Over the past few weeks, more and more information has come out about government surveillance of phone calls and email messages of United States citizens and foreign persons. You have likely heard some debate about whether this surveillance is necessary in order to keep our nation safe. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to:
1) Read this article about the issue:
Documents Detail Restrictions on NSA Surveillance
2) Answer these questions:
Question form #1
3) Leave a comment below regarding the issue.
Government surveillance of its citizens is definitely wrong. Considering that America is thought of as the "Land of the Free", this is definitely not what our Founding Fathers would have wanted. The reason why the First Amendment was created was to protect our freedoms of speech, religion, petitioning the government, press, and assembly. Americans' freedom of speech is being impeded when the government surveys what one writes on the Internet. The Fourth Amendment is also being impeded. The government isn't supposed to search or seize anything from its citizens without a warrant. However, it's probably okay to survey countries who have a lot of terrorists who might plan an attack on America or one of our allies. After all, they're not our citizens, and they might actually cause America harm. To sum up, America shouldn't spy on its citizens, but America can survey terrorists who pose a threat to America.
ReplyDelete-Kayley B.
In a perfect world, there would be no terrorists, or if there were terrorists it would be abundantly clear who who they were. Unfortunately, neither of these are true and we live in a time where there are unidentified people all around the world that mean to cause us harm. The trade-off, as I see it, is that we must be open to having our privacy invaded upon if we are to expect better safety from terrorism. Some people are fine with this, as they don't see the downside to having their emails or phone calls recorded. Others, however, value freedom above all else, and are shocked and appalled by what they see as a grave injustice to our fundamental liberties. Benjamin Franklin was famously quoted as having said "the man who trades freedom for security does not deserve, nor will he receive, either." What the argument boils down to (as do most regarding civil liberties) is what the Founders meant, and whether or not that is still relevant today. I believe that what they wanted, a nonintrusive government no matter how dangerous the potential threats, is more relevant and needed today than ever. In the wake of 9/11, many government actions that would have caused mass outrage are not only tolerated but celebrated. Hopefully this leak will bring to light that we are actively trading freedoms granted to us by the 4th Amendment for safety from an exaggerated fear, and cause people to reevaluate the priorities in their life.
ReplyDelete-Keegan B.
I agree with your thoughts on it being a trade-off, however I believe that the intrusion of our privacy is needed and necessary. Today we may be saying these threats are "exaggerated fears", but who is to say that tomorrow these fears won’t be "real." If a governmental official needed to search my Gmail or text messages to protect the nation then "BY ALL MEANS" I would be absolutely fine with them doing so. The thought is if some privacy needs to be bypassed to prevent events like 9/11 from happening in the future, then the consequence is accepted. As the saying goes “Better safe than sorry.” People would rather be alive to argue today, than dead tomorrow.
Delete-Michael S.
The first reaction of most Americans to government action is to ask: Is my freedom being violated? It is good that Americans are concerned about their rights; however, sometimes our freedom and our safety cannot both be kept. In those situations it is hard to know which is more important. In my opinion, I gain more by having an improved national defense against terrorism than by having privacy in my calls and emails. I don’t even consider phone calls and emails part of my privacy, but not everyone shares my opinion. So, we have to consider what is being harmed when the government intercepts our calls and emails. Primarily, our right to privacy is being ignored and Americans are being searched without probable cause, whether it is done purposely or not. However, I believe what intimidates a large number of Americans the most is the belief that if we let the government abuse our rights once, this abuse will continue to grow until the government has an excessive amount of power over its citizens. Nonetheless, our rights have been infringed upon before. In 1919, during World War I, the Supreme Court declared that it was constitutional for citizens to be convicted of speaking against the military and the draft. Since then, this court decision has been amended and the rights American citizens enjoy have expanded.
ReplyDelete-Elise F.
I've read many comments on various websites about this topic, and it seems that the general consensus is that the NSA's surveillance is not justified. The question is how many American lives can be sacrificed before a surveillance program such as this one is justified. Is our freedom worth the lives of our countrymen? It's a tough question, which may not have a clear-cut answer, which is why I am hesitant to state an opinion on this issue. While I think the government has an obligation to ensure its citizens' well-being, it also has to protect their freedom. If the program has truly, as government officials claim, prevented many terrorist plots since its creation, then perhaps it's justified. At the same time, it *is* a violation of our right to privacy which, though not explicitly stated in the Constitution, has been interpreted in that manner.
ReplyDeleteIf the government is allowed to get away with monitoring our phone calls and emails in the name of combating terrorism, then how far will they go? What else will they do? I think that's the nagging question on the back of the minds of many American citizens.
- Nathanial Y.
I think Keegan made a very good point when he said that the trade-off is that we must be open to having our privacy invaded upon if we are to expect better safety from terrorism. Yes, it can be seen as an invasion of privacy, but that isn't the intent. The government is doing this as a form of surveillance, not spying. The 9/11 attacks along with the recent Boston Marathon attack clearly call for increased security and protection from terrorism. While I value privacy, safety and security are higher priorities for me. I can understand how many Americans see this as a violation of their rights and how they may think it impedes the First Amendment, but I think our country's safety and national security is more important than our personal privacy.
ReplyDelete-Annie M.
In today's world, one of the main worries of our society is government surveillance on Americans, which is supposedly all in the name of national security. The real question that is bugging many of our citizens minds recently is, as I am agreeing with Nathanial Y., is there a sufficient reason for all of this new surveillance on the people of our country? In my personal opinion, yes there is absolutely a justified reason for the more hands-on surveillance that is going on in our world today. This is where I am disagreeing with Kayley B. She says that government surveillance of its citizens is definitely wrong. I, personally, don't think I could disagree more. We need government surveillance to ensure the safety and well being of our citizens. Even though the Founders might not have wanted this surveillance, unfortunately, it is needed in today's world. National security is so important these days, especially since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, and most recently with the Boston marathon attacks this past spring. Whenever any of these awful attacks happen, the country goes crazy for national security and then the entire bustle eventually dies down. But, I believe that to make sure that we never see any these attacks happen again in our country, we must tighten our national security and keep government surveillance on high alert. Now, I am definitely not saying that the government should go to the point where it is watching our every move and is harmful and offensive to our privacy, but we also must not let everybody and anybody do what they want in our country.
ReplyDelete-Samantha D.
67% of American adults have a social media account of some kind (http://pewinternet.org). That’s over half of the adult public. Considering most of these accounts can be viewed by most everyone anyways, why is the government eavesdropping phone calls and emails much worse? The government has a designated purpose to protect the American public from terrorist by use of surveillance in order to catch attacks before they happen. The NSA has also announced that the goal is to focus on foreigners. There is also procedure to dispose conversations incidentally picked up from Americans. Elise F. is right that Americans should be worried more about security than a little bit of privacy. And I'm sure family members of those injured or killed in the Boston Marathon attacks would agree. However if we allow them to continue to survey how much more will we allow to happen?
ReplyDelete-Mackenzie P.
As a few of my classmates have already stated, I think what scares many Americans is the potential for the NSA to go too far and abuse its resources. People fear the government having too much power, and rightly so in some cases. However, the documents that were released are rules governing how a worker should handle a situation in which an American is accidentally intercepted, the existence of these rules means that, yes it does happen periodically, but it is not intentional and that the conversations are deleted if it does not concern the security of American citizens. I think of this as a step towards the security and safety of our nation and its people as a rather than an invasion of my privacy. This should not be the end goal though, in an ideal world we could have a system with more transparency on the part of the government and more faith on the part of the people, the people we elect to represent us should not be our enemy.
ReplyDelete-Anna H.
I think that many citizens are not informed as to what the NSA was actually doing. They believe that government was reading their emails and tapping their phones, which is not the case. The phone records of millions of American Verizon customers were seized, sure. But nothing will be done with them unless a specific tip is given and then verified by the Attorney General. This scale of surveillance is questionable, but the harm that will come from this governmental action? Probably very little to none. I'm not sure what the government gained from these records, but so far as I can tell, it is not a large infringement into citizen's privacy. I agree with Samantha D. in that today's world is much different than the Framer's. Times have changed and so should our government's approach to protecting American citizens and stopping terrorists.
ReplyDeleteIn today’s day and age there is not as much hand to hand combat as there was just 20 years ago. In the modern world “cyber warfare” is becoming more and more popular with all of the new technological advances that are occurring now. I feel like the government and the NSA should have some sort of overview on what is going on in the internet. I would have to agree with Mr. Banks on this issue, Mr. Banks feels that the documents leaked actually benefit the American people because it’s just more information that we have about what the government does. The world is becoming a more dangerous place not just on the streets but also online. People are having his and her identity stolen more and more often not just by credit information. Thieves can hack into bank accounts that you do online to see purchases you’ve made and such, the only way we can stop this is if we give up some more privacy for more security in the online world. For instance a terrorist could steal someone’s bank account information or hack someone’s computer, but with the NSA having the authority to collect people’s online data there is the possibility that the NSA could trace where the hacking is coming from, and find the hacker.
ReplyDeleteGovernment surveillance is not in itself inherently evil, and often is can be used to greatly benefit the nation. Many who may denounce this as a loss of freedom can be reminded that they do not have the freedom, nor have they ever had the freedom to commit terrible crimes against others. We had to give up these "freedoms" to ensure that we were safe. The use of surveillance is a necessary part of society if people want safety and security from evils abroad. The problem, I think, is when government surveillance is used to monitor American citizens for political purposes or used to restrict what Americans think or do in most situations. My biggest fear is that because many of the programs must be classified to accomplish their goals, we will never know if their power and knowledge of us is being abused or managed properly. To put this fear to rest, one must have trust and faith in their government. That is the biggest questions facing citizens. If programs are managed properly, we should have nothing to fear and everything to gain from this, only if proper controls are put into place to prevent abuse.
ReplyDelete-Henry K.
Seeing government surveillance as an invasion of privacy as Kayley B. said, due to the fact that someone may be listening into our calls or reading e-mails is understandable but I believe that it is a part of living in America that we should tolerate or even be thankful for. The government is not in any way purposely wanting to invade our privacy; they are only trying to keep the country and the people living in it safe. As Keegan B. said we don’t live in a perfect world, if we did there would be no need for any type of security or surveillance. If someone has nothing to hide then government surveillance should not be a problem, they should feel secured knowing that if something were to happen the government would be able to catch the terrorist early before they can harm others. Government Surveillance is to keep us safe from those who are trying to hurt us. It may be uncomfortable but it is a sacrifice that we should be willing to make for the safety of us and our future generation.
ReplyDelete-Anna L.
Before getting in to whether or not it's okay for the government to collect information generated by it's citizens let's take a step back and look at this logically. Does the government really care whether you're making plans to meet your family for dinner at 7 or whether or not your friends have seen the newest episode of your favorite TV show which is what most people use their mobile devices for? The answer is no. Why would the government waste time and tax dollars to listen in on every single conversation or read every single text that the 300 million people (or the 83.1 million Verizon Wireless users) in the US send every single day? It's paranoid and very unreasonable to believe so. The only reason people are frightened when they see headlines talking about "Government Surveillance" is because they contain the word "Government" in them. Like Mack P. alluded to, people give their information out willingly and freely everyday on social networks and online businesses. People think it's fine if Facebook or Google tracks your location and searches to tailor advertisements to your interests because they also in part give you a unique and helpful service. So why is it bad for the NSA to store our old phone messages if they are in turn looking out for and preventing future terror attacks and plans to harm Americans? Security comes with a price... If that price is practically harmless to one's everyday life, it's worth the sacrifice to protect ourselves from the threat of terror in the modern world that we live in.
ReplyDelete-Zach M.
At first glance I would say it's completely wrong for the NSA to invade the privacy of Americans. But after thought and hearing what is really going on I must agree with Michael S. If reading my emails, looking at my call logs, or social media I use helps make my country a safer place then by all means I would allow the government to do as they please. I want my country to be as safe as possible. The NSA has specifically stated the only reason our things should be searched is either by accident or for information on foreign terrorists. Honestly, if you're not hiding anything is it really tat bad if your things are searched? I also agree with Mack P. If 67% of American adults already use social media that is viewable to anyone around the world, what difference does this make?
ReplyDelete-Jordan B.
While some may believe this type of government surveillance violates the first amendment, I feel as though this can be tolerated. Keegan B. made a very good point in saying that there must be some type of trade off. I hate to say it but I don't think we can have it all. After events such as 9/11 or the bombing at the Boston Marathon, the government reading emails is a small price to pay if it can stop these things from happening in the future. Like Anna L. said above, this surveillance shouldn't be a problem if a person has nothing to hide. People can't get so caught up on the particulars. As long as the governments power isn't being abused we should be able to live with this type of surveillance.
ReplyDelete-Taylor B
I personally don't like the government surveying through people's private and personal messages and phone calls. Most of you have said that you don't mind the government violating the fourth amendment for safety, but I'm concerned what makes someone "a suspected terrorist". If the British did this same thing back during the revolution, I think that the founders might be considered terrorist. I think that since most of our lives have been in a post 9/11 world, we have become accustomed to the idea that the government has the right to do what they want in the name of safety. The government has lied to us in the past (Watergate for example) and I don't know that we can always take what they say at face value. I'm a little suspicious about how they say that they target foreigners and that citizens shouldn't be concerned. I think we should call the government out more than we have.
ReplyDelete-River P.
It is typical for the reaction of most Americans to feel violated, and like their basic rights have been taken advantage of. Americans have the right to privacy in this country. However, I agree with what Jordan B. and Annie M. have already stated. It is far more important for people to be safe, rather than having privacy. Over the past few years, many events have taken place which make me question the national security of our country. Also, if you have nothing to hide, then it should not even be a big deal to be monitored. The government has a responsibility to keep our nation safe, and they will do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal. As it was stated in the article, the government monitors what calls are only completely necessary. Most people seem to form an opinion before they even have all of the hard facts. Our government is here to protect us, and we should allow them the tools they need to keep us safe.
ReplyDeleteMy personal opinion of this subject is quite similar to many of my fellow classmates. If my phone records or text messages can be used to save the lives of my fellow Americans than I would be okay with the government using them as important resources. I would not feel that my first or fourth amendment rights are being violated because I am okay with giving up a very small amount of my privacy to help keep my fellow Americans' safe. But if we're being honest here, I do not believe that my phone records and text messages would have any significance toward national security, and I think that many others feel this way, and this is why they might get upset about the whole ordeal. I think this is also where Tasha P.'s point about citizens being uninformed and Annalise H.'s point about the documents and what they really mean comes into play. People get frightened when they see the words "American" and "surveillance" in the same sentence. This feeling of fear has created a wall that has been built up by years of secrets and general darkness of information between the American people and their government, and also crises like Watergate and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. This wall can be taken down with a general transparency between the American people and their government.
ReplyDeleteMy personal opinion of this subject is quite similar to many of my fellow classmates. If my phone records or text messages can be used to save the lives of my fellow Americans than I would be okay with the government using them as important resources. I would not feel that my first or fourth amendment rights are being violated because I am okay with giving up a very small amount of my privacy to help keep my fellow Americans' safe. But if we're being honest here, I do not believe that my phone records and text messages would have any significance toward national security, and I think that many others feel this way, and this is why they might get upset about the whole ordeal. I think this is also where Tasha P.'s point about citizens being uninformed and Annalise H.'s point about the documents and what they really mean comes into play. People get frightened when they see the words "American" and "surveillance" in the same sentence. This feeling of fear has created a wall that has been built up by years of secrets and general darkness of information between the American people and their government, and also crises like Watergate and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. This wall can be taken down with a general transparency between the American people and their government.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it seems perfectly reasonable to give up small privacies such as an email account in order to gain greater security for us all. However, I, like Anna H, am concerned about exactly how much power this gives our government. This is only a small step, but could lead to more threatening laws passed in the name of national security. Although the government has the responsibility to protect us, I believe, as the founders did, that it is also necessary to limit the powers the government has over our lives. Even though this law was intended for our protection, it expanded the government's reach of power; perhaps further than it should have been. It will become necessary in the future to balance the need of national security with the need to be secure from our government.
ReplyDeleteAlong with what Erin S said, things like my email and other small things that will have no profound effect on me but will help gain security is something that I think is fine. The thing that concerns me and probably others is that if this is what they start with, what will they try to do next. The power given to them when people start to accept the governments interference on their emails could be a gateway to larger laws to be passed. The founders wanted protection from the government. Right now we are not in danger of the government, however if the government takes this as a gateway then a balance (as said by Erin) will need to be met.
ReplyDeleteI understand the argument that the government's surveillance of its own people is an unfair breach of privacy, and I see why it can be considered unconstitutional. I do believe, however, that this is a necessary step the U.S must take in order ensure national security in an increasingly interconnected world. Our means of protecting ourselves have to evolve to combat the new threats that the 21st century will undoubtedly bring. There is certainly a trade-off involved, but a government should always place its citizen's safety as its #1 priority. All of that being said, I also think that this is something the government should have informed the citizens of in the first place. The American people have right to know if they are being monitored, even if it is for their own protection.
ReplyDeleteThe recent documents released by Snowden are more reminders of the complexity of threats against our nation as well as the difficulty of applying them to the Constitution. It is true that in today’s world those who wish to harm us have many new ways of communication and the threat of cyber warfare has become increasingly apparent. The problem we are faced with as Americans however is this: Are we willing to give up some of our privacy and the protection from “unreasonable searches” as stated in the 4th Amendment to feel safe from terrorists? I for one agree with the quotation from Benjamin Franklin that Keegan B. Posted. Now of course the current surveillance measures taken by the NSA are not clearly malicious in practice, (they are not for example, arresting people for criticizing the government through private emails) however I believe that the potential is worrying. It is apparent that the government has secretly spied on us and skirted around the limits of the 4th Amendment. What could they get away with in the future and what could they be doing right now with the justification of fighting abstract threats such as terrorism?
ReplyDelete- Spencer W.
Knowing the government can read my emails, listen to my phone calls, and read my text messages makes me sort of anxious. It’s not much, but if the government needs to wiretap phone calls or read email conversations or text messages to protect us from terrorism, then I personally would allow it. I don't feel invaded when I trade part of my private duties for security of my freedoms. Like what Keegan B. mentioned, it’s a trade-off, and I don't have any objections to it. The government’s job is to protect us, even if it means wiretapping citizens’ activities to track down and detain domestic and international threats. The possibility of a threat is out there, and if we don't allow the government to monitor our activities, terrorists can easily ambush citizens with homemade bombs or computer viruses. I feel that wiretapping is necessary to keep us safe in the 21st century. With most of our lives going online, cyber-attacks and threats of terrorist acts can drastically ruin lives like the families who lost loved ones on 9/11. The government needs to explore new ways to gather intelligence so it can suppress such attacks before they even happen.
ReplyDelete- Keenan T.
I ask my fellow classmates to consider: are you truly affected by the NSA's surveillance? Assuming that you are all American citizens, would you be a part of the "incidental" gathering of American communication records? The answer, if you are not allegedly plotting treason through Facebook or accidentally getting caught up in a string of terrorist phone calls, is no. That is, of course, assuming that the American government is acting in accordance with the guidelines and restrictive monitoring that they claim to be working within. I also ask my classmates to consider, would you honestly care if the government WAS going through your emails? I feel it is my duty as an American and a terrorism stopper to allow my government access to whatever it is about me that they want. I agree with Keegan B's response in that the founding fathers would NOT wish this upon our small, central government, but I would like to acknowledge that times have changed since then and that in these days of internet terrorism and a need for constant vigilance, we as Americans must negotiate whether or not we have the right to put so much importance in our petty online privacy.
ReplyDeleteVivian C.
I ask my fellow classmates to consider: are you truly affected by the NSA's surveillance? Assuming that you are all American citizens, would you be a part of the "incidental" gathering of American communication records? The answer, if you are not allegedly plotting treason through Facebook or accidentally getting caught up in a string of terrorist phone calls, is no. That is, of course, assuming that the American government is acting in accordance with the guidelines and restrictive monitoring that they claim to be working within. I also ask my classmates to consider, would you honestly care if the government WAS going through your emails? I feel it is my duty as an American and a terrorism stopper to allow my government access to whatever it is about me that they want. I agree with Keegan B's response in that the founding fathers would NOT wish this upon our small, central government, but I would like to acknowledge that times have changed since then and that in these days of internet terrorism and a need for constant vigilance, we as Americans must negotiate whether or not we have the right to put so much importance in our petty online privacy.
ReplyDeleteVivian C.
When it comes to the United States’ history, rights such as privacy, have long been fought for. In our present day environment, with the uprising of new technologies, it has become more difficult to determine what is a violation of indivdiual privacy rights and what is not. Along with new technological developments, there has also been an increase in tension and terrorism throughout the world. These two things have contributed to the situation we have on hand today. While no one likes the idea of the government intruding upon personal matters, Americans also value safety at home and personal protection from terrorism. So herein lies the conflict, where does N.S.A. action cross the line? The answer will vary based upon the opinion of each individual. Personally speaking, I am in favor of the hands on approach the government is taking. It is difficult to say what is the best answer for the country as a whole. It seems that we have to make a choice. What do we value more, privacy or safety? While the idea of phone tapping or intercepting text messages is rather unpleasant to most, it is currently the best answer we have for homegrown terrorism. As new precautions are taken, we may see a greater shift in public opinion. This would then allow for a change in policy if we, as citizens, are a united front. Currently there is too much of a split amongst the people to see much change occur. Many side for privacy, but an equal number, if not more, are going to agree with the idea of keeping the country safe, regardless of what this means to their rights of privacy.
ReplyDeleteJulia D.
In our country, Americans expect a right to privacy from our government. But what is also expected from our government is protection, and between these two expectations rises the debate over government surveillance. Although I believe in freedom of speech and the right to privacy, I also want to know the government is doing everything they can to protect me. If tapping phone lines and monitoring emails to some extent is the way in which I can be protected, then so be it. I agree with Zach Meredith when he asks our fellow classmates to look at things logically. The government cannot possibly monitor and read every email or every phone call made in the United States, and paranoia is the reason why so many Americans are opposed to surveillance. Unless you are posing a threat against the government or the country, you should have nothing to worry about. The public opinion that the government is invading the privacy of American citizens through their surveillance is not generally caused by people responding to personal invasions of their own privacy, but to the idea that it could happen. The idea of government being too involved in our lives, which would obstruct our country's most important ideals of democracy, drives the public to oppress any action of the government which may come in contact with our rights. In response to my classmate Vivian's question "are you truly affected by the NSA's surveillance?" my answer, and I presume the answer of most Americans, would be no. Therefore, if not personally affected by the NSA's surveillance system which is designed with our safety in mind, why oppose their efforts? In my personal opinion, I believe that if my privacy must be put on the line to possibly catch terrorist activity before it happens, that is a worthy sacrifice.
ReplyDeleteOlivia W.
I believe that if the government monitoring our calls is the bi-product of listening to the communications of other countries for the sake of national security, that it is okay. A government must protect its citizens and if that means some level of infringement on an individuals’ sense of privacy then so be it. However, I feel that the amount of personal privacy being invaded can't be too high; I personally draw a distinction between accidentally picking up American calls and E-mails and from intentionally listening in on citizens, without the citizens knowing about it. I believe that most people do not have to worry about the government listening to their conversations, because the government simply doesn't care about simple domestic issues, which are the subject of most of our phone calls.
ReplyDeleteElijah B.
It is no the invasion of privacy which bothers me when it comes to the tapping of phone calls. As many of my piers have stated, with technology on the rise and privacy seeming to become less and less of a priority in our lives, the information being gathered may have well been gathered in other ways without the tapping of phone anyhow. What bothers me are the reasons behind the actions of the National Security Agency. The N.S.A. gives the excuse that they are fighting the "war on terror." A war that is seen as quite a joke in many other nations. The idea in the society of the U.S. about what gives reasonable suspicion of "terrorism" varies greatly with many of those oversees. The U.S. government now has the ability to call or imply that almost anybody they like is a terrorist because many of the citizens of the U.S. have become so fearful of words such as "socialism" and "anti-capitalist" without taking the time to learn further on the subjects or realize that these are not bad things, much less a reasonable excuse to suspect people of "terrorism." So it is not the invasion of privacy that worries me most, but the REASONS behind this invasion. The excuses of the N.S.A.'s actions seem anything but legitimate or reasonable.
ReplyDelete-- Bailey Storms
I definitely agree with Keegan B. about the whole idea of a trade-off. We don't live in a perfect world and harsh violence does exist. The safety of its people is a primary governmental responsibility. As it's been stated by many of my peers on here, if you're not involved in anything terrorist-related or hiding information that could get you in serious trouble, then what do you really have to be worried about? However, I can't ignore the fact that the government is able to tiptoe around 4th amendment rights to privacy and be excused for it by saying it's helping to fight the war on terrorism. Sometimes we must really think about how safety measures taken now could possible escalate into chaos in the future if this power of the government is abused. I'll admit I'm a little torn about this issue, so I can't form an absolute opinion on it. I can say that certain sacrifices are necessary if it means saving lives.
ReplyDelete-Shannon H.
The main issue in regards to this current event is when a constitutional right such as privacy comes in contact with a constitutional power and duty such as national security. The Framers of the constitution intended to spark debate and create conflict and room for discussion in regards to the rights and duties listed in the constitution and this current event is a perfect of illustration of this concept. In my opinion I think this event has been blown out of proportion for three reasons. First of all most citizens would agree to yield to government intrusion in this case the NSA if this intrusion of privacy was part of a tactic that is intended to protect a group of citizens. Despite the idea of government invasion of privacy being unpopular I agree with some of my classmates on the fact that most citizens would give up a small amount of privacy for the greater good. Second of all I think it is an unspoken truth that the fact of the matter is if the government wanted to tap into a phone call or email they can do so at their desire, but what came to a shock to me is the fact that the media outlets and some citizens were treating this event as a leak of the governments "First time tapping into privacy". Most people know that the government can tap into phone calls and emails but it seems that others would rather be comforted with a lie rather than hurt by the truth. Third of all these documents should reassure us that the fourth amendment still has life to it through the restrictions that have been set within these documents such as the deletion of names during phone call taps. The last thing I would like to briefly address in regards to this article is the fleeing of Snowden because he fears to be trialed or tortured unjustly in the United States. I personally find this silly because he has gained to much public attention and spotlight that if he were to be given an unfair trial so suddenly killed than the people would notice very quickly, but I guess he is a procrastinator.
ReplyDelete-- Yosef S.
In my opinion I don’t believe that what the N.S.A. is doing is wrong. I would want them to pick up suspicious phone calls or e-mails that may be a threat to our national security. I believe that what they should do is have key words or phrases that are picked up by computers like “I’m going to kill the president” or “what supplies will I need for this bomb.” You have to understand that although many terrorist threats and attacks are from foreigners, many are also right here at home in America and we may not even know about it. Terrorist come from all over and use many different strategies to get things done. Also, I don’t believe that Eric Snowden should be punished for what he has done. He has shown Americans exactly what the government is doing and as a country we should know what our government is doing. The government was created by the people and it’s for the people, therefore that information should not stay classified.
ReplyDelete-Richard E.
I most definetly agree with Zach M, saying that the government wouldn't care if you were meeting your family at 7 for dinner. Americans do care about their own freedom, which is good, but not always the safest thing. Like someone said earlier we can't have both at the exact same time. What the NSA is doing is not that bad to me because if something did happen, then we would expect the government to have known about it beforehand. This is how they would get the information by tracking phone calls, and from the rules the INTENTIONS of the eavesdropping is not to listen to whether we're going to that party Friday night, but to see if there is a possible terrorist plot that is being planned. -Alan C.
ReplyDeleteOlivia W makes an excellently articulated and well thought out point. While complaints from the American people about government infringement on privacy are valid in many cases, to me the threat to our privacy posed by the NSA's actions are trivial. As many others have stated, the NSA holds nothing to gain from monitoring conversations and electronic interactions of its citizens that have nothing to do with national security. Because very few people know the true mechanics and specifics of the process of selection for surveillance and its carrying out, I think to speculate on its legitimacy as a government program is extremely difficult. As is clear in the article due to conflicting testimony from various sources, no one can agree of what the NSA is doing, to what extent they are doing it, and to whom they are doing it. While it is safe to say I don't feel my right to privacy being encroached on by the NSA's monitoring, I don't feel as confident that this initiative is worthwhile. Again this depends on how the monitoring is carried out and who it is directed at, which is difficult to say for someone so new to this topic. However, I do feel that in general, the government spends far too much time, money and resources on national security. This is my complaint about the NSA's involvement in electronic surveillance, not its alleged encroachment on citizen's privacy.
ReplyDeleteI believe that while eavesdropping in on the public's conversations may sound bad, it is a not a bad thing to have in our country. The government could care less about what you are saying or who you are talking to unless it pertains to national security and our countries safety. If you are someone who is not okay with being listened in on by the government, then maybe you SHOULD be listened in on because you have something to hide. But any typical citizen should have no worries of the government listening in on their communications because it’s only out of good intentions to keep our country safe. If we want to prevent further terrorist attacks then we need to allow or government to do this eavesdropping because it can only help our country and it is necessary to prevent more damage and keeping our country safe.
ReplyDelete-Sean J.
The concept of government surveillance or eavesdropping naturally provokes a fear in a vast majority of American citizens. We have been raised in the belief that living in the "land of the free," we, as American citizens, are entitled to privacy and fundamental rights free of government interference. A sense of independence that separates the United States from countries dictated by corrupt governments is a strong building block of American patriotism. Unfortunately, 9/11 and following terrorist interactions have raised the issue of protecting privacy versus protecting national safety. Thus, we must ask ourselves, can we ask government to shield us from the outside threats posed to our nation, while maintaining the idea that, as American citizens, no government agency has the right to monitor our private communications? Here, I believe there is no solution that meets both needs, thus we are forced to compromise the one of lesser importance and our individual privacy should not hold more value than the safety of the nation as a whole. Also, what are the perceived harms that we see in this surveillance (a point well raised by Zach M.)? The government holds no interest in our daily communications. It serves a strictly defined purpose for national security intelligence. While it is understandable to worry about our government eventually misusing its surveillance power on us, we must accept we have enough safeguards in place to allow the monitoring as a method to increase national security.
ReplyDelete- Isaac N.
What I find interesting about this case is not the "Rightness" or "Wrongness" of the NSA guidelines, or even wiretapping in general. I feel that we are entering a huge gray area that is barely touched on by the Constitution and cannot be judged as right or wrong simply on principle, but must rather be judged on a case-by-case basis. No, what interests me is the definition of privacy.
ReplyDeletePrivacy itself is a right not mentioned in the Constitution, but rather has been implied by the ninth amendment. Where as Freedom of Speech has a fairly straightforward definition in the 1st amendment and has been slowly refined over the years by Supreme Court cases, privacy itself has not been defined. Do you need privacy if you have nothing to hide; no illegal activities hidden in your metaphorical back closet? If so, what makes it so necessary, and innate human right? Cases like Roe vs. Wade have gummed up the works of defining “privacy” even more, applying the term in a way that is utterly nonsensical (Perhaps because a better widely accepted term could not be found?).
It’s possible that the word will never be defined, and that we will continue applying it wherever we see fit, when we feel we have been wronged, and no universal definition will be found. I sincerely hope not… a more perfect union is a clear and just one.
~ Cat S.
This highly controversial issue isn't just a matter of whether the government has the right to invade American's privacy or whether Americans have the right to privacy from there government. It's also an issue on how the government balances what it promises to do and what it is allowed to do. From the very beginning our government has promised to keep us safe from harm because we as individuals do not have all the resources needed to do so. However, in trying to fulfill its promise, sometimes the lines are blurred and boundaries are crossed. I highly doubt the government officials are concerned with a teenager's plans to go see a movie with friends on a Friday night. They are far more concerned with the terrorist who called his boss to confirm a bomb drop on American soil. Is listening to both these conversations an invasion of privacy? Of course. Did listening to both these conversations save lives? Listening to one did. How is the government supposed to know which phone call would lead to the information it needed? Some people would answer, "Choose the one between foreigners not Americans," but people forget that we have homegrown terrorists too and not every foreigner is a person trying to kill others. To address another issue, I don't see how listening to our phone calls, or reading our emails limits our freedom. They aren't taking away our rights to make the calls or send the emails, they are just monitoring them. Personally, I would much rather the government stop a terrorist attack on my country and listen to every single one of my phone calls, than have thousands of my fellow Americans die because we as a people refused to let them read ours and others emails.
ReplyDelete-Kalin F.
I believe that government surveillance sounds a lot worse than it actually is. The government is not monitoring all of our texts and calls, but looking for suspicious calls and texts that could be a threat to the safety of our country and citizens. The majority of us citizens are not a threat to the security of our country so most people do not have to worry. What is forgotten is that the government is recording some of our calls for the best interest of us. The government is protecting us from a potential tragedy and if sacrificing my privacy is what I have to do to better ensure that then that is a trade I will accept gladly.
ReplyDelete- Connor L.
I believe that in order for citizens to remain safe, they must relinquish some of their civil liberties. For example, the screening of a person's phone calls, which is one of the more prominent ethical questions of modern society. My opinion on surveillance of a person's calls, is that the government should only do it if they have proof that this person may hurt another. This is much like the First Amendment's freedom of speech, a person has the right to say whatever they want, but as soon as what someone says can harm another person, then that freedom of speech is taken away. I believe that a person's freedom of privacy can be taken away just like a person's freedom of speech.
ReplyDeleteAlso, people should not be too concerned about the government screening their phone calls. Because if a person is innocent than there is no reason for the government to screen their calls.
-Patrick A.
I don't think it’s that big of a deal. People blow up on the thought of privacy intrusion. What is the government gunna if they hear you talking about what plans you have for your kids birthday party. I'm willing to give up my phone calls and emails for better security. I don't think that the average citizen should be afraid as long as calls and emails are as far as the government goes. Even if the Government did pick your email or call the minimize the data collected and destroy the recording of it. people just overreact.
ReplyDeleteJassimran S.
This issue is a very complicated one. There are two side to the problem and it is a difficult decision for me to make to which side I support. I understand the desire for privacy that certain citizens feel entitled to. To a degree they have a right to privacy. However when the government is in charge, we must surrender some rights. I don't feel like the government should be incredibly intrusive on citizens, however so little is known about the extent of their monitoring that it would be unfair to say they were in the wrong. From what I know government monitoring hasn't made any significant negative effect on someone's life, so it wouldn't be wrong to think this idea of monitoring or the extent of monitoring goes into the category of intrusion.
ReplyDeleteElijah R.
Forgive me if I sound repetitive, but the NSA issue is one that embodies many of our nation's internal struggles throughout it's history, nonetheless it is still a pressing issue which is causing many Americans to question whether safety is worth the cost of PART of one's privacy. I feel as if many people are blowing this issue out of proportion by suggesting that one day the NSA is 'accidentally' gathering phone and email records, and the next they are claiming every individual freedom that is held dear to our citizens. The thought of government services being able to gain access to our private records is an unsettling one, but it may also be a necessary evil in order to keep our country safe.
ReplyDeleteThomas V.
In today society, I believed that Americans are upset with the government ideas of surveillance systems. People are very skeptical about the idea of spying. But there are two sides of the story from good and bad. The reason is this, if government is spying on citizens from emails and calls from outside the country than its protecting citizens from terrorist attacks. The bad side is that spying leads to having the lack of privacy. People don't feel comfortable while government is listening to calls, texting and reading emails. So in this case, I feel that its both good and bad. It just something hard to debate about, Its like Ice vs fire. So i'm on both side, its just really hard to debate over. I Do have to agree with Thomas. People can like government or don't like government, all I know is that government is trying to make right the decision to keep America
ReplyDeleteI agree with Patrick A with that people want to remain safe they have to give up some of the privacy if incase of a bomb scare. I also see this as unfair to the people of America to have found out about this NSA issue from a leak. If Obama wanted to listen in on peoples conversations for their safety he wouldn't have kept it a secret. The government was trying to hid this from the the rest of the country because of the document labeled "secret" withheld the instructions on how to eavesdrop on the american citizens.
ReplyDeleteFinding the balance between safety and privacy has been a ongoing fight in this country for a long time. People must be willing to give up some liberties in order to stay safe. The government should be allowed to listen our phone call but with lots of regulations and restrictions. I don't think that the media should be making as big of a deal about this as they are. Some that have been on the news called Snowden a traitor but If somebody really loved their country they would release the documents. William C. Baker was right on the spot with his comment and the government shouldn't be worried about these documents being leaked to the public. If there was anything that I learned in AP government last year it would be that "everything is political." It makes me angry that the government is so worried about how they are viewed by the public to let the documents out. The documents didn't harm the American people when they got let out so why should they have been kept "classified." People in government are too worried about their reputation and too selfish to actually get anything done.
ReplyDeleteAmerica has always been a place where privacy has been emphasized strongly by the government and its citizens. But recently with many of our recent technological advances it has became harder and harder for our government to protect us because of the threats that they provide. The situation with the NSA document leakage is an unfortunate one because it gives the American people a sense that the Government isn’t protecting their rights to privacy by spying on them. With many of the recent terrorist attacks and threats I can understand why the government takes interest in knowing what might be threatening our countries safety, but I don’t think that it was fair to our citizen’s privacy rights by keeping it a “secret”.
ReplyDelete- JJ C.
When the article says that the government is spying on us and listening into our conversations, they leave out that the government does not have time to actually listening on every individual's conversations, although they do have the ability. All of our conversations are filtered by computers that look out of trigger words, but if you said "Honey, you da bomb," the NSA is not going to come knock down your door. The government is only keeping an eye on the people of high interest. Since even before the Looney Toons: Back in Action movie came out, in which they're told about a secret mission, and when the government sees that they were talking about the "Blue Monkey," (the code name of the mission) the government comes and interrogates them, the government has had this ability, we only know because they finally have chosen to let us know. It is unconstitutional and invasive on all grounds, even if it is for national security. There will always be threats and conspiracies no matter what the government does, and the government is too paranoid to stop, so there really isn't any benefit in complaining about nor questioning the matter.
ReplyDelete