On the other hand, I think that our government has the right to do everything in it’s power to ensure our safety, including spying on those in countries who have threatened our own. If the NSA could have taken a closer look or had more information about Hazmi and Midhar’s plan to travel to the United States, their trip would have never been successful. The NSA needs to focus their attention more to the other countries instead of basically wasting all of their time with U.S. citizens, and maybe slips like letting terrorist into our homeland wouldn’t happen. They are getting their systems blown up with information that is useless to them from Americans. If they didn’t have to spend the time to sort through all of America’s “evidence,” then they would probably be able to seek out and confirm the terroristic threats and evidence coming from outside of the
14). In other words, a just law makes human being to feel important and confident. An unjust law gives a false sense of who they really are. Likewise, the Patriot Act gives a false implication that if anyone looks suspicious, they become the target of so-called anti-terrorism. The problems caused by the Patriot Act are affecting ordinary civilian, especially legal immigrants.
The fourth amendment prohibits, "unreasonable searches and seizures", and protects citizens' privacy within reasonable measures. Now, how does this tie into modern technology, and should the use of this information be considered a violation of people's constitutional right to privacy? Police should not be able to obtain information stored by personal devices or their carriers, as the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees privacy to the United States citizens. In that case that the authorities were to use information from a person's personal device without a proper warrant, they would be in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment was established in order to protect the privacies of the United States
Checkpoint: Terrorism and cyber crime The fourth amendment is to protect the people from search and seizure, which mean that it protects a person from being arrested or from being search with out the proper evidence of the crime committed. With terrorism I do not see how the fourth amendment could be interpreted, unless a person or people try to terrorize an area, and there is no proof that they did it or not. The government can not just go and search there premises or arrest then without the proper evidence. With cyber crimes and the fourth amendment is also difficult to interpret, since with cyber crimes officers need to invade the privacy of the other persons just to be able to catch a person committing a crime on line, for instance a police officer pretending to act as a under age child to catch a perpetrator. In these case there needs to be some boundaries on invading a persons privacy and being able to search there home, or any personal belongings and if they have wire tap a conversation to receive probable cause of a crime of these severity then it has to be done.
Schneier shows this to prove that doing nothing can lead to trouble with blackmail or abuse with surveillance information. Schneier says that “that privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we’re doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance” (paragraph 5). This is a strong point of his argument because he wants the people to know that the government can find a way to change nothing into something. The only flaw of Schneier’s argument is that his facts are repeated and this doesn’t help because without more facts there isn’t any proof to show that the people of privacy don’t need to have constant surveillance. Now if we look to the other side we can find many aspects of what Cillizza has to say about security.
In the essay “Why Fear National ID Cards?” by Alan Dershowitz, Dershowitz elaborates his views on national identity cards and the benefits of having one. He sums it up by stating “A little less anonymity for a lot more security.” With that being said what makes him so sure that something as simple as a national identity card would make society secure? What would stop a person with a national ID from committing a crime or other acts of terror? Yes having one would make it easier to pin point a suspected terrorist but the reality of the situation is there would be no change in the level of security with or without a national identity card. Dershowitz makes it clear that he is skeptical about the idea of national ID cards and states that he supports national identity cards with chips matching a person’s fingerprints.
Ethics in Information Technology The Installation of Spyware on Personal Computers Ethical issue: The installation of spyware on personal computers. | Stakeholders | (Principle 1)CONFIDENTIALITY | (Principle 2)PUBLICITY | (Principle 3)FINALITY | 1. You | You have the duty to respect privacy of information and action. | You have the duty to take actions based on ethical standards that must be known and recognized by all who are involved. | You do not have the duty to take action that may override the demands of law, religion, and social customs.
Some people believe that the Americans are now at risk and have lost their protection from terrorist threats while others believe that the Americans’ right to privacy and freedom are lost. In the comment “Edward Snowden Is No Hero” by Jeffrey Toobin from The New Yorker website in June 10, 2013 the view on whistleblowing is presented in a negative way. Toobin believes that an unnecessary crime has been committed because the surveillance programs are a benefit for the society and on the same time harmless. Lastly it is expressed in the comment “In NSA leaks, Edward Snowden performed a service”, from The Washington Post website by Eugene Robinson in July, 2013, that Snowden as the leaker should be receiving thanks from the nation. He focuses on the leaked secret information as being a “valuable public service” for the country and it should be appreciated because the Americans get an insight in the Government’s acts.