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

Show More
Related
953 Words | 4 Pages

One group that argues this is the American Civil Liberties Union, which strongly disagrees with the Patriot Act. They have stated that investigations into the Patriot Act, “reveal thousands of violations of law,” (ACLU), while this is simply not true. One controversial piece of the Patriot Act are roving wiretaps. These allow government investigators to follow and put surveillance on certain people, rather than certain devices, so that they may save time and effort. According to Nathan Sales, a law professor at George Mason University, “Federal courts agree that Title III’s roving wiretaps authority is constitutional and… provides strong support for constitutionality,” (Sales).

Read More
435 Words | 2 Pages

CONCLUSION The USA Patriot Act violates the Unites States Constitution. The Patriot Act's purpose is to protect Americans from foreign threats and domestic terrorist attacks, however, the cons of this Act far outweigh the pros. It is important to protect Americans, but the illusion of homeland safety is not worth relinquishing civil rights for.

Read More
855 Words | 4 Pages

Ever since the Patriot Act came into effect, innocent Americans have been caught in the middle of a “danger zone” where they can be spied on and tracked at all times. The Patriot Act would be much more advantageous if the purpose was to catch regular criminal activity because that is virtually all it has done. To put into context how far the powers of the Patriot Act are being misused, in the span of three years (2003-2006), the FBI “issued 192,499 NSL’s of which only one led to a terror-related conviction, which would have occurred even without the Patriot Act” (Science of Security). Not only that, “as a result of 143,074 NSL’s issued between 2003 and 2005, the FBI made 53 reported criminal referrals to prosecutors of which 17 were for money laundering, 17 related to immigration, 19 involved in fraud, but zero were terror-related” (Justice). Lastly, “of the 3,970 sneak and peek searches in 2010, 76% were drug related and 24% were accredited to other crimes, while less than one percent were terror-related” (Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts for Delayed-Notice Search Warrants and Extensions).

Read More
157 Words | 1 Pages

why the NSA is bad some people believe that everything on the internet should be monitored by the NSA, well i believe that is completely wrong and unjust. for a couple reasons. But the main one is that it goes against the fourth amendment in the constitution. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by a probable cause, which means that the NSA can 't search your messages,calls,search history, or data unless they have a reason that is lawful and approved by a judge. But in most cases they don 't have it approved.

Read More
1277 Words | 6 Pages

The U.S follows a different school of surveillance. Despite the fundamental right to be held “innocent until proven guilty”, it monitors everyone until proven innocent. The status quo could of course damage America’s long known liberties granted by the Constitution. Recent revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden, have confirmed that the government is more likely to cross some constitutional lines in the name of national security. “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) regulates the government’s acquisition of any electronic surveillance within the country for foreign intelligence use.

Read More
641 Words | 3 Pages

In 2001 after the tragedy of 9/11 President George W. Bush passed the PATRIOT Act. The act is supposed to protect Americans from future terrorist attacks, but what it's actually doing is defying most principles this country was founded upon. Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act enables the FBI and the NSA to listen to the phone records of millions of Americans. Not only is the government invading the privacy of millions, but the way it's being done is illegal. The government is invading on the personal lives of people who have never been suspected of being a terrorist.

Read More
140 Words | 1 Pages

This is a great way to monitor terrorist but for the normal non criminal citizen it 's a violation simply because they can collet such things as religous affilations. medical conditions, close friends, romantic partners, gun owners and any additions. there is a movement in congress for a cleaner auterazation

Read More
1016 Words | 5 Pages

This completely takes away a person’s right to privacy. The government has access search anyone’s internet or library records. Taking away someone’s right to read what they please also takes away the freedom of writing about controversial topics since anyone who reads it is intimidated by the government (Jacobs and

Read More
798 Words | 4 Pages

You shouldn’t have to be watched if you aren’t deemed a threat to yourself or society. In my opinion humans are naturally more private creatures that don’t like sharing everything about themselves. The individual right of privacy allows humans to hide somethings about themselves, if it doesn’t seem harmful. However, surveillance is used in public order to observe those that could be plotting against the government, or an attack in the United States. Surveillance has been used to catch and stop many dangerous people who show a threat to the safety of the United States.

Read More
515 Words | 3 Pages

I believe that they are violating our freedom act and our individual privacy. If we have a computer that collects all information about us, how can we be sure that other terrorists will not be able to get a hold of our private information? Personally, it makes me feel less safe that everything I do digitally is stored somewhere. There are people

Read More
168 Words | 1 Pages

“The Patriot Act broadly undermines the rights of all Americans. It reduces judicial oversight of a host of investigative measures, including wiretaps, expands the government 's ability to track individuals ' Internet use and gives federal officials expansive new powers that are in no way limited to investigating terrorist crimes. ( thenation) It authorizes an end run around the Fourth Amendment by allowing the government to conduct wiretaps and searches in criminal investigations, without probable cause of a crime, as long as the government claims that it also seeks to gather foreign intelligence--an authority that is particularly questionable in light of recent disclosures from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that the FBI has

Read More
575 Words | 3 Pages

The United States needs to start seriously monitoring emails, text messages, phone calls, and web searches for any suspicious activity that could lead to terrorism. This is no joke, extremism in the defense of being able to go to a baseball game, or concert without anxiety is no vice. If anyone is a suspected terrorist, they should be monitored. Some people say that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, but is it worth risking a life? Monitoring a suspected terrorist could prevent an attack from happening, and save lives.

Read More
1065 Words | 5 Pages

Whenever someone says sports, it's always basketball, baseball/softball, soccer, or lacrosse that comes to a person's mind, but it's never cheerleading. This may be because cheerleaders don’t: throw, kick, or hit a ball around. Even though cheerleading doesn’t include a ball doesn’t mean it isn’t a sport. Cheerleaders may not pass balls around to each other, but we lift girls who are over a hundred pounds. I don’t think there’s any difference between cheerleading and the “regular sports” except for the fact that the other sports include balls, but cheerleading involves pretty much the same things as other sports: passion, strong, and amusing.

Read More
93 Words | 1 Pages

A union is an organization of workers who come together as one in order to be heard when it comes to improving their jobs and the quality of work within the organizations the work in. Labor union is an organization that represent workers and the collective bargaining process as a way to manage conflict. Conflicts usually consists of employees who are concerned with issues that other workers may feel t are important and need to be addressed. Examples of those issues are benefits, wages, and the conditions of employment (Gaines and Worrall,

Read More
1315 Words | 6 Pages

(Bilton, 2013) Surveillance of search engines permits information to be monitored so that if any hazardous search word like how to make bomb is looked it up several times by someone then it can be identified (Anon, 2014). Also, watching over the public assists police to capture crime suspects so that government organizations can protect national security (mass surveillance 위키피디아) To be specific, after terrible incident occurred in September 11, 2001, government of United States enacted the Patriot Act which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. The act was signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001 in the name of declaring war with terrorism. (위키피디아) The law grants the right to Federal Bureau of Investigation to profile people who fit certain stereotypes so that potential crime and potential terror can be prevented.

Read More

More about Controversy: Should The Government Monitorin Search Engines

Related Topics

Open Document