came to a stand still as a terroristic attack targeting our country killed 2,977 people. As fear ran high in every American house hold, the government quickly acted and on October 26 President George W. Bush passed the USA PATRIOT Act. The full title, "Uniting and Strenghtening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act", suggest how the government quickly acted in response to the new threat that we were experianceing. Although some may argue that it violates our civil liberties, the Patriot Act serves as an asset to help protect U.S. citizens by stopping terrorist attacks, giving the law enforcement tools to make investigations easier, and increases national security.
Is National Security better than Personal Privacy? People fear their loss of privacy, but the government is trying to protect us. The 4th Amendment states that citizens have the right to protect their privacy and should not be violated without a warrant. The Patriot Act was passed to protect citizens from terrorism. However, privacy is always a good thing to have but when it comes to protecting our country national security is the best way to go.
Safety of our citizens is of utmost importance in creating a robust society. Building sustainable communities that are inclusive, secure and sensitive to needs of the citizens will continue to be of national priority. However, over the years, crime has stymied this endeavour. There must be a commitment to ensuring safety, security and justice for all citizens, which are seen as moral rights and intrinsic to development. Good policing, targeted social interventions and an efficient judicial system are needed to help our nation thrive.