is a lot of controversy surrounding “eavesdropping”, social
media monitoring and even snooping into your emails all under the guise of
“National Security”. Couple this with the many Supreme
Court rulings dealing with an “Individuals Rights” versus
“National Security” do you think that the government is being too intrusive
as it pertains to “snooping into the privacy” of citizens?
the government is being too invasive as it pertains to “snooping into the
privacy” of citizens. There is no need for them to spy on citizens through every
possible way of communication. It violates rights to freedom of
expression and privacy, which are rights that are guaranteed under US domestic
law and international human rights law. Citizens should not have to worry or
even think about the government invading their privacy. The international human
rights law framework states that government surveillance must be prescribed by
law, targeted and proportionate. The requirements are intended to balance the need
to address security threats and its task to protect fundamental rights. Spying
programs fail to do so.
you willing to give up your “Rights” in the name of security? Why or why not?
I have mixed emotions with this question. I would give up
very few rights for my safety and protection against terrorism, but for the
most part I would not be willing to give up my rights in the name of security.
The few rights I think would be acceptable would be surveillance cameras in
public places and body scans at airports, because those guarantee protections.
On the other hand, spying on emails, recording phone calls, etc. I find is
unacceptable. I would be uncomfortable knowing that the government was spying on
my social media, or listening in on my phone calls. This should only be allowed
if there is a legitimate reason for it. The
government is supposed to defend our freedoms, not threaten and take them away.
Instead of giving up our rights, we should increase and strengthen them.
Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve
neither safety nor liberty.” And I happen to agree.
The Patriot Act
the Patriot Act override an individual’s Constitutional
Yes, the Patriot Act does override
and individual’s Constitutional rights. The Patriot Act allowed the Department
of Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies to easily obtain
records on individuals without their knowledge. The Act also violates the fourth amendment in multiple ways. Two
provisions of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they authorize
search warrants to be issued without a showing of reasonable grounds. Delayed-notification
warrants, or Sneak-and Peek warrants, would be an example of this. It allowed
law enforcement to manage a covert search without notifying the suspect of the
search until later. The Fourth Amendment is supposed
to protect the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It necessitates
law-enforcement officers to get warrants before making most searches. To obtain
a warrant, officers must make sworn statements before a judge describing the
place to be searched, and the people or things to be taken. The judge can only give
a search warrant if officers show “probable cause” that the person is
involved in criminal activity. Yet somehow, this doesn’t always happen. Most parts
that are controversial of the Patriot Act involve issues of privacy and
takes away more of our rights for security than they need to. We are not just being
asked to choose to lessen our expectation of privacy, but to reduce the rule of
law, whether to fade the role of the judiciary, and whether to file a covering
of secrecy over the decisions made by government. I think all together national
security needs to be reevaluated. It’s making us a weak nation that cannot defend
our freedom or our security.