Op-Ed
It’s official— the government is watching us.
The US government has a program that gives them the ability to search and seize telephone and internet data from certain service provider companies, saying that they’re doing it to “monitor terrorist activity.” And, to make it even better, the Supreme Court has deemed it constitutional. The government has decided to value the safety of the group against the POSSIBLE risk of terrorist attack, instead of protecting individual liberties. In order to keep Americans’ information secure, the government should not violate our individual rights by collecting our electronic information without probable cause.
With new developments in electronic communications On average, US adults spend 11 hours a day on the internet (Kleinman). On top of that, the average person is documented by at least 75 security cameras in a day (FoxNews 16). When all of this information is compiled, a person with the right tools could essentially track where you are and what you do online every day, all day. So, if the government decided they wanted to use the data from phone calls, text messages, web browsers, and emails, it could monitor a person and find out essentially what a person does, all day every day. In doing so, the government violates the Fourth Amendment by compiling the data from our electronic footprints, all under the guise of “national security.”
According to Supreme Court transcripts of the FISC PRISM trial (Court), the final verdict found in court is that the government security agencies can collect limited amounts of data from companies if they are able to present “reasonable, articulable data” that warranted it. So far, they haven’t. They’ve been collecting data on phone calls, international e-mails, and text messages from mass groups without providing any evidence that warranted it.
The participating governments have taken a Utilitarian stance on this subject by completely disregarding the personal rights of the citizens. Utilitarianism ideologies believe that the most just course of action for any problem is the one that provides the most good for the largest amount of people. That means whether it violates a person’s individual rights, a solution is always best if it benefits the group as a whole. Libertarians, however, believe that the number one priority in any decision is the rights of the individual. They believe that by prioritizing the individual will, by default, benefit everyone. Harry Browne, a presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party and an author of many books concerning Libertarianism said, “A Libertarian society of unfettered individualism spreads its benefits to virtually everyone - not just those who have the resources to seize political power.”
This breach of individual security is a clear case of the government abusing the power the people give it, yet most US citizens stand by while our right to privacy is blatantly usurped. Moreover, the US government has allowed foreign government entities to monitor US IP addresses of those citizens who go onto websites like Wikileaks or FreeSnowden that contain anti-government principles (Arthur).
Other countries have implemented data monitoring plans too, but most are not nearly as invasive as the one implemented by the US. In 2012, the British Parliament passed the Draft Communications Bill, which implemented cyber monitoring protocols in the police force, but the way they set it up still keeps the citizens’ data safe. The phone and internet companies record and keep the information (for up to one year) instead of the police, and the police have to get a warrant to gain access to it. Even if they did, they would only have records of the email and phone call recipients, not any of the contents of the communication (“Data Surveillance Plan Outlined”). On the other hand, there are some governments that are implementing cyber monitoring systems that would definitely be found unconstitutional in an American court. For example, a law is being proposed in Australia that would essentially allow all government internet monitoring. There would be almost no restrictions on this cyber surveillance, and there would be jail time served to journalists, bloggers, and government whistleblowers found to be acting against the state (Williams).
Furthermore, the PRISM program has cost the US Government millions in taxpayer dollars- just in compliance costs for the companies involved. For a government that is over $17 trillion dollars in debt, the fact that the NSA can spare this kind of money really says a lot about where their priorities lie. A program that invades the personal privacy of every American citizen (and seems to be producing little results) should not be a financial priority in a government with such a financial deficit.
As an American teen, the fact that this is so widespread and accepted concerns me in regard to our country’s future. It seems to me that our individual rights are being infringed upon more and more. By the time I’m an adult and able to make choices regarding my wellbeing and vote to influence my country’s decisions, it’ll be too late.
I believe that if cyber monitoring is deemed to be completely necessary, it can be implemented in a way that secures the rights of the people while still giving the security agencies what they need. A government that promotes freedom, equality, and safety as their defining characteristics should not openly violate its citizens’ right to privacy and protection against unreasonable government search. If our government and the governments of other countries continue down this path of rights violations, we will have a world led by power hungry people and repressed populations ready to take back the rights that were stolen from them.
It’s official— the government is watching us.
The US government has a program that gives them the ability to search and seize telephone and internet data from certain service provider companies, saying that they’re doing it to “monitor terrorist activity.” And, to make it even better, the Supreme Court has deemed it constitutional. The government has decided to value the safety of the group against the POSSIBLE risk of terrorist attack, instead of protecting individual liberties. In order to keep Americans’ information secure, the government should not violate our individual rights by collecting our electronic information without probable cause.
With new developments in electronic communications On average, US adults spend 11 hours a day on the internet (Kleinman). On top of that, the average person is documented by at least 75 security cameras in a day (FoxNews 16). When all of this information is compiled, a person with the right tools could essentially track where you are and what you do online every day, all day. So, if the government decided they wanted to use the data from phone calls, text messages, web browsers, and emails, it could monitor a person and find out essentially what a person does, all day every day. In doing so, the government violates the Fourth Amendment by compiling the data from our electronic footprints, all under the guise of “national security.”
According to Supreme Court transcripts of the FISC PRISM trial (Court), the final verdict found in court is that the government security agencies can collect limited amounts of data from companies if they are able to present “reasonable, articulable data” that warranted it. So far, they haven’t. They’ve been collecting data on phone calls, international e-mails, and text messages from mass groups without providing any evidence that warranted it.
The participating governments have taken a Utilitarian stance on this subject by completely disregarding the personal rights of the citizens. Utilitarianism ideologies believe that the most just course of action for any problem is the one that provides the most good for the largest amount of people. That means whether it violates a person’s individual rights, a solution is always best if it benefits the group as a whole. Libertarians, however, believe that the number one priority in any decision is the rights of the individual. They believe that by prioritizing the individual will, by default, benefit everyone. Harry Browne, a presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party and an author of many books concerning Libertarianism said, “A Libertarian society of unfettered individualism spreads its benefits to virtually everyone - not just those who have the resources to seize political power.”
This breach of individual security is a clear case of the government abusing the power the people give it, yet most US citizens stand by while our right to privacy is blatantly usurped. Moreover, the US government has allowed foreign government entities to monitor US IP addresses of those citizens who go onto websites like Wikileaks or FreeSnowden that contain anti-government principles (Arthur).
Other countries have implemented data monitoring plans too, but most are not nearly as invasive as the one implemented by the US. In 2012, the British Parliament passed the Draft Communications Bill, which implemented cyber monitoring protocols in the police force, but the way they set it up still keeps the citizens’ data safe. The phone and internet companies record and keep the information (for up to one year) instead of the police, and the police have to get a warrant to gain access to it. Even if they did, they would only have records of the email and phone call recipients, not any of the contents of the communication (“Data Surveillance Plan Outlined”). On the other hand, there are some governments that are implementing cyber monitoring systems that would definitely be found unconstitutional in an American court. For example, a law is being proposed in Australia that would essentially allow all government internet monitoring. There would be almost no restrictions on this cyber surveillance, and there would be jail time served to journalists, bloggers, and government whistleblowers found to be acting against the state (Williams).
Furthermore, the PRISM program has cost the US Government millions in taxpayer dollars- just in compliance costs for the companies involved. For a government that is over $17 trillion dollars in debt, the fact that the NSA can spare this kind of money really says a lot about where their priorities lie. A program that invades the personal privacy of every American citizen (and seems to be producing little results) should not be a financial priority in a government with such a financial deficit.
As an American teen, the fact that this is so widespread and accepted concerns me in regard to our country’s future. It seems to me that our individual rights are being infringed upon more and more. By the time I’m an adult and able to make choices regarding my wellbeing and vote to influence my country’s decisions, it’ll be too late.
I believe that if cyber monitoring is deemed to be completely necessary, it can be implemented in a way that secures the rights of the people while still giving the security agencies what they need. A government that promotes freedom, equality, and safety as their defining characteristics should not openly violate its citizens’ right to privacy and protection against unreasonable government search. If our government and the governments of other countries continue down this path of rights violations, we will have a world led by power hungry people and repressed populations ready to take back the rights that were stolen from them.