Individual Rights Vs Public Order Essay

To recap the case of Ciny Jones, the young woman was found strangled in her car outside a grocery store in Centervale. In the past five years, the Centervale Police Department (CPD) has been working countless leads to identify a suspect. Centervale’s Police Department received news in the last year of a DNA sample recovered on Jones’s purse strap connected to a young man by the name of Jason Rivers. Due to prior drug abuse, Jason Rivers was found incompetent to stand trial. After a while, the State Mental Hospital cleared him of substance abuse and was competent to be placed on the docket for trial.

The 4th amendment states, “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.” In the context of the 4th amendment, a search is considered or happens, “when a governmental employee or agent of the government violates an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.” (Ryan) An example of a search under the 4th amendment is forms of searches such as stip searches or visual body searches but they have to be supported by a probable cause and be conducted in a reasonable matter. A seizure of an individual under the 4th amendment means or happens , “when the police's conduct would communicate to a reasonable person, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the encounter, that the person is not free to ignore the police presence and leave at his will.”

It gives us a broad view of how devious our government can be towards their private situations. One of the main consequences that government faces as a result of their secrets is the distrust they receive from America today. Our government can asks us to participate in their desire to know more of us but refuses to inform us with the truth. Instead of giving up our rights to our government we should be protecting them. Therefore, it is absurd that there is even a debate on whether or not we should allow our government to monitor our personal

“...To explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without [going in], the surveillance is a search and is...unreasonable without a warrant” (Doc F). As the government searches homes they begin to forget about warrants and why they are needed. They also forget that there are only four reasons when they can search or seize in a situation. The four reasons are “ hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, permission of suspect” (Background Essay). These are some of the only reasons why law enforcements can search or seize without a warrant.

The U.S follows a different school of surveillance. Despite the fundamental right to be held “innocent until proven guilty”, it monitors everyone until proven innocent. The status quo could of course damage America’s long known liberties granted by the Constitution. Recent revelations by whistleblower Edward Snowden, have confirmed that the government is more likely to cross some constitutional lines in the name of national security. “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) regulates the government’s acquisition of any electronic surveillance within the country for foreign intelligence use.

Edward Snowden perfectly sums up the thought process behind the rejection of the mass surveillance: “Privacy isn’t about something to hide. Privacy is about something to protect… freedom of speech doesn’t mean much if you can’t have a quiet space… arguing that you don’t have privacy because you have nothing to hide is like arguing that you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” (Document 2). The point of view is from an ardent Libertarian that has contributed to Ron Paul’s campaign numerous times. Edward Snowden firmly believes in the right to self.

Living in America is a privilege considering all of the rights we, U.S. citizens are given. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of press, trial by jury, right to bare arms, right to vote and so many more basic things people should be given. But back in the colonial era the colonists didn’t have any of these rights that they thought were “unalienable rights” meaning every person should have them and they can't be taken from us, so they fought for those rights. And because of this war we now have so many rights that we take granted of every day and love. Some of these important rights also include the right to a capitalistic economy and a fair chance at wealth and gain.

The conception of the surveillance program was an attempt to protect the american citizens from terrorist activity as well as act as a form of counterterrorism abroad in many other countries. These positive aspects of the massive surveillance system show that there is a benevolent practice of surveillance that should be

There are many constitutional implications of government spying programs, one of those being a complete violation of privacy here in the United States. Snowden himself exposed the NSA, as he noted that calls were recorded and various other electronic data were collected on many individuals and kept for future use. There is no denying that the use of spying programs violates an American’s 4th amendment and it often leads to people refraining from posting something controversial due to the fear of being watched. Ever since the WikiLeaks documents were publicized, many people feel paranoid, and rightly so. People used to be able to talk, post and do anything they wanted to with complete freedom.

But, should our privacy be more valuable than our nation’s security? Not having a strong secure nation, puts us at risk of having a big terrorist attack happen again and killing hundreds of innocent American citizens. But, for many Americans privacy is also a big important issue and the government taking it away from them in anyway, can be insulting. Going back to the example, of being asked to go through a body-scanner machine at the airport. People, who argue against airport body-scanner machines like, Jay Stanley a privacy expert in the ACLUs Washington office, argue that this is “Giving the government the authority to scrutinize your body is a tremendous invasion of privacy…”

After the gruesome attacks of 9/11, the United States government passed a legislation called the Patriot Act in attempt to cut down on the terror attacks. This act gives the NSA, or National Security Agency, the ability to oversee our actions. The NSA’s approach to surveilling the population is obtaining the information by tapping into technology, such as phone calls, internet pages and searches, and viewing emails and texts. Thus, controversy has triggered due to the fact that these actions are unconstitutional, and much terrorism that remains. The NSA should be greatly altered because they invade the privacy of Americans, unlawfully goes against the constitution, and we lose our rights.

The Fourth Amendment is no unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant, and the right to privacy. I believe this amendment is crucial because without it law enforcement would be able to just walk into our homes unannounced. Take what they wanted and leave. The Eighth Amendments is no cruel or unusual punishment. I think this one is pretty self-explanatory for why it is important.

The NSA or the National Security Agency carries out most of the domestic surveillance in the United States. Before the 9/11 attacks the NSA needed approval from a court, but after the attacks, they were given free reign to copy any data that possibly linked to terrorist activities. This led to many arguments over whether this collection of data was unconstitutional or not. The extent of this surveillance shocked many people; many civil rights advocates thought that this surveillance breached United States citizens’ rights. Because of the threat of domestic surveillance in the United States it should be decreased drastically but not entirely stopped.

Many of us relate democracy with policing, but the reality is that democracy and policing conflict with each other. This chapter explains the difference between democracy and policing. Policing’s decisions are independent and they are made in a quick manner. This decisions need to be immediately.

(Bilton, 2013) Surveillance of search engines permits information to be monitored so that if any hazardous search word like how to make bomb is looked it up several times by someone then it can be identified (Anon, 2014). Also, watching over the public assists police to capture crime suspects so that government organizations can protect national security (mass surveillance 위키피디아) To be specific, after terrible incident occurred in September 11, 2001, government of United States enacted the Patriot Act which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. The act was signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001 in the name of declaring war with terrorism. (위키피디아) The law grants the right to Federal Bureau of Investigation to profile people who fit certain stereotypes so that potential crime and potential terror can be prevented.