ipl-logo

Controversy: Should The Government Monitorin Search Engines

507 Words3 Pages

The government has both implied powers and elicit powers. I believe that the so called “duty” to monitor internet content falls into the realm of elicit powers, and I do frankly believe that it is the governments duty of monitor said content. Many people find it outrageous that government agencies could be in a way “spying” on them on them, but the way I think about it with the great deal of terrorism and all around violence that takes place in today’s day and age, a little browsing privacy is worth the safety that such monitoring provides. As you think about the way certain search engines also record data on your searches/web activity it becomes clear that your seemingly “private” searches are not so private, not to the government or even to search engines. The only difference between the government use of …show more content…

I think that when you actually put into perspective the lives that could possibly be saved (or already have been saved) as a result of web monitoring then the government’s duty is very much justified. If one does not have anything to hide then it should not be a problem for said monitoring, however, I can definitely understand why the possession of such “duty” would be questioned as it is intrusive. However, the way such monitoring works is based on an automatic programs monitoring of certain key words that hint at threats or illegal activities, so it is definitely not an issue of someone monitoring your every action 24/7. The USA Patriot Act was established for the very purpose of protecting against terrorist attacks. It allows federal agents/ law enforcements to use specific types of surveillance and provides them with the necessary connections to “connect” the dots and be able to prevent and stop attacks in their

Open Document