IntroductionThereis a lot of controversy surrounding “eavesdropping”, socialmedia monitoring and even snooping into your emails all under the guise of”National Security”. Couple this with the many SupremeCourt rulings dealing with an “Individuals Rights” versus”National Security” do you think that the government is being too intrusiveas it pertains to “snooping into the privacy” of citizens?I believethe government is being too invasive as it pertains to “snooping into theprivacy” of citizens. It violates rights to freedom of expression andprivacy, which are rights that are guaranteed under US domestic law andinternational human rights law. Citizens should not have to worry or even thinkabout the government invading their privacy.
The international human rights lawframework states that government surveillance must be prescribed by law,targeted and proportionate. The requirements are intended to balance the needto address security threats and its task to protect fundamental rights. Spyingprograms fail to do so. Individuals RightsAreyou 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 upvery few rights for my safety and protection against terrorism, but for themost 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 inpublic places and body scans at airports, because those guarantee protections.On the other hand, spying on emails, recording phone calls, etc.
I find isunacceptable. I would be uncomfortable knowing that the government was spying onmy social media, or listening in on my phone calls. This should only be allowedif there is a legitimate reason for it. Thegovernment 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 deserveneither safety nor liberty.” And I happen to agree. The Patriot ActDoesthe Patriot Act override an individual’s ConstitutionalRights? Yes, the Patriot Act does overrideand individual’s Constitutional rights. The Patriot Act allowed the Departmentof Homeland Security and other law enforcement agencies to easily obtainrecords on individuals without their knowledge.
The Act also violates the fourth amendment in multiple ways. Twoprovisions of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they authorizesearch 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 covertsearch without notifying the suspect of the search until later. TheFourth Amendment is supposed to protect the “right of the people to besecure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonablesearches and seizures.” It necessitates law-enforcement officers to getwarrants before making most searches. To obtain a warrant, officers must makesworn statements before a judge describing the place to be searched, and the peopleor things to be taken.
The judge can only give a search warrant if officersshow “probable cause” that the person is involved in criminalactivity. Yet somehow, this doesn’t always happen. Most parts that are controversialof the Patriot Act involve issues of privacy and government surveillance.Conclusion The governmenttakes away more of our rights for security than they need to. We are not just beingasked to choose to lessen our expectation of privacy, but to reduce the rule oflaw, whether to fade the role of the judiciary, and whether to file a coveringof secrecy over the decisions made by government.
I think all together nationalsecurity needs to be reevaluated. It’s making us a weak nation that cannot defendour freedom or our security.