Right to Privacy
To what extent does the U.S. Constitution protect a person's right to privacy?
In a world still feeling the effects of the attacks of 9/11/01, what privacy should people come to expect? What advantage can law enforcement agencies gain by tapping into personal lives? Should we give up certain freedoms and privacies in order to make it easier for the government to monitor terrorist activities, or should a person's individual privacy ever come under the discretion of the government?
When the house next door shows signs of possible drug-dealing, how should the police go about gathering evidence to build a case? When a student is suspected of illegal activity, should a school be able to search his locker? His pockets? His cell phone texts?
In some places around the world, closed-circuit television is used to monitor public behavior. In London, there are hundreds of cameras in all sorts of locations, and the average person in the city-centre is filmed several times per day. What benefits has this provided? What are the drawbacks?
You can learn more about the topic from the following links:
*Please note that the blogger software does not allow me the ability to underline or indent properly, so portions of the MLA works cited entries will not be in the correct format. However, the citations are correct and you should use them.
"The FBI Is Reading Over Your Shoulder"
Gelsey, Zara. “The FBI Is Reading over Your Shoulder.” counterpunch.org. 17 July 2002. Counterpunch Magazine. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.counterpunch.org/gelsey0717.html >.
Citation = (Gelsey)
Download the attachment here for "How the USA Patriot Act Defends Democracy"
Dihn, Viet D. “How the USA Patriot Act Defends Democracy.” defenddemocracy.org. 9 June 2004. Foundation for Defense of Democracies. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=228218 >.
(also, go to www.bedfordstmartins/thebedfordreader.com and select chapter 13 then Viet Dihn from the left menu to find related articles)
"Less Privacy is Good For Us (and You)."
Etzioni, Amitai. “Less Privacy Is Good For Us (and You).” Privacy Journal April 1999: 3-5. amitaietzioni.org. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://amitaietzioni.org/A266.pdf.pdf >.
Citation = (Etzioni #)
"Will the Feds Be Watching You?"
Moberg, David. “Will the Feds be watching you?” In These Times Magazine Oct. 2001. www.thirdworldtraveler.com. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Police_State/Will_Feds_Watch_You.html >.
Citation = (Moberg)
In a world still feeling the effects of the attacks of 9/11/01, what privacy should people come to expect? What advantage can law enforcement agencies gain by tapping into personal lives? Should we give up certain freedoms and privacies in order to make it easier for the government to monitor terrorist activities, or should a person's individual privacy ever come under the discretion of the government?
When the house next door shows signs of possible drug-dealing, how should the police go about gathering evidence to build a case? When a student is suspected of illegal activity, should a school be able to search his locker? His pockets? His cell phone texts?
In some places around the world, closed-circuit television is used to monitor public behavior. In London, there are hundreds of cameras in all sorts of locations, and the average person in the city-centre is filmed several times per day. What benefits has this provided? What are the drawbacks?
You can learn more about the topic from the following links:
*Please note that the blogger software does not allow me the ability to underline or indent properly, so portions of the MLA works cited entries will not be in the correct format. However, the citations are correct and you should use them.
"The FBI Is Reading Over Your Shoulder"
Gelsey, Zara. “The FBI Is Reading over Your Shoulder.” counterpunch.org. 17 July 2002. Counterpunch Magazine. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.counterpunch.org/gelsey0717.html >.
Citation = (Gelsey)
Download the attachment here for "How the USA Patriot Act Defends Democracy"
Dihn, Viet D. “How the USA Patriot Act Defends Democracy.” defenddemocracy.org. 9 June 2004. Foundation for Defense of Democracies. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=228218 >.
(also, go to www.bedfordstmartins/thebedfordreader.com and select chapter 13 then Viet Dihn from the left menu to find related articles)
"Less Privacy is Good For Us (and You)."
Etzioni, Amitai. “Less Privacy Is Good For Us (and You).” Privacy Journal April 1999: 3-5. amitaietzioni.org. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://amitaietzioni.org/A266.pdf.pdf >.
Citation = (Etzioni #)
"Will the Feds Be Watching You?"
Moberg, David. “Will the Feds be watching you?” In These Times Magazine Oct. 2001. www.thirdworldtraveler.com. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Police_State/Will_Feds_Watch_You.html >.
Citation = (Moberg)
posted by Mr. Webb | Tuesday, September 09, 2008
69 Comments:
The US government has tightened security since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 in order to prevent anything like it from happening again. This increase to prevent terrorism has invaded the lives of US citizens and is now starting to become ridiculous. In the Constitution the Fourth Amendment declares, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” This entitles citizens to a right to privacy, but the government has invaded and broken this right. In the article “Who’s reading over your shoulder?” Zara Gelsey states, “Since the USA PATRIOT Act was passed in October 2001, the FBI has been reading over shoulders by visiting libraries across the US to demand library patron's reading records and other files . . . the FBI doesn't have to demonstrate ‘probable cause’ of criminal activity to request records.” The FBI does not even need a reason to search reading records of its citizens. This goes against the Fourth Amendment, invading a person’s right to privacy. A person cannot even read without thinking about what they will be suspected of. They cannot be defined as a terrorist just because they read something suspicious.
Every citizen can agree with Zara Gelsey when she states, “Yes, we want protection from terrorists and we want our government to root out those who intend to harm us,” but our government should not allow the FBI to break the Fourth Amendment to do so. Searching reading records does not provide any protection from terrorists. Someone that reads a “suspicious” article or book most likely does so for enjoyment or education. They are not planning a terrorist attack like the FBI might believe. I find this idea of “security from terrorists” totally unnecessary and pointless. Reading should not be judged. There is no protection formed, and “intimidating readers in such a manner is, in effect, controlling what we read and how we think” (Gelsey). This threatens the First Amendment, thus our freedom as American citizens. We should be able to read whatever we please and not be afraid of becoming a suspect. How can compromising the Constitution protect us? The government is trying too hard to make us safe and seems to be at a loss for finding the best form; so now they believe anyone could be a terrorist because of their own safety insecurities. Invading our privacy does not protect us from anything.
Gelsey, Zara. “The FBI Is Reading over Your Shoulder.” counterpunch.org. 17 July 2002. Counterpunch Magazine. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.counterpunch.org/gelsey0717.html >.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marisa L argues that the government has no right to search our lives just in the interest of preventing Terrorism. She quotes the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause”. She then says, “[The Fourth Amendment] entitles citizens to a right to privacy, but the government has invaded and broken this right”. The government may invade our privacy, but is privacy really our right? I would like to draw attention to the word “unreasonable” in the Fourth Amendment. A reasonable search to someone may be an unreasonable search to someone else. The government sees the searches as necessary to root out any terrorists that might be present in the United States, but the person getting searched may see it as unnecessary and an invasion of privacy. Who gets to decide if the search is reasonable or not? Also in the Fourth Amendment, the phrase “upon probable cause” can be twisted to satisfy both the government and the people. What justifies a probable cause is viewed differently in everyone’s minds. The Fourth Amendment does not necessarily “entitle citizens to a right to privacy” (Marisa L) because it can be interpreted in different ways. I am in no way saying that privacy should or should not be our right, but either way the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee our privacy.
In David Moberg’s “Will the Feds Be Watching You?”, he quotes ACLU President Nadine Strossen. She says, “Nobody, including the ACLU, has ever argued that any right is absolute”. She then says, “What we do demand, and the Constitution guarantees, is that the government does not infringe any right unless it comes up with evidence that infringement is justified in advancing an important goal”. This shows that even if the constitution says that privacy is your right, the government is justified in searching you if they have the evidence to do so, and if they are working to make the world better for everyone. This gives the government a tremendous amount of power. They can decide if a person looks suspicious and search them without breaking any laws. Whether or not this is good for the people, the government is justified in invading people’s privacy to protect the country.
Moberg, David. “Will the Feds be watching you?” In These Times Magazine Oct. 2001. www.thirdworldtraveler.com. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Police_State/Will_Feds_Watch_You.html >.
Both points brought up before me were both valid and solid points though different. Yes, maybe government may be stepping over the line a bit, and yes, maybe words from the Constitution may be interpreted differently by different people, but the fact of the matter is that when our country has been threatened and our people have died, our government must do everything in their power (even if that includes taking away some of our privacy) to find and kill whoever has done these things. And yes Marisa L the Fourth Amendment may say that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against the unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." but the fact that people are dying because of some terrorist, who is mysterious and are as Moberg says, "Believed to live-often for years as 'sleepers'- in the United States," well then that’s your probable cause right there. We have intel telling us that people we are after who have been and are a threat to our country come to our country and hide right under our noses, they "sleep" i suppose to let things die down a bit, and we actually have people saying we shouldn't be tapping their phones and using the resources we have to do whatever is necessary to capture them. That's just ridiculous. And why should normal people complain about it, what do they have to hide? If they are not doing anything bad then they shouldn't care whether or not their phone calls are always private or not. Does it really matter that some FBI guy you have never met knows that you are having an affair with the pool boy? Does it really matter that some FBI guy you have never met hears you and your friend talking about how you’re going to ditch your other friend tomorrow? Is he going to call up your friend and tell them the plan? No, but what really matters is that we are safe, and even if the government uses some drastic measures, it's all for the greater good. If you’re not a terrorist making bombs or some drug dealer getting ready to sell twenty-thousand dollars worth of meth to twenty fifteen year olds, then you have nothing to worry about other than someone you don't know knowing something about you but won't care anyway. So, don't complain about the Patriot Act or that Big Brother is watching you, because ya they are in a way watching you, but really they are watching over you. This has been Stephen K W saying goodnight and good luck.
Moberg, David. “Will the Feds be watching you?” In These Times Magazine Oct. 2001. www.thirdworldtraveler.com. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Police_State/Will_Feds_Watch_You.html
The fourth amendment does protect people from their invasion of their right to privacy. However, it is better that our safety is protected rather than our privacy. Some ways that the government obtains information through invading privacy can be drastic. There are other ways of preventing attacks or scenarios that would risk the country's safety, by learning from mistakes. Before September 11th 2001, box cutters ere allowed on planes. After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, box cutters or any kind of weapon were banned from airplanes. After the Columbine shootings, Swat teams were properly trained for those kinds of situations. Even though the local, state, and national governments learn from mistakes, invasion of privacy to help prevent tradegies is necessary. Stephen K W brings up a good point when he referred to people worried about their privacy, "If they are not doing anything bad then they shouldn't care whether or not their phone calls are always private or not". People who worry about their privacy have something to hide. And if there are people who are hiding something that can get them into trouble, then they deserve to be caught. David Moberg states, in "Will the Feds be Watching You?", "Protecting civil liberties should remain a top priority even in time of war, conventional or not". If the government has ways to capture terrorists and protect the people, shouldn't they use them?
Many people feel that anytime the police is searching them, they are being illegally searched, or that the search is unreasonable. If a school receives a tip about a student become a threat to the school, they have the right to search that person's locker and car. Many believe this is complete violation of privacy. But if the police prevent a threat on a school, isn't it worth it? Many of the terrorists involved with the Trade Center attacks were living among us. Stephen K W and Moberg referred to them as "sleepers". The terrorist were studying possible targets and training for the attacks wile living in the U.S.A. The government were not tapping and bugging at this point, and look what happened. Invasion of privacy is completely necessary and a easy right to sacrifice for the county's protection.
Moberg, David. “Will the Feds be watching you?” In These Times Magazine Oct. 2001. www.thirdworldtraveler.com. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Police_State/Will_Feds_Watch_You.html >.
The United states is a landmass full of people who have their minds completely set on control and secrecy; this to the point of paranoia. When the constitution was written, the Fourth Amendment was meant as a safeguard against our own lives being used against us. Times have changed. There are dangers and malicious people tenfold over what was in the 18th century. If Americans operated under the assuption of good intentions from our government, this debate would not exist today. Yet obviously, our country has seen the bad sides of wire-tapping and taped phone conversations, and some people are terrified the government will be given more power than it already has.
Whether or not a person wants it, the government will proceed with their "spying", for it is seen as a prevention of illegal acts. Several ways of doing this are known, but biometrics is a ever changing idea on how to identify whats going on around us and within our country.
Amitai Etzionis details several points of how privacy is rapidly dissaearing; "It's true that as biometrics catches on, it will practically strip anomynity, which is an important part of privacy.(pgs. 3-5)" Soon all of society will be logged into a system, and everyones actions will be documented. Every fifty dollar pair of jeans bought, or who is buying out all those cute shirts. The question really, is whether or not it is worth it to have all this information kept on a computer, if it helps catch just that one more sex offender, or abuser, or terrorist. Etzioni states, " We might be ready to treat privacy for what it is: one very important right, but not one that trumps most other considerations, especially of public safety and health." Especially after 911, like fellow bloggers have stated, the country has had its' hackles up and is increasingly more aware of the people living in it.
After reading Etzioni’s essay about privacy, I am left with a few prominent questions. Etzioni leaves out a few very important questions about privacy; for instance, what is it that most people are worried about in regards to privacy? It seems to me that the only people who would have a problem with privacy issues would be people who have something to hide. If this is true, however, why are so many average people who do not commit crimes so worried about their rights being violated?
To answer this question, I read Gelsey’s essay “Who’s Reading Over Your Shoulder?” This essay did not seem to take a side at first and fairly presented both sides, but then it began comparing the extreme opposites of each other. Someone researching suicide bombings could either be “intending to make a bomb [or] doing research on terrorist bombings in order to prevent them” (Gelsey). The observer would have no background knowledge on this person. Perhaps they are an innocent person or perhaps they are a terrorist. The idea this essay presents is that the knowledge obtained by the violation of privacy is unreliable because there is not any proof of the person’s intentions.
There is a flaw that both essays share. Gelsey’s essay discusses the most extreme case of privacy violation and Etzioni’s essay only talks about the very mild case of violation. Both essays could benefit from explaining the median. Where Gelsey’s point of view benefits from the discussion of how the FBI could arrest an innocent person because of what they research at the library, it fails to suggest that those trying to stop criminals might just use the records after they have a list of suspects. If someone were suspected of, say, bombing a bank, the fourth amendment would justify that search as reasonable. The FBI can come into your home as soon as they have reason to search it, why shouldn’t they be able to see what you are reading at the library?
In contrast, Etzioni writes of the small invasions of privacy that the act would introduce. Case and point, Etzioni describes a major source of privacy rights in testing infants for HIV. Now that is not fair. What heartless person would disagree with an invasion of privacy that would save helpless babies’ lives? But that is exactly what Etzioni does. There are not many people that would fight that essay because all it talks about is saving tiny infants. Etzioni fails to mention, however, how the mothers may learn about some other terrible degenerative disease they have; or in a worse situation, the mothers may be deemed unfit because of various other diseases or substances found in the test.
The way these essays are written does wonders for the author’s purpose, but at the same time takes away from telling the truth to readers.
Mankind's ability to thrive depends directly on their ability to feel in control of there course in life, the choices they make, and how they will act. That is basically the point of being a free country. Mankind has come to find, however, that having such freedom is not a possibility if a productive, well-oiled machine of a nation is desired. Unfortunately, the realization of this came after the promise of freedom to the American citizens. So, the government has found a way through decades of experience to manipulate the public into feeling like they have freedom. we feel we can say anything we want and believe anything we want. Think about though; if you were to say something to disagree with or set yourself apart from the government, would they not intervene and force you into silence? If you were to believe in the teachings of middle eastern religion and display your belief, in an airport for example, would government officials not be suspicious of you and possibly force you to leave?
After reading Gelsey's essay entitled "Who's reading over your shoulder?" is a perfect example of this. The FBI has gone behind the public eye and rooted itself into our very lives, the lives we thought we could control, but now with this judgmental eye prodding itself into even what we read we are forced into a state of even deeper paranoia. Now not only must we be afraid of what other "terrorist" countries may do to us, we must be afraid of what our own government will do.
Not only must we question the possibility of corruption in the government, but we must also question the possibility of a lack of any sanity in their actions. Like Gelsey said, are the people at the library “intending to make a bomb [or] doing research on terrorist bombings in order to prevent them” (Gelsey)? So this endeavor by the FBI to prevent terrorism via spying on people in libraries has no credibility whatsoever. For all we know, they are paranoid beyond reason, or they are paranoid for a good reason and we too should be afraid.
The same questions remain after reading Kelci B's post as after reading Etzioni's essay. Who but someone who has something to hide would be paranoid about the violation of privacy at such places as the library? When it comes down to it, there are people watching what other people do that are doing far worse than the FBI simply monitoring what people are doing.
As far as “this judgmental eye” goes, the FBI knowing what you do in your free time is no different than the clerk at the store knowing exactly what it is that you buy (Kelci B). There is a slight difference in that the clerk probably does not have the authority to do anything with the information of what you buy, but I doubt the FBI will keep extensive lists of how much toilet paper or cleaning products one buys. What people must realize is that the government does not have the resources to keep intimate tabs on every American. If the FBI is going to tap someone’s phone line, they are certainly going to have reason to do so. It is not like the FBI will keep track of all of my phone calls because my name is Annie or because I live in Littleton and they suspect I might do something in the future that may threaten America’s safety. It is unlikely that the FBI will ever care about my private life unless I do something like marry a known terrorist.
To bring this idea back around to the original topic, if a student is suspected of doing some illegal activity, the school should have the right to search the student. Students should not bring proof of illegal activities to school. Any student that does not have the brains to leave illegal items to school loses his or her right to privacy. Again, this goes back to the fact that if one does not have anything to hide, they will not be paranoid. If one does illegal things, they should leave anything to do with that at home. The school has every right to keep its students safe and take care of anything illegal that could possibly happen on school grounds.
Privacy, what is privacy to each individual. For some it may be there text messages, to others it may be there house or car. Not all people want privacy over the same things.
Privacy is a right to have; just like your right to have your phone, your car, and other personal items. They are as easily gained as they are lost, taken away. If your parents have "probable cause" that you have been or have intentions of breaking their rules they have the authority to confiscate and remove an item of interest. Whether they use it to prove or disprove their accusation is irrelevant, but isn’t that exactly what the government is doing to U.S. citizens? They have a right to search or remove an object of interest if they have probable cause or speculation that may relate you to a problem that may put other individuals into harm’s way. Both parents and the government are trying to protect their "loved ones."
For instance if you have documents or records that may suggest that you are planning to bomb a subway the government is going to step in and prevent that horrific event from occurring and harming other possibly innocent individuals. They aren’t going to step back and just let you kill hundreds of people. The government isn't going to invade you privacy unless they have a reason to. It would be a waste of time and your tax money if they did. As long as they have no reason to worry about you they will not invade you privacy.
To go even further, there are many steps that the government has to go through before than can even get close to you. Their probable cause has to show very accurately that you are who they need to learn more information about. The FBI may have to go through less but they still have to have a believable reason.
The government has tightened its grasp and as Laura W said "people who have their minds completely set on control and secrecy; this (has lead) to the point of paranoia." I agree, at some point the government needs to tone it down. The only problem is that its people and voters won’t let it. The government is controlled by the people, or very influenced by the people we have chosen to represent our ideas. They cannot change unless it is agreed on by everyone. To some people having privacy isn’t as important as having a safe environment. To those people like me, I don’t have a problem with the government being somewhat in my privacy because I have nothing to hide. For others who may have something to hide it is important to have privacy. By making the government work harder to find harmful people may be harming us more in a long run. Think about why you want privacy.
Anne A W says, "Who but someone who has something to hide would be paranoid about the violation of privacy at such places as the library?". Even if someone does not have anything to hide, it does not mean having their privacy violated is something they will welcome with open arms. While the government looks at library records they make assumptions about the people reading controversial books. This causes people to think twice before reading, thus limiting their freedom. In “Who’s reading over your shoulder” Gelsey says, “And while monitoring library records is not as direct as banning books, it is bound to cause self-censorship among readers, which may be the intended result anyway. The government may not be able to ban a book, so instead it will make you a suspect if you read that book”. People with certain interests such as bombs or something of that matter, can feel restricted if the government judges them just based on library readings. This is why library checks should not be the only proof if a person is in question for an attack on the safety of others.
Obviously, if a person would have been planning an attack, the government would have every right in stepping in and stopping it. While it may be a violation of privacy, public safety is most important. If library checks and listening into phone calls is what it takes to maintain the safety of society, then it must be done. But the public may not lie down and immediately accept it. The people have every right to feel their privacy violated, but in the larger sense, what is more important: having one persons privacy violated or the welfare of the public?
Gelsey, Zara. “The FBI Is Reading over Your Shoulder.” counterpunch.org. 17 July 2002. Counterpunch Magazine. 9 Sept. 2008http://www.counterpunch.org/gelsey0717.html >.
Anne A asks the question "Who but someone who has something to hide would be paranoid about the violation of privacy at such places as the library?" And to extend what Breanna C said, people don't need to have something to hide to be resentful of having their privacy invaded. The fact of the matter is there is no way to distinguish between someone who has something to hide and someone who does not, simply because every single person is different and every single person will have a slightly different opinions on the importance of there privacy. Whether or not someone did something wrong is what the FBI is looking for. According to Gelsey; "The feeling of being monitored inhibits freedom of thought . . . It's implied that you'd better watch what you read-because they'll be watching too." (Gelsey)
Also, this could possibly be a scare tactic rather than actually looking for crimes being committed. By watching over us we are scared in many different ways; we feel weak compared to our government thus forcing us into a submissive state of mind, or possibly it scares people from doing anything in affiliation with "terrorist" nations. There is simply to many different factors to be taken into consideration and to many people with different theories to know for sure.
"The FBI Is Reading Over Your Shoulder"
Gelsey, Zara. “The FBI Is Reading over Your Shoulder.” counterpunch.org. 17 July 2002. Counterpunch Magazine. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.counterpunch.org/gelsey0717.html >.
Citation = (Gelsey)
Privacy is a major concept that humans deal with on a daily basis. As Annie A asks the question, “what is it that most people are worried about in regards to privacy?” Humans want to live their life knowing what is going to happen, which is funny because there is not much that a single person can actually control and predict. No one wants to live their life knowing that someone could be listening into a conversation or observing what we are doing, but it happens. Even the most personal conversation about family problems or an animal dying could be listened to. The government is not going to use it against you, unless it is dangerous and they feel like you could be a threat to the country. That is the only time someone is going to step in.
People that have certain things to hide are going to be paranoid of phone tapping because the FBI can get personal information out of them. But this could also be true for a completely innocent bystandard. Everyone’s life is completely different than anyone around them. No matter who the person is, they do not want their personal life being known by someone they do not know.Citizens judge eachother, and no one really wants to be judged especially in a situation where they cannot explain themself. Phone tapping happens at random and a person could be in the middle of a story when a FBI member begins the listen into the conversation. The only information known would only be what he/she said at the time while the phone tapper was on the phone. The person being listened in on would have no idea and they could not defend themselves. In other words, not only are the guilty people paranoid of phone tapping, but common people are as well because no one knows what the person on the other end of the conversation will think of them.
From another perspective, the FBI does not really care about what a person has to say about their own personal life. Most likely the information will be forgotten soon after. The only time the FBI would go further into investigation is if there is probably cause. If someone is on the phone talking about their best friend’s terrible outfit, the FBI is not going to think they are going to become a terrorist or cause any harm to anyone, so they will probably just blow it off and move on to another conversation.
It’s a hard concept to explain, but people do not want their identity shown. They want privacy even If they are not doing anything wrong. It’s a part of human life, and we feel violated when a stranger knows something that’s personal. The FBI however, is not trying to ruin peoples life. The only time they will actually step in is if they feel like there is danger or something bad could come from the conversation they over heard. The FBI wants to keep people safe, they are not trying to ruin anyone’s life. Kelci says that, “people don't need to have something to hide to be resentful of having their privacy invaded,” which is completely true; however, people need to understand that the government is just trying to keep people safe.
Moberg, David. “Will the Feds be watching you?” In These Times Magazine Oct. 2001. www.thirdworldtraveler.com. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Police_State/Will_Feds_Watch_You.html >.
Breanna C said, “The people have every right to feel their privacy violated, but in the larger sense, what is more important: having one persons privacy violated or the welfare of the public?” It will never be only one person’s privacy that is violated. If the government or FBI doesn’t find anything on that person, they will look for information by invading the privacy of those around him or her or those that have a relation with said person, and if they do find something they will still look to the other people for more information. One individual will never be singled out, so the others’ privacy will be violated without notice, too.
When Samantha S commented that personal conversations could be listened to, she also states, “The government is not going to use it against you, unless it is dangerous and they feel like you could be a threat to the country. That is the only time someone is going to step in.” The majority of Americans are not afraid of the government using their words against them, they are more curious as to why the government is tapping personal phone lines, eavesdropping on conversaions, and invading their privacy. Conversations are held between certain people and they should remain between those people, not listened to by the unknown. It doesn’t matter if someone is going to step in or not, it is the fact that citizens can not have a private conversation anymore. How does listening to personal conversations help the public welfare? Eavesdropping by the government or FBI makes Americans feel judged, once again, and assume that the superior believe that anyone could be a terrorist. This in turn frightens Americans and forces them to believe that they can not trust the government, those that are supposed to keep them safe, or anyone else. So does invading their privacy cause more harm than good?
The way I feel about the right to privacy on the national level is that I would rather be safe than sorry. Suppose the government decided to stop the programs that have wire tapping, library checks, and other such invasions of privacy. Everyone will be happy and rejoice that now random strangers in the FBI do not know who your secret crush is or if you failed your math test or if you tripped down the stairs in front of the whole school.
Suddenly, a terrorist group uses the library, telephone, and other means to create a horrible tragedy. Everyone will then be appalled and demand to know if anything could have stopped the catastrophe.
But there was something the government could have done; the government has policies to protect people, even if those policies violate our privacy a little bit.
“After September 11, polls showed a surge in the percentage of Americans who said they were willing to trade some rights and privacy for greater security” (Moberg). The key word is “the greater good”. Even the preamble to the Constitution even says, “Promote the general welfare”. Basically that means that everyone should work together for the common good. The common good is the safety of the public. If that means the loss of a little privacy, then so be it.
Moberg, David. “Will the Feds be watching you?” In These Times Magazine Oct. 2001. www.thirdworldtraveler.com. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Police_State/Will_Feds_Watch_You.html >.
After reading the previous posts, I noticed that there is some controversy to what the word privacy actually means. In the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, privacy is defined as “the quality or state of being apart from company or observation,” while Wikipedia defines it as “the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information about themselves and thereby reveal themselves selectively.” Although both definitions are very similar, I noticed that the Merriam-Webster definition leaves out the idea of seclusion or hiding something. The definition from Wikipedia;however, touches upon the fact that individuals whom want privacy are hiding something. This “something” may not be very important or harmful to others, but this definition fits perfectly into the previous disscussion of those who have the biggest issues with the government invading our privacy are the ones that are trying to hide something or keep a secret. If that’s the case, then the invasion is needed for protection. And as much as some people may think that the government is only taking away freedom and being unjust about this subject, the government is only doing their job. I have to disagree with Kelci when she says, “For all we know, they are paranoid beyond reason.” But the question you have to ask yourself is which is better: parinoia and prevention or carelessness causing deaths? Im almost positive that the government would rather be focusing on other problems than tapping into phone conversations or computers. Just as Sami noted before, “the FBI does not really care about what a person has to say about their own personal life.” Personal information and gossip is only interesting when you know the person your learning secrets about. So, if the government could care less about 90% of the information they are monitering, than why do they do it? The answer: there is always that 10% chance of finding something worth investigating that is ultimalty the beginning of prevention. And prevention is the main goal. The goal of keeping our country and the people in it safe and free from danger.
With that being said;however, there is always a negative side to the plan. And in this case, the negative view of invading the privacy of others is that “surveillance always spreads beyond it's original purpose” (Gelsey) Although the government may deny this, I believe it to be true. While this plan of surveillance may work for some time, there will always be the fact of taking it too far. Too far in a sense that the invasion of privacy is no longer helping our safety but just lessening our freedom for no reason. If this happens, then people will start to get impatient and wonder if these actions are even necessary. In order for the government to get the best outcome of this plan, they need to take it in small steps. They need to start by slowly monitoring phone conversations, libraries, schools, etc. If this plan is put into effect too drastically and too quickly, there will for sure be controversy and negative opinions about individual’s “right to privacy.” It is at least worth trying.
This invasion of privacy would definatly be something our everyday lives would have to get used to, but in the long run, I think it would benefit our country and save lives.
Gelsey, Zara. “The FBI Is Reading over Your Shoulder.” counterpunch.org. 17 July 2002. Counterpunch Magazine. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.counterpunch.org/gelsey0717.html >.
A lot of excellent points have been made regarding the issue of privacy. Some say that it is completely inappropriate for privacy to be violated, while others say it is completely unnecessary. For me, it’s mixed feelings. The government has the right to invade privacy to a certain extent and if there is probable cause.
I agree with Stephen K when he states, “If they are not doing anything bad then they shouldn't care whether or not their phone calls are always private or not”. If someone is listening to a normal conversation what does it matter? However, if there is something in your phone conversations to be hidden, then being worried is appropriate. It confuses me as to why people are concerned with complete strangers listening to their average, everyday phone conversations. To go along with that I have to say I agree with other people that have talked about The Fourth Amendment and it’s dealing with privacy. Privacy is a right, when it is reasonable. I’d like to point out the section of The Fourth Amendment where it is stated, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. The key word would be unreasonable. If there is reason to believe that someone is involved in a terrorist attack, it is appropriate for the government to tap phones, spy, etc. However, Zara Gelsey tells of how FBI agents are entitled “to procure any library records pertaining to book circulation, Internet use, or patron registration”. This is a violation of privacy because there is no reason to be searching through the records of what books are being read.
I believe in the protections of our country, just like anyone else. Phones should be tapped if there is reason to believe that person or persons are involved. Innocent Americans should not be concerned with the fact of phones being tapped. If the government officials and FBI agents take advantage of the use of these privileges, that is where an issue comes in and it should be stopped. If an FBI agent has reason to believe that a person is involved in a terrorist attack, decides to tap his phone, and finds out he is not a terrorist, he is indeed a cocaine dealer, would make the search pointless. This is because the agent believed one thing and that is why he tapped the phone, but he found something he wasn’t looking for, therefore making that a misuse of power. Charging someone for a crime they committed that was believed to be existent is one thing, but charging someone for a crime they committed that wasn’t believed to be existent is another. Charging someone for a crime without a warrant is breaking someone’s rights. I believe that a warrant should be needed to tap someone’s phone or get into their personal papers. On that note, let’s say an FBI agent tapped the phone of a suspect for terrorism and found out that person was actually a serial murder. If that article were to get into the media about the government officials tapping phones, the “sleeper” terrorists would know about these plans and this technique of tapping wires would not be useable.
If there is reasonable cause to tap a person’s phone, look at personal records, or trespass into someone’s home, this is ok. However, if this privilege is misused it could cause more issues. Warrants should be issued to do these things, because The Fourth Amendment states that warrants must be issued for search or seizure.
Gelsey, Zara. “The FBI Is Reading over Your Shoulder.” counterpunch.org. 17 July 2002. Counterpunch Magazine. 9 Sept. 2008 <
http://www.counterpunch.org/gelsey0717.html >.
Moberg, David. “Will the Feds be watching you?” In These Times Magazine Oct. 2001. www.thirdworldtraveler.com. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Police_State/Will_Feds
Ever since 9/11 every American has felt a little bitter about who should be able to step into their own world or as known as privacy. Their privacy is very reserved because they feel the need of not letting anyone know anything about them. If they do let someone in, will they turn them into a victim? Well, the government has been trying to give the people that relief. The relief of being safe, in order to uphold this statement, the government has to be able to tap your phones or read what your reading just to make sure there are not any terrorists out there hiding or “sleepers” as Steven K uses to describe them. When I read “The FBI Is Reading Over Your Shoulder” by Zara Gelsey, I understood what she was writing about. She wrote about how any FBI agent could come in and read over your shoulder and be able to read internet use or patron registration. Yes, I can relate to having someone read over my shoulder and it is very nerve racking because you don’t know what they are thinking about what you are reading. That really shouldn’t matter to what you think, because you don’t know that FBI agent and you’ll probably never see them again. When the government does this, it helps out our nation as a whole because it’s protecting us from bombings or shootings or anything that could be considered a terrorist attack. Yes, we have the right to privacy, by law, but another law could change that. Laws are written down, they aren’t set in stone. If they were set in stone, then the law would be very vague and you could twist it to your own words. For instance, the reading over your shoulder, it gives you the idea of what the FBI are doing in order to keep your privacy, or could it even be called privacy when they are tapping your conversations? At least we have some sort of privacy the government gave us instead of having tags on our ears to indicate who we are.
If there was some suspicion on whether your neighbor was drug dealing, then the police should have some evidence and not just take your word for it. If I was that cop, I would probably ask their neighbors about any signs of this drug dealing and if they know anything more about them, just to get enough probable cause to get a case on them. And the same thing with a student, if the cop has enough probable cause that the student has been doing illegal activity, then yes they can search his locker. For the students pockets the cop would have to have more evidence and probable cause to search their pockets, if the pockets were on the student. The cell phone texts would have to be approved for the cop to be able to read them, but if the student were to say no to reading his or her texts, then the cop would have to be able to have solid evidence and or a warrant to be able to read the texts.
In the case of our privacy as American citizens and the protection against terrorism there is, unfortunately, no happy medium. Brittany H says, “Everyone will be happy and rejoice that now random strangers in the FBI do not know who your secret crush is or if you failed your math test or if you tripped down the stairs in front of the whole school.” However, what Brittany fails to mention is that those are all only minor topics discussed over the telephone. Frankly, I do not know anyone who would care if the FBI knew who their secret crush is, or whether of not he failed his math test. I do know, however, people who would care if a stranger were listening to a conversation between a newlywed bride and her best friend about the wedding night. I also know people who would care if a stranger were listening to a conversation between a father and son about the recent loss of Mom to breast cancer and how they are coping with it. Those types of extremely personal and intimate conversations are between the two people having the conversation, not between a divorced, middle aged, overweight government official and the two citizens. Anne A asks "Who [,] but someone who has something to hide [,] would be paranoid about the violation of privacy at such places as the library?" Details about the wedding night or about your late mother’s funeral aren’t necessarily something to hide, but they are indeed private and not intended for a stranger’s ears.
On the other hand, the importance of safety in our country can not be stressed enough. So, what is our government to do? Their job is to protect us, but also to grant us what our country was founded on: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All of those freedoms are infringed when our library records are tabbed and when our telephone conversations are listened to. Yet, can we have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if we are being attacked by terrorists on a regular basis? Well, obviously the answer to that is no. So, the main question is how much does wire-tapping and library checking help to establish homeland security. If the infringement of privacy is rewarded by results of terrorists being caught and put away, then by all means, let the government continue. If, however, the result of privacy infringement is the knowledge that precaution is being exercised, then perhaps the government should reconsider. Everyone in our country wants to be protected, “Yes, we want protection from terrorists and we want our government to root out those who intend to harm us,” (Zara Gelsey.) How much of our privacy are we willing to give up for the sake of a potential terrorist attack? What Anne A says, “There is a flaw in both [Gelsey’s and Etzioni’s] essays” is correct. These essays show only the two extremes of the situation, not the middle, which is a fine line.
We have handed our trust over to the people we have chosen to represent us and we have to trust that they know best for us.
I forgot to cite my sources.
"The FBI Is Reading Over Your Shoulder"
Gelsey, Zara. “The FBI Is Reading over Your Shoulder.” counterpunch.org. 17 July 2002. Counterpunch Magazine. 9 Sept. 2008< http://www.counterpunch.org/gelsey0717.html >.
"Less Privacy is Good For Us (and You)."
Etzioni, Amitai. “Less Privacy Is Good For Us (and You).” Privacy Journal April 1999: 3-5. amitaietzioni.org. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://amitaietzioni.org/A266.pdf.pdf >.
with all of the questions being asked many people get to involved in one answer they believe to be right. Its is in human nature to disagree, but in order to look at a conflict between politics it is necessary to back up and look at the situation from a broader point of view. In other words; we have to look at all sides of an argument and attempt to do so without bias.
Many people agree that the government's policies of the patriot act for many good reasons. yes its true there is a threat of terrorist attack as we have already seen from the attacks on 9/11, so taking steps to monitor people could save lives.
People also believe, however, that what the government is doing is not the best way to go about protecting the American people. They feel the Patriot act is unnecessary and unproductive and what the government should be doing is strengthening defenses and overall homeland security.
So really there can be no right or wrong. There are pros and cons to both sides. I personally am still debating weather or not the governments actions are necessary. Something definitely needs to be done in order to protect U.S. citizens, but is this the most productive and rational way to do so? If the government were to be more open with the citizens and justify there actions then some controversy may be avoided. However there are some situations in which the information the government has would be very alarming to a nation and cause a state of mass paranoia so it would be best for the information to be withheld.
Many above comments have discussed the issue of wire tapping. Marisa L brings up a very good point that “eavesdropping by the government or FBI makes Americans feel judged”. People are likely to act differently when they are being “judged” by the government, but we must realize that it does not happen to everyone. Just because you use the telephone does not mean that the FBI is listening in on your call. The wire tapping is random, and the government would never be able to listen to every phone conversation of every person in the United States. Whether or not you support wire tapping, we all must see the fact that our privacy is not necessarily going to be violated, just by calling a friend.
Alexandra M says, “If there is reasonable cause to tap a person’s phone, look at personal records, or trespass into someone’s home, this is ok”. This is perfectly true and is spelled out in the Fourth Amendment. We all would like to think that we will never be searched because there is no reasonable cause, but what really justifies a reasonable cause? Alexandra claims that the government needs to have a certain amount of proof to tap into our calls, but how does the government find the evidence to do so? If “phones should be tapped if there is reason to believe that person or persons are involved [in terrorism]” (Alexandra M), then how does the government obtain the initial evidence? Much like a teacher reading a students text messages in order to prevent them from cheating, if the government wants to prevent terrorism, then they must start somewhere. They have chosen to start with wire tapping. This does not make sense. They choose wires at random just hoping they will hear something of interest to them but it’s a long shot. They usually have no initial proof or suspisions, so it doesn’t seem like an effective way to prevent terrorism. Jennifer M discusses some examples of conversations that should remain private, and I’m sure there are many. The FBI would most likely get these types of conversations rather than terrorist plans. Many people have mentioned how the government doesn’t care about our personal lives, so why do they waste their time listening to them just to get information that may help in the fight against terrorism? I am all for sacrificing a little privacy to help our country but is wire tapping really that effective?
First of all, I think that because the government is invading our privacy with the intent of protecting us, I’m okay with it. But it’s the way’s they’re doing it that bother me. What can a person really learn about others just by looking at the books they read or the contents of their locker?
A high school student’s locker for example will hold a medley of school supplies and binders. There might be sticky notes with reminders on them plastered to the locker walls or pictures of crushes and movie stars hanging on the door. The FBI and police should have the right to look at all they want. They won’t go tell you crush you like them or anything. The only reason people get freaked out and pissed off about “invasions” of privacy is when they actually have something to hide. Something illegal. In which case, it’s your own fault for hiding it in your locker. And a person’s locker isn’t exactly private anyways. Yes, everyone in the halls can see that boy’s picture on your locker door when you open it.
The part about what the FBI does with your library account is weird though. In the article, “ Who’s Reading Over Your Shoulder”, the author say’s , “today the FBI is looking for records of people who check out books on bomb-making, tomorrow they're likely to question why you've checked out books about the Columbian drug war”. Okay, what kind of scary library has books on bomb making? And, Mister FBI person, the poor kid who checked out the book on the Columbian drug war was probably doing it for a report. Now, if he, say, checked out a book about marijuana, you could be suspicious. And if the FBI really wants to know what I’m reading, have fun with that. They’re brains might fry out of their head.
I seriously think that as long as the FBI is going to these matters to keep us safe, then they can. I don’t have anything to hide, and anyone who thinks they do obviously is just over reacting or is participating in illegal activities.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kelci B brings up a great point when she says “If the government were to be more open with the citizens and justify their actions then some controversy may be avoided. However there are some situations in which the information the government has would be very alarming to a nation and cause a state of mass paranoia so it would be best for the information to be withheld."
I don’t completely agree with this but it has some truths. If the government took the time to partly explain to its people what they are doing it might prevent some issues. Obviously they cannot give out all the information for that would cause them more problems, but if they would explain in more detail WHY they are doing things then the people maybe more calm and ok.
Yes, the people that have things to hide may not approve but the majority will be fine. As for the "some situations" that need to remain private, I don’t agree. There are things that you would say to someone you love, someone you hate, or something personal that preferably remain between the people involved. But why would someone, the FBI or government, care that jimmy hates bobby, or what sally did last night. If they hear a conversation like that they will probably disregard it because they have had many others like it before.
I may be taking these private conversations in the wrong way, but if you consider a private conversation talking about drugs and alcohol, then you are some one that has an embarrassing thing to hide.
The government has a right to look into personal information. They should try and go about this in a different more approved way. This solution would be very hard to find therefore the government is more than likely fine with their system. No one is perfect. People strive for perfection just like the government but perfection will never be reached.
Sometimes people need to take a step back, calm down and try to understand every angle of an issue, rather than pushing their initial reaction.
Its seems to me that all aspects of the importance of privacy to people has been worn out on this particular blog, so I would like to bring up another topic.
I have found the article "The FBI is reading Over Your Shoulder" to be more opinionated than some of the others. Gelsey starts off the article with a very blunt "I hate the feeling of someone reading over my shoulder" (Gelsey). this immediately indicates this article is going to be bias against the FBI's actions. And just as everyone writing any kind of opinionated article would do, she will she does not present both sides of the argument. So as we read we only see the bad side of the FBI's actions or what is bad about it to Gelsey. It is difficult not to get caught up in an article and only take out facts rather than the authors personal opinion. Also, it is difficult to form an opinion since no real-life examples have been provided. How can we know all of these opinions are credible if we have not heard of either a positive or negative effect? Like I said in my last post, the government needs to be more open with us.
I have observed through watching the presidential debates and hearing the news that the government seems to be all talk and show. We hear so many empty promises and self centered garbage spewed every day. Not once in a while. Not every other day. every day. We hear of why Obama should be our leader because he was a "community organizer" and McCain should be our leader because he was a "war hero" and Sarah Palin shouldn't lead because she has a pregnant daughter. I don't care! I am afraid for the world I will live in as an adult because another constant thing I hear is how we will run out of resources or be annihilated by a nuclear war. So I, as a "political target in training", want to hear of what will be effective in a bright future for our country. I want to hear true stories of effective and progressive actions made by the government. And finally it is clear to me after reading all of the articles on this topic: I don't care about petty things like how the FBI spying on people makes us "feel". I care about what will save us from poverty, despair, and death.
I don't know what Kelci is trying to get at with her post. We are talking about how the Goverment treats their citizans privacy. This is a school blog and not a rant.
I agree with the idea that if you don't have anything to hide you don't have anything to worry about. The serveillance system the goverment uses is based off of code words and everything else is discarded. The goverment does not and should not care about personal matters unless they have to do with national security. If talk to your friend about how to make a bomb there should be someone there to make sure you don't actually make one and hurt innocent people. I realize that this is a very different way of thinking then what our country was founded on but the world is a different place since 1776. It shows the genius of the founding fathers that our constitution has lasted this long with out significant changes to its main ideals. The goverments job is to protect its citizens and a minorities arguement over privacy ties the hands of the goverment.
As with all the other procrastinators coming on here in the last three days, I find the topic to be seemingly worn out. The arguments for it — including the much discussed statement that if someone is afraid of privacy they have something to hide as Stephen K said or the arguments against it including the very personal issues as in Jennifer M’s post—have been discussed extensively. The topics that I am surprised that have not come up are the “what if’s” of privacy, perhaps because they also do not appear in the provided resources.
The way I see it the government regulating our society is a double-edged sword. As someone can see from the blog, there are strong arguments for both sides of the issue. There are plenty of “what if” possible situations to support both as well. For instance, what if the government was regulating someone’s account and noticed that they had bought several materials used to make bombs, but the person purchasing the bombs was not the person who they identified but an identity thief using that person’s account? They would accuse the person of doing something they never did. The other side to that argument is of course what if they caught a terrorist by using that method? I foresee mistakes and at the same time hundreds of lives being saved.
My point is that there will always be bad associated with the privacy issue in America and there will always be that time they prevent another 9/11. Nothing is perfect. I honestly doubt the government sits in their office and panders over personal phone calls, such as one on “a conversation between a newlywed bride and her best friend about the wedding night” (Jennifer M). They are looking for terrorists, and if they aren’t, then they should be fired shortly. It’s not impossible, but it’s also very improbable. Consider that if they spent their time doing that than what if some of the government officials were using the system as predators? There could be a thousand possibilities; a million possibilities. There are always going to be possibilities of good and always going to be possibilities of bad. It’s inevitable and the issue will probably remain an issue that will be talked about on blogs ten or twenty years from now.
The question really boils down to which you are willing to compromise: privacy or “the common good” (Brittany H). And that’s entirely opinionated. I could go into my personal opinion of why privacy should be the compromise and how I agree with Brendan W’s above post, but I will end up saying approximately the same thing as the others with the same viewpoint.
My argument is that there will never be a definite solution or final decision on this amended to the US constitution. It is always going to be another unresolved arguement added to the hundreds we already have and frequently debate.
Upon first glance, this blog in its' entirety appeared to be run-dry. But upon further reading, I have noticed that several aspects-- relatable aspects-- of this topic have been completely avoided. Everyone seems to be looking at the big picture rather than what stares them in the face everyday. How many times a month on average are you pulled into a police station and stripped of your cell phone so that they can go through your texts? Or asked to empty the contents of your purse into a tray that will be transported through a metal detector? We live in white suburbia people: never. Yes the government is checking out the very same books you check out, but big deal? As many others have stated before me, if you aren't checking out books like “Over-the-Counter Drugs 101, or “Meth-Making for Dummies” what in the world should you be upset or nervous about? It is most definitely a shame that society has come so far down-hill that our government needs to baby-sit us, but we need to remember that it is our own fault for being here in the first place. For example, let’s just say that last weekend you were out driving with some friends to Evergreen. And let’s just say that you arrived home somewhere between 4:00am and dawn because you simply “lost track of time.” Now your parents-- being the loving, compassionate beings that they are-- choose to question, even interrogate you. They respect you for your honesty, hold true to their rules by grounding you, and are now more curious to your whereabouts. Reasonable? Of course. Well America, we have been out well past curfew, and with our government being the protective family it is, we are being grounded. Our behavior has called, even begged for less privacy, stricter rules, and even a good spanking. We deserve to be watched so closely. We screwed up. Get used to it.
Let me put it this way; where are you Monday through Friday between 7:25am and 2:35pm? Don't think too hard now: it's school. More specifically, the infamous Columbine High School. Now think back to why our average school with its' average students and its' average building is recognized world-wide. Oh yea! Someone gave their kids a little too much privacy. Parents nowadays are far too disconnected from their children. The are oblivious to what is happening under their very own roofs. Little do they know that Johnny has a dime bag of pot in his dresser next to his argyle socks, or that Sally just buried a positive pregnancy test in the bottom of the kitchen trash can. Why is this? Well, it's certainly not that they don't care,-- parents who don't care don't have kids, they have orphans-- it is simply that they're too worried about being Johnny's friend, or Sally's "cool mom" rather that his demanding father or her nosy mother. We've all heard it before: you can't be your kid's best friend and their parent. It just does not work because when you do, you get two teenage boys in your garage making bombs and composing hit lists. Our government is simply trying to keep America from turning into one big Columbine shooting.
Amitai Etzioni writes that “In the near future, a person who acquired a poor reputation in one part of the country will find it much more difficult to move to another part, change his name, and gain a whole fresh start.” And my response to this is simple: good. Why should it be easy for a criminal to get out of jail, take some courses, read a pamphlet or two, and start with a clean slate? Who wants a pedophile that just got out of Arizona’s state penitentiary on good behavior to easily slip in three doors down from their four-year-old daughter in Maine? Yes, I realize that mistakes happen, and yes I realize that people could (not can) change, but why risk it? It should be difficult for a poorly reputed person to live a private life. Plus, why should the embezzling ex-banker be getting a second change at life whilst so many decent people are suffering through their honestly-earned cash as it is? Everyone needs to learn that their actions have consequences and if that means taking some privacy away, so be it. All of our privacy cannot be revoked. That’s just not what America is. But some of it should absolutely be due to recent issues. Wouldn’t you rather be safe than sorrily shot on your way home form Walgreens?
So, my question to you all is this: how far is too far? Where do we draw the line? Should we all be living in glass houses and walking through the halls with clear book bags? And how would would we even know if the government is staying within our chosen boundaries?
Etzioni, Amitai. “Less Privacy Is Good For Us (and You).” Privacy Journal April 1999: 3-5. amitaietzioni.org. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://amitaietzioni.org/A266.pdf.pdf >.
Citation = (Etzioni #)
In answer to Savannah’s question, “how far is too far?” I think that too far is when it seems unreasonable and pointless. The Fourth Amendment, which has been mentioned before numerous times, guarantees freedom from unreasonable searches. When searches begin to get ridiculous, then the government has crossed the line. Many people have mentioned warrants, which are important in determining if a search is reasonable. When warrants are no longer used, then searches have stopped becoming rational and thus, legal.
In answer to the question, “how would we even know if the government is staying within our chosen boundaries?” we would know the government has crossed the line when we cannot hold a logical argument for both sides like we are doing in this blog. When we can no longer see both sides of the argument, positive and negative, then the government has definitely done something wrong.
A good example of the government going to far can be found at the airport. The newly developed MALINTENT device has the ability to detect subtle facial movements as well as body temperature, heart rate and respiration. It reads these vitals and categorizes them as emotions. If the machine said you were nervous or suspicious in any way you would be brought in for a private search and may even be forced to leave the airport. I understand precaution, but this? When I go to the airport I get so nervous I need to take a sleeping pill simply because I almost got in a plane crash. We got wind-shear (when the plane hits a large air pocket and no longer has any forward momentum so it drops) and came withing hundreds of feet within doing a nose-dive into the ground. So as your can imagine, I am terrified of flying and the machine would most likely find me suspicious. This technology costs millions of dollars to develop and is the least reliable form of security imaginable.
Just to briefly comment on Kelcis' post, I understand how that could be seen as going over the top, but we should also remember that is not the only security option, it's not simply based on micro-chips reading those facial movements, it's just one piece of the puzzle. And while it'll be really inconvient for anyone who is nervous about a late flight or uneasy from a bad phone call; a terrorist with bombs attached to his person will probably be more nervous than anyone, and therefore will be more noticable and apprehendable.
Well, we all seem to agree on several things. The foremost of which is that the government has a right to check up, observe, spy even, on the people in the name of national security, both inside and out. Yet they can only do this if they have reasons and proof, "legit" ones. Warrant are required to search buildings, tap into phone lines, and interrogate people, unless there is a life in immediate danger. The government must have enough proof to satisfy the citizens involved. But what is proof? What does anyone really know about how those warrants are written, does anyone really understand the legal terms that go behind it? In the action movies it is simply a knock on a door, a dude in a black suit with an FBI badge, and the line " This is a matter of national security, please step aside." Like Savanah M was saying, how many people do we really know that can say this has happened to their family? To just throw this out there, what type of proof, if any, of terrorism or a threat would you want to see if they wanted to inspect your lives? How much would you require them to tell you if you had that option?(To order them to explain I mean.)
Brittany H brings up a smart point as well. If one cannot debate about the government from both sides, something is wrong. Which is most likely why Right To Know vs. Right To Privacy is such a hot topic right now. About half the country, if not more,(estimation) is unhappy with the current events. So the debate wears on!
This comment has been removed by the author.
It is hard to say if the government is going too far with invading people’s privacy, but Christy M's metaphor describes the government very well, “The way I see it the government regulating our society is a double-edged sword” (Christy M.). This is how the government works. It is ridiculous how the FBI checks out people’s libraries account for suspious activity, but they are just doing their job. Why do people care so much about if their privacy is being invaded by someone that does not even know them? I understand why it is a big deal if someone I know invades my privacy but if someone I do not know, knows I really could not care less. Like Steven K says, “"If they are not doing anything bad then they shouldn't care whether or not their phone calls are always private or not". People who worry about their privacy have something to hide. And if there are people who are hiding something that can get them into trouble, then they deserve to be caught”. There are 301,139,947 people in America according to the World Factbook and although most of them will be good people there are people who want to hurt those good people. The government has to keep the privacy policy together because without it there would be more violence and more innocent people getting hurt. People may hate the government for always being on their case, but the government is providing the people with a service by keeping them safe. The government invading our privacy feels like an uneven scale because, although the government is trying help their fellow citizens, they are the causing an uproar of unhappiness for the people they were trying to help.
“The World Factbook” 9 Oct. 2008. < https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html>.
To add to Whitney’s post, I believe the connotations of the phrase “invading our privacy” are incredibly negative. Privacy is definitely an aspect of being human that we like to keep. To hear that the government may be taking away the “right to privacy” sounds awful. When I hear that phrase I imagine some government guy in dark shades listening and watching whatever I do. Jennifer M stated that “intimate conversations are between the two people having the conversation, not between a divorced, middle aged, overweight government official and the two citizens.” That is how she pictures them and I am willing to bet it’s because of the connotation. So someone can see that it is inevitable that people are going to flip out and put down the government; it’s the first reaction, almost instinctive. We like people not to know about ourselves because it definitely feels safer and your life feels more like it belongs to you instead of the government. If the phrase was reworded to say that the government has the right to take some privacy away from a person if they suspect criminal activities, then people would think of it more as a security measure, which it is. Whitney states, “I understand why it is a big deal if someone I know invades my privacy but if someone I do not know, knows I really could not care less.” This is an incredibly true statement. Besides, how would you know the government was “spying” on you anyway? No one could ever tell so it should not be an issue.
“The government has the right to take some privacy away from a person if they suspect criminal activities, then people would think of it more as a security measure,” (Christy M) definetly sounds better than “the government taking away our privacy.” But don’t most people understand this concept? Even us as bloggers are able to understand that the government is not going to start reading our blog, or tap into our phone conversations unless they have a reasonable cause. The government is not going to waste their time.
As many people have stated, the only people that really care about their privacy are those that are trying to hide something. I want to know what the world would be like if people did not have to worry about someone watching their private lives. How different would the world be if students weren’t worried about police officers checking their cars late at night, or schools searching their lockers because a dog smelt “something” strange. How much different would people act knowing they can get away with more at home, on the streets, or at school? The idea that someone could be watching and be able to find out what a person is hiding keeps people in check with making smart decisions, but as we have all clearly stated this is not always true. If everyone was perfect we wouldn’t have to worry about our privacy being invaded because no one would have anything to hide. Without “privacy invaders” how much more chaotic would the world get?
I understand Kelci B’s point of airport security going over the top, but obviously something major has happened in the first place (9/11) and the government does not want to see that happen again. They apparently feel that it is necessary, and if that technology is going to keep me safe on my flight to Disney World, then so be it. At least I feel safe and other Americans feel safe once again to fly. They aren’t trying to invade our privacy just because, its just part of the procedure in keeping us safe. If there isn’t anything to hide, then why be so scared if they have to search you personally or search your bag? They also search certain bags at random, but I don’t have anything to hide so I’m not worried. To right to privacy is used to keep people safe, its not meant to be a punishment.
**By the way, notice the date of this article. It’s before 9/11.
Etzioni, Amitai. “Less Privacy Is Good For Us (and You).” Privacy Journal April 1999: 3-5. amitaietzioni.org. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://amitaietzioni.org/A266.pdf.pdf >.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Character is defined by what people do when no one is watching. And most people abuse their right to privacy by going behind people's backs, lying, and cheating. Therefore I do not believe most people deserve a right to privacy in the first place.
Zara Gelsey states, "It makes me suddenly self-conscious, wondering if the stranger is making faulty suppositions about me". There are also various bloggers talking about the stereotypical FBI agent that they picture watching them. Christy H W makes a very strong point when she said, "Besides, how would you know the government was 'spying' on you anyway? No one could ever tell so it should not be an issue". It is only in a person's mind that their privacy is being invaded. It is only in a person's mind that they become self-conscious and worried about being watched. There is no definite way that someone could truly know they were constantly being watched. And if you choose let all this affect your behavior, then that is your fault because invading privacy is not such a big deal as long as you are being kept safe.
To comment about what Samantha S W was saying about Kelci B's point about airplane security going over the top, yes, a major tragedy happened involving airplanes and they are trying to prevent it from happening again. This all goes back to my first blog where I was discussing learning from mistakes to prevent something from reoccurring. That is, they restrict certain items to be brought on planes that they allowed before the attacks. And the Columbine shootings teaching SWAT teams that they have to go in. I can see what Kelci B was saying in that there are other ways to prevent tragedies from happening again, but they will not work as good, if the government is not tracking suspicious people and listening to what is going on inside our country rather than ignoring it.
Gelsey, Zara. “The FBI Is Reading over Your Shoulder.” counterpunch.org. 17 July 2002. Counterpunch Magazine. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.counterpunch.org/gelsey0717.html
How many people have been victims of the government invading privacy that you may know? Does anybody come to mind? The government wire tapes phones, but how effective is it? Jennifer M says, “So, the main question is how much does wire-tapping and library checking help to establish homeland security”. The average person makes probably about three to five phone calls a day, not to mention text messages. And there are millions of people calling everyday, every minute, and every second. How could the government possible monitor all of these? They cannot. The government has to be listening to the right person and at the right time. It is possible, but it is extremely hard. So they rule out people who are not suspicious. Mostly likely people you know and yourself. People say they are listening to your phone calls, but how many times, if any, do they really? People will never know. People say they do not like their privacy being invaded, but how will they even know? Most likely never. It seems like the right to privacy is something that can happen right under people’s noses. So it is really an invasion of privacy only if the government gets caught. And that will probably never happen.
I read the interview with Viet Dinh, who helped create the Patriot Act, and it brought up a few interesting points. He said, “Do not propose what you want to have only propose what is necessary to fight the war against terror”. So we basically may not want to give up some privacy, but it is necessary for our protection. It’s like what Samantha said about airport security, “[The government] apparently feel[s] that it is necessary and if that technology is going to keep me safe on my flight . . . then so be it”. It may be long and annoying having to go through security at the airport, but it is necessary for our safety. That is why all these programs were created.
Towards the beginning of the blog, Katie W looked up the definition of privacy. Out of curiosity, I decided to look up “right”. This is actually a hard word to define. WordNet defines right as “an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature”. In other sources, right is also defined as something “morally correct”. So how the “right to privacy” would be defined? We have all talked about whether we have a right to privacy, but is it really a right? Or is it just a privilege we have come to think is a right? If it is just a privilege, then the government is not crossing any lines. If it is a right, then the answer to the question "how far is too far" and others are probably in this blog somewhere.
**If you want to read the interview with Viet D. Dihn, then look for the 9th Edition Bedford Chapter 13 online. (We have the 10th Edition).
Miller, George A. "Right." WordNet. 2006. Princeton University. 11 Oct 2008 http://wordnet.princeton.edu
Dihn, Viet D. “How the USA Patriot Act Defends Democracy.” defenddemocracy.org. 9 June 2004. Foundation for Defense of Democracies. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.defenddemocracy.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=228218 >.
This comment has been removed by the author.
First of all, I am starting to think that the government is beginning to get a little bit out of control. For example, when Kelci B. said, “The newly developed MALINTENT device has the ability to detect subtle facial movements as well as body temperature, heart rate and respiration. It reads these vitals and categorizes them as emotions. If the machine said you were nervous or suspicious in any way you would be brought in for a private search and may even be forced to leave the airport,” I laughed. I laughed a lot. Okay, If some creepy airport security guy came and stuck a weird device in my face, I’d be nervous too. And, you know what, everyone after standing in endless lines for security and bag check at the airport would be stressed out. This new device is ridiculous.
I think that the people who invent stuff like this are focusing on the wrong things. Emotions are very all over the place. If they really wanted to invent something useful to our nation’s security they should invent things like a mind reader. If they can invent something to read emotions, invent a mind reader. Because with all the chaos going on at airports these days, it’s starting to look as though the only way to protect ourselves would be to develop psychic powers.
Also, I like what Stephen K. said about how normal people shouldn’t freak out so much about all of this, “why should normal people complain about it, what do they have to hide? If they are not doing anything bad then they shouldn't care whether or not their phone calls are always private or not. Does it really matter that some FBI guy you have never met knows that you are having an affair with the pool boy? Does it really matter that some FBI guy you have never met hears you and your friend talking about how you’re going to ditch your other friend tomorrow? Is he going to call up your friend and tell them the plan? No, but what really matters is that we are safe”. I think this is true. The FBI won’t care what you do in secret, as long as it’s not illegal. As long as we’re safe, people shouldn’t really care what the FBI hears or doesn’t hear. Unless, you really do have something to hide.
While our constitution lists numerous rights of American citizens, there are only three rights our country deems inalienable. When, however, does the revocation and alteration of these minor rights begin to interfere with one’s rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? To begin with, an examination of the constitution is vital in understanding this situation and formulating an opinion on it. In his article “Will the Feds Be Watching You?” David Moberg quotes Nadine strossen as having said that “what we do demand, and the Constitution guarantees, is that the government does not infringe any right unless it comes up with evidence that infringement is justified in advancing an important goal”(Moberg). Strossen says that the constitution guaranties that the governement must have evidence that the sittuation is justified. However, the fourteenth amendment is as follows, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” (The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution). Nowhere in this amendment does it say anything about having any concrete evidence to back up the probable cause. Probable causes to some people could include witness accounts, small clips of one’s life that draw speculation, or even just hunches. In actuality, no real evidence is actually needed.
Anne A and Stephen K W brought up a very valid point that deserves more detail. Many complain that their privacy is being violated, but “what is it that most people are worried about in regards to privacy? It seems to me that the only people who would have a problem with privacy issues would be people who have something to hide.”(Anne A). Anne hit the point right on; how much privacy is really necessary? Steve K listed many examples of things that might come under government ears. Most things the government will hear you say are things they don’t even think twice about. This reminds me a lot of the “Simpson’s Movie.” One scene in this movie relays a message most Americans would agree with; most things the government hears are not in need of attention. However, when the Simpson family is talking about their plan to go against the government’s plan of blowing up Springfield, a man hears their phonecall. The man says something to the effect of “we finally got a hit.” While this scene mostly serves to humor Americans on a subject they mostly agree on, it also shows that sometimes these wire taps do dig up something significant. If one terrorist was found out by this system, it would be well worth it. Our community especially should know how important it is to catch attacks before they happen, because when no one knows, these attacks can be disasterous. It makes no difference whether the government hears conversations between boyfriends and girlfriends, but it could make a huge difference if a terrorists conversation is overheard.
On the same side of this, if a conversation one is having is so important that he wishes it to be completely private, he should know better than to use the already insecure internet or telephones he knows are being tapped. If one wants one’s conversation to remain private, it is his job to make sure it remains this way. The government’s desire to protect the nation as a whole is far more important than the desires of average people to be completely private. Ridiculous, no? Wrong. This advice is in no way too far gone. Conversations held in person are dwindling in popularity. A teen would rather text his confidant and ask for advice than just asking for help at school. That is another issue altogether, but if one wants his conversations to remain private, it is his resposibility to confront this issue himself. The government does not exist to hold a soccer mom’s hand or to have coffee with the CEO of Starbucks. Our government exists to provide the safe, secure, desireable land in which millions are proud to live.
Do you guys remember when Mr. Webb was talking about how everyone has their own "bubble" and he used the park bench analogy? Well, think of America as one big park bench. You would be sitting next to family, chatting with your near-by friends, maybe even paying a lovely visit to your boy/girlfriend's part of the bench for a quick kiss, etc. But who would you be avoiding? You would be as far away from people with suspicious facial expressions, homeless men who are mumbling to themselves, the single teen mother with a crying infant, etc. But if the bench has just enough room for all 301,139,947 (Whitnee N.) of us on that bench, who would be filling in the un-wanted seats? That's exactly what our government is doing: filling in the spaces that would allow harm to be inflicted upon you and your loved ones. Now is Steve the homeless, seemingly crazy war veteran always going to be itchin’ for a mugging? And who's to say that the words being muttered by the suspicious man aren’t the Ten Commandments? Maybe they are just decent people who’ve been dealt a poor hand. I like to believe that everyone in this world is truly a good person, but deep down I know that it isn’t so because we are born with suspicion. Just like Staples mentioned in his essay “Black Men and Public Space”, we inherit stereotypes from the moment we are conceived. They cannot be removed completely, and they cannot change completely. They may be altered, or lessened, but they will always be present. We absolutely have no way of knowing if someone is a good person or not, and if that means that the government has to suspect everyone, so be it. And if they make a few mistakes, big deal. I have nothing to worry about. My family has nothing to worry about. And if you do have something to worry about, you should continue to worry because right to privacy or not, it is the government’s job to keep as many people safe as possible. Will J. mentioned that people automatically don’t deserve a right to privacy, and I agree. Even the Bible says that we are sinful by nature. It’s just the way things are. This doesn’t mean that everyone is bad (Not even in the slightest!), it simply means that we are all devious creatures when provoked. For example, my sister is one of the sweetest girls you will ever meet, but when I push her buttons just right, she turns into a demon child. Does that make her a bad person? Of course not. It simply means that everyone has their limits, which by extent means that we are all suspects--even you, even me-- because when we reach our limit, we are capable of exploding. The government is getting to us before our limits do, and I applaud their efforts.
“The World Factbook” 9 Oct. 2008. < https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/us.html>.
The question, “What would the world be like if people did not have to worry about someone watching their private lives,” was a very good thought from Sami S. As I sat here and thought about it, I realized that our society would be completely dangerous and out of control. Without anyone having to worry about being caught stealing, plotting bomb threats, or getting caught with illegal drugs, people would take that freedom to an unsafe level that would be putting every person’s life at risk. It is the thought of invading our privacy, not the actual action of doing so, that is keeping us safe. It is simply the fact of knowing that by doing something wrong, the government has the ability to track you down and penalize you for your actions. Whether or not they actually take the time to investigate your crime is a different concept. However, the THOUGHT is still there. Without “privacy invaders,” people may think they can do whatever they want and the notion of protection and security; therefore, disappears, which is the complete opposite of the main goal of our government.
This brings me to another point that was previously stated by Brittany H. In her most recent blog, she asks, “We have all talked about whether we have a right to privacy, but is it really a right? Or is it just a privilege we have come to think is a right?” I believe that privacy is a privilege, not a right whatsoever. Privacy has to be earned. It cant just be handed out on a piece of paper. Because of the freedom in America, I think that we have taken the idea of privacy for granted. Just because is has been given to us does not mean it cant be taken away. Privacy is granted to those who have earned it. With previous events that have taken place in America, I agree that it is time to tighten the leash on privacy. Such attacks like September 11th and the Columbine shootings possibly could have been prevented. But this prevention was lost because of people complaining about their privacy being invaded. To me, this seems very selfish and rude. Just have numerous bloggers have stated, if you have nothing to hide, then why is privacy such a big deal? I think it is the idea of ownership. Today, people in America are obsessed with making their own decisions. Nobody likes to be told what to do and how to do it. Freedom should be allowed to a certain point, but prevention is more important and that is why I am completely fine with the fact that the government may be “invading our privacy.” We all have seen what is capable of happening with privacy isn’t moniterred to a certain extent, and it is from these learning experiences that our society will improve on its safety. Savannah M brings up another point that, “The government is getting to us before our limits do.” We all have experienced these “limits” and that is why new inventions are being created to increase our safety. The government needs to stop trying to please the people complaing about this issue and tell them to get over themselves, because in all actuality, these invasion processes are being put into effect because of previous events. In other words, we are loosing our privacy due to our own actions and the government is just doing its job. They are only doing it for the good of our society so if privacy needs to be altered according to the people in America, then that’s the way it’s going to be.
Katie W made an excellent observation when she says, “Today, people in America are obsessed with making their own decisions”. We are lucky to be living in a country where people are treated equally and have many rights. We Americans are spoiled. We do not understand how lucky we are to even have rights. Someone from a third-world country would give anything to have the rights we do, yet we continue to complain especially when one of our rights is threatened.
Even though the government is invading our privacy to help prevent people from getting hurt, we get very defendant of our right to privacy. Samantha M states that, “And if you do have something to worry about, you should continue to worry because right to privacy or not, it is the government’s job to keep as many people safe as possible”. If someone does not have anything to hide then why should they care about this issue—is it because they feel that the government will become too powerful? People should understand that the government is not trying to become a dictatorship by alternating our rights. They are here to as Lisa M says, “Our government exists to provide the safe, secure, desireable land in which millions are proud to live”. I think that although our government has its flaws they have made a desirable place to live. As I have stated before we are lucky to have rights, but the government can make our country even greater by keeping us safe. If this means we have sacrifice certain rights so be it. I do not mind that the government is invading our privacy because I rather have them finding the criminals that have something to hide than having people’s lives be taken just because we could not get over giving up something for the good of the entire country.
Whitnee N asks, “Why do people care so much about if their privacy is being invaded by someone that does not even know them”. If any of you fellow bloggers went on vacation, where you did not know anyone and all of the sudden every article of clothing was stripped from your body and you were now standing stark naked in front of every person in that town, would you not be mortified? Just because you do not know the people that are seeing you naked certainly does not disqualify your humiliation. This is simply something to get others to think, since many believe that it is impossible to become embarrassed about something in front of people one doesn’t know.
In the end safety comes before privacy in the category of priorities of Americans. I would, however, like to bring up the movie Eagle Eye. In this film, the government uses technology to virtually be able to keep track of everyone at every minute by using everyday security cameras in department stores and wiretapping, etc. Obviously, we do not have this technology currently, but when we do, which is not far away, what will become of our privacy? Well, virtually it will not exist. This time is approaching and when it does will we be willing to continue sacrificing privacy for homeland security?
Furthermore, the line of privacy invasion and homeland security is a fine one. So, the line continues to dwindle down into an indistinguishable mess of no privacy and a paranoid government. Now, not that the government does not have a right to be paranoid. After all, they simply want to prevent other terrorist attacks like those of 9/11. However, where is the line? The words unreasonable and probable cause from the fourth amendment are broad and can be defined differently by certain people, thus the line starts to fade. Some may think upon reading this that the government will never be watching us all the time, yet it starts with the occasional wiretap and library record checking, then in time traffic light cameras and traced cell phones will become stalking eyes among us.
The slippery slope that this issue rides on must be dealt with using compromises on both the government’s part and the peoples’ part. The government is here to keep us safe, but what some are forgetting is that is not its only purpose. We live here in America to enjoy the freedom and opportunities that this country offers. Yet, similarly we must also accept the responsibilities and small sacrifices that is included in the package.
I understand what everyone has been pointing out about privacy. There are two different sides to this issue, but in the end it’s all about opinion. When Kelci B stated, “If the government were to be more open with the citizens and justify there actions then some controversy may be avoided,” I understand that could be a better action, but telling Americans what they are doing is also telling the terrorist what they are going to do in finding them. To me, tapping and reading what is personal to us is probably the only way they can catch any terrorist and if you don’t know anything about it then excellent. I don’t want to know that someone was looking at my personal profile. I would rather not know and have them know that I’m not a terrorist. Like when Kristin T comments, “People are likely to act differently when they are being “judged” by the government, but we must realize that it does not happen to everyone. Just because you use the telephone does not mean that the FBI is listening in on your call. The wire tapping is random, and the government would never be able to listen to every phone conversation of every person in the United States,” when she says this I totally understand that you won’t even know if you are being tapped or not. So why would it even matter to anyone. I say everyone should just relax and just don’t even worry. Like what Olivia H had stated, “Sometimes people need to take a step back, calm down and try to understand every angle of an issue, rather than pushing their initial reaction.”
Everyone has been stating that the right to privacy is very important to all americans and that having our privacy invaded feels wrong, but is it really? Like what Savannah M and Kelci B and many others have said about how we aren’t perfect and that we are learning about how to protect our society I many different ways. Yes they may not be excellent right now, but what else can we do? We can’t just sit back and think of a plan to capture all of the terrorists all at once, we have to act fast and right now the government has the wire tapping and the use of the library. They might not be the best that most americans think, but at least we know that our government is trying to keep our society, our country from being destroyed from other countries.
Brittany H. made a great point about all of the phone calls and text messages made from person to person throughout the day. She states, "How could the government possibly monitor all of these? They cannot". As I thought about it I began to see this issue in another light. Jennifer M. also so made a similar point. American citizens completely out number the number if government officials, so even if they had every official tapping a certain number of calls, they still would not have enough. Those three hundred or so calls they missed could’ve been the calls about a new plan for attack on American. It clearly does not make sense. Tapping phones is completely pointless. I am not going to say that they can’t do it, if they want to do something like that then have at it. I don’t think tapping phones will do much of anything, unless the case has already taken off and there is already specific evidence. Screening random phone calls throughout the United States leaves so much room for taking chances and missing things. It is a waste of time.
With that said, another issue being talked about is the heightened airport security. I completely agree with it. Sure, the process is long and grueling, but it has good cause. Personally, I would rather spend the extra time in the security rather then have my plane get high jacked. The new security measures being taken are completely necessary. Look at September 11, 2001, where all these issues have risen from. Look at the man who brought a bomb onto the plane that was inside a powder blush? With all these crazy, absurd ideas that have been come up with to sneak bombs onto planes how could these measures not be taken? Some of the prohibited items are a little bit overboard, like tweezers. What is anybody going to do with tweezers? I cannot think of anything, but then again I am not a terrorist or a criminal mastermind. Someone that’s whole life depended on taking down a plane would figure something out with anything they had. I don’t think I speak for only I when I say that I would rather go through the security and go without a bottle of body spray for three hours, then get killed in a plane crash.
Tapping wires is pointless because it is impossible to listen to every single conversation made by every single American every single day. The calls that were missed could have been the ones with all the clues. This is true only for just browsing, not targeting anyone specific. If, however, the government has a specific to tap somebody’s phone that makes a turn around and that is fine. The newly raised security levels are not going too far, considering all of the things that people have done on planes in the past. I would just rather be safe and have to be a little more decisive while packing and take a bit longer in security, then to be killed in a plane crashed into a building.
Fist off, let me apologize to Mr. Webb for even saying the whole thing about if you're not doing anything bad you shouldn't worry because after I said that I have seen it said about maybe once a blog and even i was getting sick of it. Second, I also feel that this topic has been run a little dry but I did enjoy reading other people's blogs and seeing how they take the same exact point over and over and try to drag it out so they can get their nine points, which I suppose this little rant here at the beginning is subcosciously meant to do with this post, but now that I have stated it, it's no longer subconscious. O well. Sorry Mr. Webb. Also, after reading all the blogs, my opinion still stands. I think that we are being protected and that's all that counts. So I guess I just want to take this time ask some ethical questions and say what I would do then get some responses and hopefully do a third blog(gotta get those nine points).
So let's say your name is Lucious Fox and you work for a billionaire playboy who also happens to be a masked vigilante who beats up bad guys. Then let's say there is a particularly nasty bad guy who may or may not paint his face like a clown, but that's beside the point, and this bad guy is causing utter chaos. So your boss/masked vigilante puts a whole bunch of money into, what he calls a "government telecommunications" project. But later you find out that he gets his own machine that moniters every phone in the city and turns it into a form of sonar so that he can use them all in order to catch this crazy chaotic criminal before he kills anybody else and he wants you to be the guy manning the machine and telling him where to go and where to find the bad guy. What do you do? Now think about this one for a second. Sure you have no problem being listened to, have so many of you have stated, because you have nothing to hide and you know it is for the greater good to catch this bad guy. But now you have to sit there and listen in on other people, you have the weight of all there secrets and knowledge of almost everything in the city. You might say you will just disregard all that and just focus on the bad guy at hand, but what if you're doing this and you come across something else bad. A robbery, a rape, a murder. Then what? Do you tell your boss/masked vigilante or will that just worry him more than he already is? He can't save everyone. So you just have to let other bad things happen to catch one guy. So now what do you say? Would you still do it?
I personally wouldn't do it. I just couldn't have that on my conscious. It's a lot of weight. The reason why I am asking this is because we have sat here talking about how we the public feels about maybe being watched, but what if you were a watcher, I mean that person is an American citizen too and I think it will be interesting to hear some people's responses if they all already haven't done their three posts. If so then I am out of luck. And sorry Mr. Webb for not having qoutes and stuff their just wasn't anything about this and I just wanted to hear something different. Anyway, this has been Stephen K W saying goodnight and good luck.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Steven K’s question intrigued me, “Do you tell your boss/masked vigilante or will that just worry him more than he already is?”. I would want to report the crime that I heard when I was wire-tapping, but the FBI does not report the small crimes they hear, they only report issues that will affect the entire country. If the FBI did report every crime they heard that did not deal with what they were looking for, crime rates would drop dramatically. In David Moberg’s “Will the Feds Be Watching You?” he says, “The FBI, for example, is unable to manage the data that it already collects, and vast new snooping powers would simply overwhelm law enforcement agencies with information they couldn't analyze”. They would be able to save more lives if they reported everything, but it is impossible to tend to every crime they hear. They have to prioritize which is more important the individual’s life or the lives of the entire country. Obviously the FBI would pick the lives of the entire country.
Even though the FBI is allowed to invade our privacy to save our lives should the police have the same opurtunities since they are working to save the individual’s life? If the police could have the same rights as the FBI I am sure more people would be against the government invading our privacy because we have an amendment for this. Amendement four of the United State’s Constitution says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. People would be enraged if the police suddenly came into their houses and tore it apart without a search warrant. For this particular case I can not say that I would not mind someone I do not know invading my privacy even if it was for the greater good of something. The reason I do not mind the government invading my privacy and do mind if the police invaded my privacy is because I do not even know the government is invading my privacy when I text or call someone, but with the police I actually am directly effected by them invading my privacy. I guess I am still willing to give up my privacy somewhat, but not if my privacy is completely taken away.
Moberg, David. “Will the Feds be watching you?” In These Times Magazine Oct. 2001. www.thirdworldtraveler.com. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Police_State/Will_Feds_Watch_You.html >.
Citation = (Moberg)
In Stephen K's situation, one too similar to the "Dark Knight", I would feel guilty or bad to be spying on people. If I were an FBI agent who had to listen in all the time for my job, I would have a hard time sleeping at night. The only way I would feel good about it is if I prevented a major threat from occurring, which is probably very rare for an agent to find.
Also, Whitnee N W brings up an excellent point when she said, "FBI does not report the small crimes they hear, they only report issues that will affect the entire country". This is a great reason why people should not be so worried about wire tapping because even if they are cheating or trying to hide something. It probably will not be reported unless it is a major crime.
Now, the U.S. citizens rely on technology such as cell phones, credit cards, and other things the government uses to watch or track people. If there are terrorist coming from the middle east or other third world countries, they will probably not use technology as much as the average American citizen. They have learned to live without that technology and depend on other methods of living. If we cannot get a terrorist on a phone, we cannot catch them. And if they are living in the country will they be caught? Every one is saying that the tapping and bugging saves lives, but has it actually stopped any attacks? Is it just the intimidation and fear that the government is always watching that prevents terrorists from trying to plan another attack? Will the people ever know how well these operations are working? David Moberg stated, "Law enforcement agencies have not effectively used the powers they already have". This makes me wonder if the government will use this new power efficiently enough to stop terrorism. We all want to believe the government is doing everything they can to protect us, and hope that no more attacks occur. But can we be sure?
Moberg, David. “Will the Feds be watching you?” In These Times Magazine Oct. 2001. www.thirdworldtraveler.com. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Police_State/Will_Feds_Watch_You.html >.
The topic being discussed by Stephen K and Whitnee N is a very interesting one. Stephen brings up a different perspective on the wire tapping issue. He says, “What if you were a watcher, I mean that person is an American citizen too . . .” (Stephen K). This is a very good point that has been so far overlooked. Stephen K mentions that he would not be able to wire tap peoples phones if he was not able to stop every problem. This makes sense, but are the people who tap our phones really that noble?
The people who listen in on our calls choose to do it. I am sure they get paid a large sum of money to sit and listen to calls all day, and that, in some ways, seems like an enjoyable job to me. Some previous blogs have discussed the sterotypes of the middle-aged, fat guy that gets paid to “spy” on us. If I was a middle-aged, fat guy, I would certainly enjoy sitting around with nothing to do but listen to other peoples phone calls, especially if I was getting paid for it. That doesn’t mean that I am going to graduate high school and go apply for a job as a wire tapper, but people are generally lazy, and most people would find that type of job appealing. Stephen K would choose not to tap our phones, but everyone is different. I am not saying that there aren’t people like Stephen in the world, but we must realize that not all government officials are like that. They are not being forced against their will to listen in on our calls. They freely choose to do it, even though they cant fix every problem.
I would like to share a personal experience on the topic of airport security. I recently went to Mexico for a mission trip. After you get your bags, you have to go through more security to leave the airport. They have machines where you have to push a button, and a light turns on. If the light turns green, you can keep walking and leave the airport, but if it turns red you have to hand over all your bags so they can search them. This is a completely random search. The push of a button determines whether or not your bags have to be searched. To me, this is a lot like wire tapping. As I have stated in my previous blog, and as Alexandra M has developed, wire tapping is completely pointless. The government is randomly choosing wires to tap, just like the machines in a Mexico airport chooses bags to search. There is a very slim chance that the people the machines choose have something dangerous in their bags, just like there is a slim chance the people being wire tapped have something to hide. Isn’t there a better way of finding terrorists than to simply choose random lines to tap?
Okay, I have to say that Stephen K. gave us the best example for this topic. When he said, “You might say you will just disregard all that and just focus on the bad guy at hand, but what if you're doing this and you come across something else bad. A robbery, a rape, a murder. Then what? Do you tell your boss/masked vigilante or will that just worry him more than he already is? He can't save everyone. So you just have to let other bad things happen to catch one guy. So now what do you say? Would you still do it?” I have to point out that that’s probably the main reason they destroyed the machine. It’s power was to great, and the guilt that he would have left from not being able to help everyone who needs it would be to great. It’s that kind o guilt that can drive people over the edge, Such as in the TV show, “Supernatural”. Sam and Dean go around the United States trying to save people from ghosts and other abnormal things. But every time, there are always people who die. And in almost every episode, Dean says, “we can’t save everyone Sammy”.
It’s the way that the government is trying to protect us that reminds me of Dean’s words. Things like wire tapping, searching library records, and that MALINTENT device are just ridiculous. It’s like they really are trying to save everybody from everything. But usually, there might not even be any evidence of harmful intentions from a person until it’s too late. Like, say a upstanding role model of a man losses his job, then his wife leads him. He goes up to his bedroom and pulls out the gun from the bedside dresser. After that, he goes to a bank, holds everyone hostage, and ends up hurting lots of people. Who would have suspected? No one. You could tap his phone all you want, check his library records, anything. But you won’t find out until it’s too late. People just snap sometimes.
But then again, some people are born crazy. Like, as Stephen said, “ a particularly nasty bad guy who may or may not paint his face like a clown”. If the FBUI can manage to locate those kinds of people. Go for it. But out of the billions of people in the U.S. I doubt those few lunatics would be so easy to spot. Instead, they’ll haul in the poor kid trying to do a report on the Columbian Drug War before his library records were checked.
While responding to Stephen K's post, Whitnee N said, "I would want to report the crime that I heard when I was wire-tapping, but the FBI does not report the small crimes they hear, they only report issues that will affect the entire country". What is the definition of a "small issue"? Is it "a robbery, a rape, a murder" like Stephen K mentioned? Just because the issues the government may come across while wire tapping may not impact the entire country, does not mean they are not important. They may impact a state, city, community, neighborhood, or even a family. Personally, the government should report crimes whether they impact the society as a whole or just a community. But will they? Why not report the murder at the corner gas station, if they discover information about it? Obviously, crimes happen all the time, and only a small percentage of people would actually call someone regarding it. The government cannot report every little crime that happens, but the crimes are still hurting someone. If they spend time invading privacy by doing library checks and wire taps, they should use that information whether or not it is a terrorist attack or not. Honestly, if the government has the technology, why not use it for smaller matters as well as larger ones?
I believe that Katie w summed up exactly what my jumbled thoughts have been trying to express.
She has stated that "our society would be completely dangerous and out of control. Without anyone having to worry about being caught stealing, plotting bomb threats, or getting caught with illegal drugs, people would take that freedom to an unsafe level that would be putting every person’s life at risk." I completely agree. When people know that something is wrong but there is no punishment or nothing in their way to stop them from doing anything illegal then why not do it. People have a tendency to wonder why they are being held back from doing something; this curiosity leads them to actually doing it. Especially if there is nothing stopping them. As Katie said, if we didn’t have someone looking over our shoulder and monitoring what we do then people would believe that we can do whatever we want, therefore, causing mass chaos. It is good to limit people or else things would get way out of hand.
Also she has said, "I believe that privacy is a privilege, not a right whatsoever. Privacy has to be earned." Again, I agree. You have to earn privacy and prove that you deserve to keep it. You have privacy until you show in some way that you don’t deserve to have it. If you have shown or lead the government to question your privilege to privacy then they have the right to investigate what you have kept private. This will keep people out of harm’s way.
To sum everything up Katie said, "Freedom should be allowed to a certain point, but prevention is more important and that is why I am completely fine with the fact that the government may be 'invading our privacy.'"This is how I feel. We have rights to a certain point but if they need to be sacrificed for our own security and safety then I am willing to allow my privacy to be invaded.
On the topic of wire tapping again as Stephen k said “What if you were a watcher, I mean that person is an American citizen too . . .” I agree that I would want to solve all problems but would you rather solve a million little problems that just affect a few people? Or would you rather find a big issue that could affect hundreds of people and solve that? I’m not saying that the little things aren’t important too but sometimes they need to be put aside in order to find and solve the big issue.
There are many ways that privacy is being “invaded”. Everyone invades other people’s privacy and may not think we are, or think that we are helping. Maybe people need to concentrate on their selves rather than everyone else and we might just find that it solves some problems.
Many have stated that invasion of privacy is being done to protect citizens, but what about in cases where it is not for the better? The article “Invasion of Privacy: Watching Big Brother Watch You” by John Loeffler discusses the global spy satellite called Echelon. Echelon is used by the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia which means that it is not only Americans that need to worry about their privacy. Loeffler says, “The satellite system uses monitoring bases in those countries and ‘sweeps’ the radio spectrum worldwide, eavesdropping on phone calls, faxes and emails.” It doesn’t target one person; it targets every person on earth. This shows that people cannot hide their personal life from anyone. I believe citizens of these countries feel afraid and are forced to watch their actions more carefully.
After sweeping “The system then uses a network of super-computers maintained by the National Security Agency (NSA) to filter the data . . . looking for keywords, voiceprints, or particular telephone numbers that are of interest to the Echelon governments or some of its allies” (Loeffler). Everyone’s words are up for judgment by strangers; this includes businesses and government officials. I don’t believe this information is used only to protect citizens because it can be valuable to other countries. We can’t be sure that allies won’t use it against another. Going back to personal conversations, it doesn’t matter if it is a stranger that hears, it is the fact that someone hears. This technology is absolutely unnecessary and its advancement is a bit frightening. What’s next, cameras that document a person’s every move?
Loeffler, John. "Invasion of Privacy: Watching Big Brother Watch You." Personal Update News Journal April 2000 12 Oct 2008
The HTML won't be accepted as a tag.
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2000/213/
I would like to comment upon the most recent discussion that was brought up by Stephen K. and the question of whether or not the “watcher” should report EVERY issue found by monitoring phones, internet, libraries, etc. Although I agree with Stephen K, Will J, and Whitnee N on the fact that it would be hard to live with myself knowing that not reporting a “small issue” could affect just ONE individual’s life for the worst; we have to look at this issue in reality.
In Zara Gelsey’s “Who’s Reading Over Your Shoulder,” she confidently states, “Giving up privacy rights can't guarantee physical safety, but it will almost certainly inhibit intellectual freedom and limit cognitive liberty.” She is completely right. We will never be guaranteed 100% safety. It just won’t happen. And yes, our freedom is becoming limited. However, it is because of previous actions and events that this is happening. We live in a country where technology is so advanced that the crimes are becoming easier to catch, but this technology is also making it easier for these criminals to perform these crimes. This is America and we are humans. Crimes are inevitable wherever you go, no matter how advanced the government is or what types of systems have been invented. No matter where the place, or how nice the environment it. There will always be those types of people in our society that need to be doing something illegal. It is literally impossible to catch every crime that occurs, while at the same time allowing us the freedom that “America” is known for. Therefore, from the point of view of the “watcher,” yes, it would be very difficult to ignore an issue that could eventually turn into something worse, but it is beyond anybody’s control to prevent EVERYTHING from happening. Just as Whitnee N expresses, “They would be able to save more lives if they reported everything, but it is impossible to tend to every crime they hear. They have to prioritize.” Prioritizing is the key. It is sad that our world has come to the point where the government has to prioritize safety, but there is nothing else they can do. They are doing the best they can with what they’ve got, and it is up to their judgenment to prioritze in the most effective manner.
It is depressing, but its reality. As much as we want to believe that there will one day be a machine that will allow the government to prevent every crime—big or small—it is impractical. Therefore, when Stephen stated, “He can't save everyone. So you just have to let other bad things happen to catch one guy,” he was correct. Our government is not made up of super-heros. They are people just like you and me. The only thing that seperates the “watcher” from you and me is the fact that invading the privacy of people is his job; not ours. They don’t just pick random people to be a part of the government; in fact, the people working for the government are very smart and trained well in their jobs. They have a very stressful job that includes making decisions that effects the safety of millions of people, but in the long run, I think we have to give them respect, credit, and trust. After all, they are doing it because they care about our country and its safety.
"The FBI Is Reading Over Your Shoulder"
Gelsey, Zara. “The FBI Is Reading over Your Shoulder.” counterpunch.org. 17 July 2002. Counterpunch Magazine. 9 Sept. 2008 < http://www.counterpunch.org/gelsey0717.html >.
Kristen T and Alexandra M seem to be mostly a minority on this blog. They state their opinion in saying that the wire-tapping and such is pointless. With all respect to these two I must say one thing—so what? Now I realize this may seem a little bit blunt but stick with me for just a moment. Let us assume (remember this is not necessarily a completely accurate representation of the real deal) that the wire-tapping is in fact completely random. Let us also assume that like Kristen T’s experience in the airport, the selection is completely random. Thus, the wire-tapping is completely pointless. The chances of this random selection turning up a terrorist are not very optimistic; however, what if these privacy-invading endeavors served a purpose other than to locate terrorists and their buddies. Many people are employed with the FBI’s wire-tapping, library record reading, etc. Many Americans are complaining about the growing unemployment rate. Eliminating wire-tapping positions would only add fuel to this economic crisis. We can argue all we want about our personal privacy but the bottom line is that the government does not give a care in the world if Susie Citizen is upset that an FBI agent can hear her conversation with her mommy. The government is concerned with the United States as a whole and must look not only at the privacy issue alone but how these endeavors seep into the economy and every other facet of American government. So even if it did absolutely nothing in fighting terrorism, it still is not completely pointless.
One issue I have seen neglected on this blog is the issue of privacy at school. In our student handbooks we clearly see that the school has no reservations in searching a students locker, backpack, etc. if a situation warrants it. The question Mr. Webb asked was “should school be able to search locker backpack pockets cell phone texts?” The simple answer is yes, but the reasoning is far more important. In a school, the number one priority is safety. Yes learning is crucial as well but the education means nothing if a student is killed or injured. Unfortunately, we are all too aware of the fact that a teenager is no less immune to violence than a full-grown adult. Through past experiences we have learned that security is essential in a school’s success. Now in no way am I saying that students should have to carry see through bags and display for the world everything they bring to school, but I am a firm believer that any school authority figure has every right to search a students locker, backpack, and even pockets. Why in the world would I want someone rummaging through my things and invading my privacy? On one level, I absolutely wouldn’t, but on another, I would hope that if a situation ever arises in which a teacher or administrator has reason to believe that my safety is being compromised by another student, that they would search him or her as well.
In her latest blog Lisa M. talked about the wire tapping by government officials not only being to find terrorists, but to give the unemployed jobs. Invading the privacy of citizen should be something that is allowed, if need be and there is a good reason to do so. It should not be allowed just to give someone that is unemployed a job. That is ridiculous. If wires really are being tapped I hope it is for a reason, not just a plan for unemployment. Does that really make sense? Johnny sit right here and listen in on these people’s conversations for money. No. That should not be how it is and I hope it is not. Unemployment and the economy in America are issue, but that is a completely different thing than what the issue we are discussing. If the government wants an unemployment program, then something like the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) should be developed, not a wire-tapping unemployment program.
I would also like to touch on the Stephen K’s question about the masked vigilante. He asks, “Do you tell your boss/masked vigilante or will that just worry him more than he already is? He can't save everyone. So you just have to let other bad things happen to catch one guy. So now what do you say?” Whitnee N. discussed that the government should prioritize and not report all crimes they heard of. Contrary to what everyone says, I have to say I disagree. Everyone’s life is important. Everyone should have a chance to be saved. If a government official is wire-tapping a phone and they tune into a phone call from a woman, whose husband is trying to murder her, and her friend and he doesn’t report it. You are saying that is right? A little girl is kidnapped, sexually assaulted, and murdered. The creep that did it calls his friend to tell him what he did and an FBI agent hears this, but doesn’t report it. Is that still right? What if that little girl is your cousin, your baby sister, or even you? Would you not want someone to report that? It is a crime in itself to not report a crime. Like a hit and run. I agree with Katie when she states, “We will never be guaranteed 100% safety”. That is absolutely agreeable because we do not live in a perfect world. But shouldn’t we be trying to prevent as many crimes as possible? So if there is a chance to save just one more life, then someone should report it. Our country does need to be safe, but in order for that to be possible, we need to worry about the crimes that are committed inside our country between citizens, as well as crimes that are committed against us. Simply ignoring an individual crime because it does not have to do with our whole country is wrong.
Civilian Conservation Corps. 18 August 2004. Sublette. 12 October 2008. http://www.sublette.com/history/ccc/
Lisa M brings up a good point when she brings up privacy in schools. She says " I wiould hope that if a situation ever arises where a teacher or administrator has reason to believe my safety is being compromised by another student that they would serch him or her..." I am of the same opinion. Yet it is basically along the same lines right? A single person, a whole family, a community, America in general wants to be safe.The problem is there are many citizens who think that the less the government knows about them the safer they will be. That is totally understandable. Anominity is an instict, and it is used every where. Some kids go through high school desperately trying not to get noticed, and the idea that anyone would search their bag or car and find a tampon or batman magazine is mortifying to them. Others have more important reasons to be hiding something. Even parents telling their children not to give out personal information falls under that anonymous factor. Marisa L states " I dont believe this information is only used to protect citizens because it can be used for other countries." This is also a valid point. With the technology these days someone could hack into the CIA system, Transformers style, and steal all those phone converstions, emails, and credit card lists and target all those people. Hence the fear of the government knowing to much. What America, large companies, small businesses, schools, even homes, strive for is that balance betwenn "big brother", the teachers, the bosses, knowing to much and not knowing enough, and the problem is, there is no way to regulate that much knowledge into categories.
I am really glad to see people blogging on my hypothetical questions and I think that everything that has been stated is really interesting and great ideas. Like with what Whitnee N W said: "They have to prioritize which is more important the individual’s life or the lives of the entire country." This is more or less a very true statement. But I believe it was Breanna C W who brought up that I was implying that things like rape and murder were small crimes, which wasn't what I was getting at. No crime is small, something will always effect someone in a big way, but what I was simply getting at was the fact that if you were a government official doing this and you came across something like that happening how would you handle it and would you be able to deal with things like that possibly weighing down on you and always knowing that you could have done something about it? That's all I was saying. Now when it comes down to choosing which crimes to do something about and which ones not to do something about or "prioritizing" as Whitnee N W says, you simply can't do that. I mean you could classify crimes as more important or less important, but your not going to get to them all. Like I said before, you can't save everyone. So you just have to do them randomly. You win some you lose some. That's the bottom line. And it's going to be tough, you will probably have a lot of things on your mind, but that's why we hire these people to things like this, they are trained and know what to do. So when Katie W W says we should respect them, she is right. Stop complaining people, you have nothing to complain about. Your life is more or less fine. Let the government protect us, let them do their job. They will always be the outcasts, they will make the choices we can't make, that's why we leave it up to them. This has been Stephen K W saying goodnight and good luck.
This topic has brought up many interesting opinions. Yes wire-tapping in this country is a very interesting subject to talk about, as many of others have clarified on, but my question is are they really doing that or is it just a rumor to scare people into being more cautious about what is happening in this world?
Stephen k, Whitnee W, Kristin T, and many others have discussed many reasonable answers and opinions on wire-tapping and whether or not you should tell people about these incidents you hear. Yes there are many different answers to this, but on the other hand you really don’t know. You don’t know the facts all you know is that the government is trying to get some “bad guys,” you don’t know how they are doing it. Stephan K uses the cell phones to try to find the where-bouts of a bad guy, but that’s just a story nothing more than just an idea of what the government might be doing.
If I had to be that person listening in on private conversations then I would want to tell about every situation that I hear, whether it is a student being raped or a bank being robbed by someone they never suspected. This country is not perfect and if I had to take a job like tapping phones I would not because it would blow my mind of what this world really is.
Naomi N said that privacy might “just a rumor to scare people into being more cautious about what is happening in this world.” That is an interesting point but I doubt the government would come up with a “rumor” to scare people. We are always suspicious of the government and a little kooky when it comes to what “the government” (what stereotypes come to mind with that phrase?) is doing but I don’t think we should worry about it just being a flat-out rumor. What it might be is exaggerated, as stated in several posts before it is impossible to keep track of every person in the United States. So maybe the exaggeration may give people a little more of a paranoid perspective but it’s not like a rumor of any kind.
Personally I actually don’t think wire-tapping would be that exciting of a job. If anything I think a person would get more personal “hi how’s it going” conversations than “a student being raped or a bank being robbed by someone they never suspected” (Naomi N). Maybe once in a while you’d hit one like that but overall it would be rather boring sitting in an office tapping random people. Even if a person tapped into suspected people probably a lot would turn out to be just fine. Besides, who would report the “suspected people”? The general public, police, military or other government officials? And if they were suspected they would probably be interrogated heavily by police rather than bother tapping their phone because if you knew who they were there’d be no need. Another point is how high a crime would it have to be for a wire-tapper to report it? Could it just be someone who plans to go streaking at the Broncos game or does it have to be a suspected rapist or serial killer? I doubt the government would care about the lesser crimes but honestly where does the bar stop?
On another completely off-the-record note, in a much earlier post Samantha S stated as to how people perceive privacy: “But don’t most people understand this concept? Even us as bloggers are able to understand that the government is not going to start reading our blog, or tap into our phone conversations unless they have a reasonable cause.” Obviously some people think the government is listening to every little intimate conversation they have or this blog would not exist and privacy would not be such a topic. Even on this blog there are people who are supportive of privacy over security (although at this point they are incredibly scarce—as the blog progressed there were less and less). There are people out there who probably disagree with the government invading our right to privacy simply because it came about during the Bush administration or the way the phrase sounds as I discussed earlier. There will always be people standing on the pro-privacy side of the fence and I don’t think they are necessarily less than the majority. I know that was an older post but I wanted to address that.
I feel stubborn tonight, so I am going to play the devil's advocate seeming as we have all basically reached the same conclusion and it's become atrociously boring. I get it: safety first, privacy later.
To begin my blog I would like to borrow Kristin T's approach: a personal story. As you may or may not know, my last name is Martinez. So of course my family in particular has trouble flying anywhere near America's Southern-most border (even though we're of Spanish descent and not Mexican, but that's an entirely different argument.). For example, I have flown to Texas three different times in my life-- once at the age of eight, again at 12, and most recently at 15-- and while getting through Denver's security poses little difficulty, flying back home is another story. Every single time I have gone through the security of Texas to come back to Colorado, my last name has gotten me pulled aside for "random screening." Interesting. If I'm batting three for three, how is that random? Because the last time I checked, the percentage that can be considered "random" wasn't 100. Another example of how un-random the "random screenings" really are involves my father. While him and my mother were dating, her family extended him an invitation to a vacation in Mexico for Spring Break. Now my mom's maiden name is Brown, and this caused all of hell to break loose. The trip was great, the food was great, the hotel was great, and the airport was great at trying to leave my dad in Mexico. All that they saw was a family of Browns traveling with one Martinez. Suspicious? To them yes, but to the rest of the world probably not. I mean my family has a hard enough time convincing people that our pale, white skin is anything more than white, but in this country where everything is terribly judgmental and paranoid, my dad was just another border-hopper. So my point here is this, our right to privacy is a joke. We barely have any in our own country (Texas) and it's completely out the window once we cross a border (Mexico). And if people like me-- who have been citizens their whole life-- can't even travel within' their homeland without being a suspect, what have we really accomplished with a safer country? How do I know that because of my last name I'm not being screened everyday? My cell phone is probably tracked, my reading habits are assuredly monitored, and even buying an Arizona Iced Tea at Conoco is suspicious. So don't think that just because you're innocent doesn't mean Big Brother isn't watching you. The most illegal thing I've done in my life doesn't out-weigh any another teen with, say, the last name "Smith", but do you see a Smith getting pulled aside as the age of eight? Of course not. At eight years old I became nervous of airports! What has this country come to if they have children pulling off their shoes at DIA and having them spread-eagle with a metal-detector between their legs for the world to see? It's truly a mortifying, and demeaning experience for anyone-- nonetheless a kid who just wants to see The Alamo and Shamu. Safety shouldn’t just be for people of a certain decent. If America truly is a melting pot where races have come to be equals, why do minorities still get screened more frequently? Harris and Klebold were two pissed-off white kids and no one tracked their receipts, but my dad who buys a new knife for his birthday gets checked-out like crazy. It is absolutely ridiculous the amount of profiling that goes on in this country. It is an invasion of my privacy, and it does not make me feel safe. How safe can one possibly feel when just because of their last name they are the only student who gets pulled aside on a school field-trip to San Antonio? Not very. The security in this country has gotten way out of hand and while it may catch a few bad guys, you people are all disregarding the good guys that get locked-up too. There are innocent victims sitting in prison due to our flawed system. There are families that are screened on a daily basis. And there are perfectly white, perfectly dangerous criminals who are building bombs in basements and shooting up high schools. If you’re going to give everyone a right to privacy, give EVERYONE a right to privacy. And if this country is going to be made “safe” by “random screenings”, how safe can it even be? If eight-year-ole Savannah Martinez is busy getting screened, then 25-year-old John Smith is casually smuggling a pipe-bomb. I have a right to privacy. Let me have it.
Also, all of the sources are boring. Sorry Webb.
Savannah M questions “What has this country come to if they have children pulling off their shoes at DIA and having them spread-eagle with a metal-detector between their legs for the world to see?” People have to understand that not every child is completely innocent. Some adults brainwash children into believing something is safe because they assume that they will be able to get away with it. That’s why at the airport they do treat every age the same, taking the same precautions. Now as for race, I do believe that many people are judged walking into the airport. Once again its for precaution because it has happened before and now we are observant of it. Eight years ago anyone could walk in from any race and security would not assume anything. This is also the same concept for when Savannah mentions that Eric and Dylan did not have their reciepts looked at. Who would have known that two teenage boys would have the mentalilty to even think of shooting up a school? Since then, principals, teachers, other students, and even parents are a little more observant in what their child is doing. It has happened once, they know the precautions, and now they are able to look out for it. If something drastic did not happen, no one would be able to know what to look out for and what not to look out for.
I also want to comment on Will J’s questions. He asked if people not using technology would be caught if they lived in our country. There is always a chance of getting caught. People talk, its how we all live and there are always eavesdroppers, so there is a chance of getting caught, but is it likely? Probably not. People just need to be observant of eachother, and yes it is a violation of privacy if they are stalking someone, but just being an observer is not violating anything. As far as tapping into conversations stopping an attack, there is a good chance that the government has prevented some things from happening. If they never caught anyone or prevented anything, I don’t think they would waste their time on something that is not working. Instead they would try to come up with an idea that will actually work in ensuring the country’s safety. Integirty plays a huge role in people’s choices. Everyone has a line of good and bad, but its what they do when no one is watching to know what a person’s boundaries are. If someone wants to break a law, they are going to do it and there is a good chance they would not think twice about “big brother” listening into his/her conversations, or watching purchases made. That person is just going to go do their own thing, and make their own decisions not caring about what other people will think of them.
I'm glad there was something exciting/ interesting to comment on by the end of tonight for once.
Naomi N made an interesting point when she stated, “You don’t know the facts all you know is that the government is trying to get some “bad guys,” you don’t know how they are doing it”. Since none of us are FBI agents we do not know all the mechanics of what the FBI actually does with the information they get. So maybe they do record what people are saying about the economy like Lisa M believes, but if they do then I would have to disagree with Lisa when she says, “So even if it did absolutely nothing in fighting terrorism, it still is not completely pointless”. It is not pointless, but it defeats the whole purpose. Fighting terrorism and preventing a huge catastrophe from happening is why we let the FBI invade our privacy not to help us get through our economic crisis. We do not need the FBI reporting to our government about how we feel about something, they have something called surveys for a reason. I rather have the FBI taking the time to saving the individual’s life if they know it is in danger, and not taking the time to record conversations of opinions.
I completely agree with Alexandra M when she says, “Everyone’s life is important”. I am sure everyone agrees with her too, but the FBI does not have time for every issue. Like what Stephen K has said: “You can’t save everyone”. This is the reason why I think the FBI should focus on the entire country’s lives not the individual. Do not get me wrong here, I think the individual’s life is important, but we do not need the FBI to take care of them. This is where the police come in handy. They work non-stop to save our lives. If we did not have the police then I would want the FBI to report every crime, but since the police exist we do not need the FBI to do this. The FBI should keep continue to saving the American people’s lives and the police should do the same.
I have two anecdotes to share. The first is somewhat amusing but reinforces what others have said about how ridiculous the government can get. My father is a former State Patrol officer and pilot. On many occasions he would fly prisoners from one penitentiary to another. Once, he was not flying but monitoring the prisoners in the back of the plane. Because of his position the state required him to bring a loaded firearm on board. When he presented the states declaration that he would be carrying this firearm, the security officer preformed the proper protocol and found a pair of nail clippers I had accidentally left in my father’s pocket. When asked to relinquish them, he did so only after commenting on the irony that he had just declared that he was to bring a loaded gun on the plane and that the security officer was concerned about nail clippers. \
The other anecdote is far less comical. Last night I was talking with one of my friends and having a great time when my friend (let’s call him Bob) noticed his brother was watching the same you tube clip over and over again. When we confronted the brother (we’ll call him Jim) he merely rewound the clip and allowed us to watch behind him. For twenty minutes he had been watching a clip of the attacks on nine eleven. The clip was of people jumping off of the fiftieth story of the building after the plane hit. Bob immediately ordered Jim to stop watching the clip. We never really found out why Jim was so fascinated with the clip, but it scared Bob immensely. My mind immediately came back to this blog and the concept of “big brother” watching what we read and write. This computer record would definitely be concerning to the FBI, but in reality, it was a little kid. It really showed me how skewed the prospect of stereotyping people based on reading or viewing habits can be, but it also showed me how we can use what people watch or read to tag those who might be concerning.
Another topic that has not been very popular is the cameras in London. Americans are so concerned with our privacy and how put-upon we are that our government can legally eves-drop, but in reality our government is fairly conservative in comparison to the rest of the world. Marisa L brought up the satellites in Australia, and Mr. Webb tells us in the introduction to this blog about the security in London. If America were to implement cameras in major US cities, how would Americans react? One reason that people fear religion is the concept that someone is always watching you. The whole concept of an all-knowing all-powerful God is intimidating because people feel as though they can never escape from his all seeing eyes. If the government were to put up cameras in American cities, citizens would be less than thrilled. It would be the same basic aforementioned feeling of always being watched. Now realistically people would be able to escape these things quite easily by going to their own homes but Americans always exaggerate everything.
My final thought is this; privacy is a privilege. In many countries there isn’t even enough space to have privacy. Even in America you are lucky if you have your own room and space. When our government intrudes just a little bit into this privacy in order to keep us safe, we should not be complaining about the loss of privacy but thankful for the increased security. Parts of the world live in constant fear of war, terrorism, and injustice every day because they experience it so much. Americans are lucky to have a government dedicated to preventing these things.
<< Home