There has been recent talk of a legislative proposal that would enable more of the Internet to be open to court-ordered wiretapping. This would give the government access to such things as encrypted emails, social networking sites, and web phone conversations such as Skype. If passed this legislature would be an extension of the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, which was passed in 1994 by the Clinton administration. This act requires telecommunications carriers and providers to permit government access to their files and to have intercept capabilities for communications so that government officials can review things such as phone records. This new development has raised many concerns among privacy advocates, who find the proposal to be an extreme infringement on privacy rights. The thought that people have the ability to access your personal information and conversations is very alarming. Many believe that checks should be put in place to balance out the power of law enforcement and to make sure that no citizens’ rights are being encroached upon.
In recent decades there have been numerous advancements in technology. These advancements have given the government the tools to monitor our activities. We are beginning to live in a world of constant surveillance with the presence of surveillance cameras, computer surveillance, and phone surveillance. If you walk down a busy street corner chances are you will be able to find at least one traffic camera. While these devices are initially installed to monitor traffic, they may end up being used by law enforcement for general surveillance. Computer surveillance usually entails the use of a computer program, which sifts through Internet traffic in search of key phrases, certain websites hits, and communications with suspicious groups. Phone surveillance has also become more widespread in recent times. The Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act requires that all telecommunications be available for wiretapping by federal law enforcement.
This topic brings up the issue of which is more important in today’s world: our safety or our privacy? The government is simply doing their job to protect its citizens from terrorists and other criminals, but in the process it is encroaching on our privacy rights. Should steps be taken to limit the surveillance of the government? Is this a reassuring feeling knowing that somebody is looking out for your safety, or is it an eerie feeling, knowing that someone is watching every move that you make?
Links:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec10/wiretap_09-27.html
http://www.eff.org/issues/privacy
I cna understand why the government would want to do this, but I think they are taking it a little too far. If the government is going to be able to look into everything we are doing on the interent, including personal, private converstaions, what's next? This is just a step closer to the government setting up survelance everywhere and the people of America having virtually no privacy. I think that if this proposal goes through, it should have its limitations. The government should only use it on persons of interest and not on everyday people. There is a very fine line between keeping people safe and taking away privacy of the people of America, and the government is beginning to cross it. It is reassuring knowing that they want to keep us all safe, but they need to know where to draw the line.
ReplyDeleteI understand that the government requires the ability to monitor the public in some ways in order to prevent terrorist attacks and illegal acts, but the laws now may be going too far. Personal privacy is an important part of life in this country and we should not hand it all over to the government. Phone conversations and private information exchanged via the internet should stay private and should not be intercepted by government officials. If the government is suspicious of a person for some reason, that person can be more heavily monitored; otherwise, the general public should not be punished and given less privacy than before.
ReplyDeleteWhile security of the nation continues to be, an important issue there is a line. As others have said there would need to restrictions on this proposal. The government should not be allowed to search someone’s private information without cause. It should be treated in the same way as law enforcement works currently. Information that is openly displayed on public sites it could be used. However unless a warrant is obtained they should not be able to search deeper for anything else.
ReplyDeleteIt does breaks law to listen in but it like if you have something to hide then you don't want it, in my personal opinion I don't care what if they listen on my conversations over the phone. Skype is different because it is more personal because it is a live video so I would say no to that. It needs restrictions because we do need our personal space. The video cameras being up outside for the streets and at buliding are fine with me, it helps to catch things, but once you go inot your house there should be no video survelliance allowed by the government.Companies probably wouldn't like this because they have secure information and doesnt want the government or anybody to know it because they could be crooked and use the information for themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe right to have privacy is what every person holds very greatly and the government or anybody understands that. But when it comes to networking and all this technology we should all know that safety of your own being is better than your privacy. Also the government might be trying to maybe protect us but that also leaves a question if either the goverment might use our own informantion against our selves and that might even be putting you in danger so i believe that both privacy and safety will have their disadvantages and advantages.
ReplyDeleteI think that government has every right to monitor our social networking sites and view our web chats. Their primary motives are not to invade our privacy but are for pure concern for the defense of our country. Since new breaks in technology have been invented to allow fast communitcation between people, this can be used by enemies of the United States. This legislature is just one way of protecting us, the people. The only problem I would have against this is if the government officials who are assigned to monitor our chats and web conversations abused their power by stalking those who posed no threat do the country.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is fine if the government is working purely to keep our country safe. The United States has many enemies that do not play by our same rules and laws. That means we have to adapt to different ways of protecting ourselves. The government should have every right to monitor social networking sites. If needed they should also be able to read emails and listen to phone calls. They would only do this if they had a cause because it would cost money. If you have nothing to hide then you should not be worried. However, we should be worried about our safety as technology continues to grow. Putting cameras in people's houses is where I draw the line. That is too far, and is creepily similar to the book 1984. Safety is the first priority, and I do not think our government would let it get to the point where our rights were severely abused. It could help prevent catastrophic events such as the attacks on September 11 never happen. Overall I think it is a reassuring feeling knowing that our government is looking out for our safety.
ReplyDeleteI think the motives behind the proposal have good intention- to keep citizens safe. However, I think it would be wrong and a severe invasion of privacy if the government could indiscriminately tap into video chats and social networking sites. If someone were to invite a friend to visit at his or her house, that visit would be private and the government would not, and should not, be able to barge in and observe the social visit. The same is true of video chatting; it's simply an electronic social visit and the government should not have the right to invade on people's privacy. If someone has raised the government's suspicions for a legitimate reason, then I think monitoring that person's internet affairs should be allowed, but again, only if there is just cause. Americans are supposed to have a large amount of freedom; this is the country's entire foundation. Why should the government have the right to limit those freedoms as they choose without any cause?
ReplyDeleteThe fourth amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ..., but upon probable cause." Although it refers to physical search and seizure it still applies to privacy, and that as citizens of this country we all have the right to privacy. Personally i don't care if the government listen to my phone or Skype conversations but that still does not make it right or tolerable. Monitoring citizens so classy is an invasion of privacy and the government more active and powerful in our daily lives. knowing that they are being watched, people will be overwhelmed with fear. They will always question if they are doing something wrong and will probably behave in ways that they believe will "please" the government. closely monitoring citizens aside from being an invasion of privacy also takes away some of the freedom given to us by the states. People will not longer consider themselves "free" because they will be subject to government approval. it is okay to monitor suspicious people? yes, that seems reasonable, but you cannot punish all for the wrong doing of a few. The citizens of America should not have to carry the burden of ignorant, malicious people.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most important pieces to this article is the video link. It was said that the possible wiretapping laws are a “modernization” of the previous laws where as “communications have evolved.” I strongly think that law enforcement needs to keep up with the times in order to properly maintain order and safety. I also would not care if the government tapped into my social networking sites. I do not post anything that would cause me trouble seeing as though anything you post online has the possibility of being spread throughout the entire internet already. People should be making wise choices even with a program like Skype because it is in fact over the internet. In response to police using traffic cameras as general surveillance in the future, I would not care. If there is anything you are doing in the streets that is inappropriate, it is your own fault. Imagine the number of crimes that could be limited or solved with constant surveillance in the streets.
ReplyDeleteThe government does this to keep us and our freedoms safe. They aren't trying to listen in on our conversations with friends and loved ones or watch us while we sleep. They are solely trying to protect our nation from terrorists and other attacks on us. Assuming that the government would only investigate using probable cause, that would not apply to the invading an ordinary citizen's privacy, unless of course you are planning an attack against America. Even though it may seem like a huge invasion of our privacy the government plans to just keep us all safe. Better to be safe than sorry.
ReplyDeleteOur government was established to keep the best interests of the citizens in mind. Tapping phone lines and internet accounts may seem invasive, but our government is simply trying to protect its people from those who may wish to harm. By intercepting phone calls the government is not trying to act as some nosy sibling, it is trying to identify any threats to our nation. I highly doubt that the officials whose job it is to track down criminals this way care about what you tell your mom when you call her on your lunch break. They are listening for suspicious activity, nothing else. As far as the issue on privacy is concerned, it may feel as if you are always being watched, but why should it matter unless you have something to hide.
ReplyDeleteIf the government did not participate in this type of invasive activity, they would be blind to the world around them. This technique enables them to watch and listen without the suspects’ knowledge, aiding them in their attempts to stop plots against the United Sates. It gives our country the upper hand and strengthens our security. In order to keep our country safe, the government should continue with this method of defense.
It may seem that the government is violating our privacy, but they are only doing it for our benefit. They are monitoring phone calls and monitoring what goes on when people are on the internet for our own protection. They aren't trying to get information about every citizen and see what every citizen in the country is doing on the internet. They are only concentrating on the people that they are suspicious about. People who they feel are threatening to our country. People who they fear might be terrorists. The government isn't trying to listen in on phone conversations between us and our parents or our girlfriends and boyfriends, they are only going to tap the phone lines of people that they are suspicious about and say maybe the people who constantly are making phone calls or are emailing other countries such as Iraq and or Afghanistan. Our government is only trying to protect us, why should we feel threatened?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I feel that the government was created with our best intentions in mind and they are only doing this for our protection. It may seem a bit invasive into our personal lives. If wire taps, computer surveillance, or monitoring traffic cameras are going to keep us safe then why not? If one is a law abiding citizen then they should not have to worry about "Big Brother" watching. If people are not following the law and are engaging in illicit activities then I feel that the government should be able to protect us from that. Having the government around simply as a means of protection is fine with me.
ReplyDeleteI feel as if all the government is trying to do is to protect our people and if that means limiting our privacy through the internet and phone calls, then it may be necessary. Why should it matter if the government has access to your files on the computer? We shouldn't be trying to hide anything. People shouldn't be sharing critical information or personal things over the internet because once it is there, anyone can track it down. What ever happen to that old fashion style of talking to people face to face? In some situations that might not be possible for an example if a loved one lives far away or something of that sort but people should not post or share something over the internet that they want to keep secret. As for the security cameras situation, I think it would be a good idea to have them at traffic lights and in highly populated areas. Video footage doesn't lie and if an incident were to occur, higher authority could look at the footage as proof, which could possibly save lives.
ReplyDeleteAfter the terrorist attacks of 9/11 our nations security in many aspects failed. In retrospect, looking back at this horrific day the NSA and FBI could have stopped these attacks. Whats even more glaring is how Al Qaeda set up this terrorist attack. The members of the Al Qaeda organization were able to enter the county without valid green cards and got by air port security. They were able to plan this event two weeks before the attacks. Now, because of this attack President Bush implemented more government involvement within the NSA and stricter air port security. The main issue was that the FBI and NSA did not collaborate or share information on this issue. So, I believe that the government should get more involved with national security to become more prepared for terrorist attacks. Even if it means that the NSA will be more involved in private phone calls and monitoring what happens over the web. By doing this our security will be better protected. I believe that more government involvement with our national security is a positive notion. But, our privacy will be violated. For myself, I would allow for my privacy to be violated if it meant that my security was not in doubt.
ReplyDeleteGreat topic, Allison. I don't doubt that the government is concerned about our safety, but I'm not convinced that the issue exists solely there. Here's another angle for consideration: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/12/the_fbi_broke_into_civil.html
ReplyDeleteI feel that the government should have the power to monitor conversations of all of its citizens. It would be more of an act of security than an invasion of privacy. Today, some people are concerned for their safety and the saftey of the country. This would merely be an act that addressess the concern of many people. Besides, I don't think that people should worry about the invasion of their privacy if their using services that are somewhat global. If people are using them, then they shouldn't have anything to hide, therefore there should be no worry.
ReplyDeleteI think that the government of the country have become more paranoid and fearful that something terrible is going to occur. But who can blame them? After incidents that have happened in the past (September 11th being the main example), the United States government has stepped up in every way possible to observe and provide security measures to furthur protect the well-beings of the millions of citizens in the country. One way is surveillance through means of satellite often times to look over people's shoulders through the internet, cell phones, and even popular social networking sites such as facebook and skype as it was pointed out in the article. I don't blame the government for attempting to step up security measures for the good of the nation's people, but there is a thin line between security and privacy. I believe that the government should implement these "methods" of security observation, but try to avoid prying into the lives of others. The usage and surveillance of the internet, phons, and network sites contain the capacity to gaze directly into the lives of people, which is a violation of privacy and even safety to some extent (which contradicts the main purpose of providing safety through utilizing these ways). The government will always be obsessed and suspicious of people and are always looking to find those who meant to unleash harm on others. Using these surveillance methods is a way to do so. I believe that they can look out for the safety of others without invading one's privacy, but that is the ideal concept that is not likely going to occur anytime soon. So for now, we can say for those people who did nothing wrong and have not committed any crime, they should need not worry.
ReplyDelete