On May 12, 2016 the court case Binks/McKay vs the United States challenged the idea of the Fourth Amendment. The case explains the situation between Binks and McKay, who claimed that the FBI violated their Fourth amendment rights when the FBI searched through their Facebook messages after being suspected of being terrorists. This occured when Binks and McKay were discovered to have been communicating with a supposed ISIS member. They had claimed to have no intentions of joining the terrorist group. In this case, Sam and Melanie (petitioners) reminded us that a warrant and reason for searching is a necessity when it comes to violating one’s right to privacy. However, court justices Danny and Nick both asked similarly: “Why do you think that violates their privacy?…
How comfortable would you be with a government having access to your personal information and data on your phone? A recent incident involving a terrorist attack in San Bernardino, sparked a controversy between Apple and the Federal Bureau of investigation. Following the attack by two individuals committed an act of terror, killing 14 people, the iPhone belonging to one of the terrorists was found. As you may know, your organization is requesting the court for Apple's forced assistance in weakening the encryption on an IPhone related to the San Bernardino terrorist attacks and supposedly has vital information on it. These terrorist attacks were performed by ISIS's lone wolves, named Syed Rizwan Farook, who owns the phone and Tashfeen Malik, his wife. In my opinion, the phone shouldn't be cracked for three reasons. First of all because it undermines America's founding principles and it…
The argument being presented in the given piece is the FBI asking permission from Apple to have the ability to access people’s private messages in their apple products. This argument came into conversation after the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California. The author’s claim towards the argument is that the FBI should not be able to have the ability to tap into people’s individual cell phones. Although the FBI’s idea of decoding Apple’s encryption code in order to gain access to tapping into all iPhones under service, it seems that the cons outweigh the pros of this certain situation. However, there has to be a completely different way the FBI can develop a better way to combat terrorism without interfering with all of Apple’s customers.…
La Forest J. statement holds constitutional significance of the right to privacy. In other words, to what extent should the government…
To ensure expressive, associational, and privacy rights are strengthened instead of being compromised by new technology is the goal of the Protecting Civil Liberties and protect the core democratic rights when corporate and government practices that rely on new technology that invades these rights. The government regularly tracks all calls of nearly every common American and spy on a large number of Americans’ international calls, text messages, and emails. Whistle blower Eric Snowden, a contractor with NSA, willfully and knowingly exposed the government’s most sensitive surveillance techniques without authorization and the most fundamental rights as individuals. The ACLU has been fighting for over 12 years to end government surveillance’s lack of oversight that allows it to invade the rights and lives of millions of Americans. When the case against mass surveillance reached the Supreme Court several years ago, was dismissed due to lack of sufficient evidence of the secret programs. Leading the way, the ACLU’s struggle to rein in the surveillance superstructure which strikes at the core of our privacy rights, freedom of speech and association will continue. ("ACLU: National…
I chose to focus my analysis on Edward Snowden and his disclosure of classified domestic surveillance documents. When the leak first came out, I was upset at the thought of my privacy being violated by the NSA. However, the feeling dissipated when I considered the protection making that sacrifice affords. The NSA, like many organizations, are sometimes faced with ethical dilemmas. Occasionally, there is no right answer. Thus, the decision made, while not ideal, is the lesser of evils. In his TED talk interview, Snowden stated, “Your rights matter because you never know when you're going to need them” (TED, 13:20). While I admit his statement did trigger the reexamination of my stance, I arrived at the same position. Perhaps, I will look back…
Rubel, Alan. "Privacy and the USA Patriot Act: Rights, the Value of Right, and Autonomy." Law and Philosophy 26.2 (2007): 119-59. JSTOR. Web. 10 Oct. 2011. .…
Thesis: The Patriot Act was established post 9/11 to alleviate a problem with information sharing and surveillance data in the United States. For the sake of national security the government used and abused the peoples rights with the provisions granted by the Patriot Act. This led to the inception of the USA Freedom Act limiting the governments use and attempting to restore the public’s trust.…
The first reason is the Revolutionary War, this was a disagreement between Great Britain and the American colonies. The king himself had created a swamp of new buildings and offices. Hitler swamped and took them out. This is showing the colonies were in need of general searches. The British officers were just trying to received taxed goods. The next reason is Carroll v United States 1925. The United States supreme court was doing warrantless searches through automobiles. This is taking it too far, the US supreme court should not be able to go through somebody's vehicle without a warrant. There is no reasonable suspicion, this is just too far. Allowing Farook's Iphone to be unlocked allowed him to set up a terror attack. He was able to send drivers to locations and set up an attack. Apple took it too far and a chance of unlocking his Iphone to do…
People are losing their privacy rights for their ease and safety of their life by the government and the companies. Moreover, these kinds of governmental actions of using surveillance cameras, tapping phones, and looking through computer activities of people, do not guarantee our safety. People are sacrificing their privacy for their safety, but there are many loop holes in these kinds of methods. I believe people need to question whether it is worth it to give away our privacy rights for their…
On September 11, 2001, terrorists attacked New York City’s World Trade Center towers. This was the first time since the Revolutionary War that America was attacked on its own soil. The attacks were unprecedented, and the government never saw it coming. For millions of Americans an unwanted new world order was coming in the days ahead, where even the most secure places in the country would be placed under tighter security and be in a lockdown type of situation. Because of the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Patriot Act in 2001. Citizen privacy was abridged. The government had increased its ability to intrude on peoples’ private lives. Security policies of the United States were, supposedly, strengthened by being able to wiretap and use various other surveillance techniques without warning or acknowledgement, thereby infringing on individuals’ daily lives and lessening their personal freedom. President George W. Bush signed into law the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act by all means is one of the most debated acts in United States history. That bill was intended to radically increase government powers of investigation and prosecution. From 2001 until now, the debate about the loss of personal liberty and constitutionality continues.…
What is more important to the citizens of America? The right to their privacy and doing what they want as they wish, in private? Or are they okay with the government surveilling every living thing that they do? Through loopholes in the Patriot Act, the government misuses their power by spying on millions of innocent Americans. The people do have rights within the fourth Amendment though. Simplified, it states that Americans have the right to privacy unless there is probable cause. (Kids n.d.) Where do we as Americans draw the line?…
The 4th Amendment is extremely important to our country. This amendment in the United States Constitution provides the right for people to be secure in their own person, paper, and home, protects against unreasonable search and seizures, and states that no warrant will be issued without probable cause. 4th Amendment laws are more strict than any other amendment, and leaves absolutely no wiggle room to allow changes. Despite these strict laws being in place the government is at war with Apple because Apple encrypts everything to make a very good security, and they say allowing the government into people's phones would be against the 4th Amendment. 4th Amendment laws are very important, and should be followed closely. The 4th Amendment helps…
The United States of America has become one of the strongest nations in the world. Through the unfortunate tragedies that have occurred over the years, we as American citizens have overcome these disastrous events together as one. Since the devastating attack on September 11, 2001 America has come to be more precautious, knowledgeable and prepared for what could come our way in the future. Having a new conspicuous perspective the patriot act was established, according to the Department of Justice's their “first priority is to prevent future terrorist attacks”. The USA Patriot Act stands for ‘Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism’. By passing this act it has allowed the government, the NSA as well as law enforcement agencies to lawfully obtain and monitor the privacy of innocent Americans throughout the nation.…
There are ten total parts, or titles, in the patriot act and each one covers a different part of growing the security in America in hopes of stopping terrorism. These titles touch on everything from anti-terrorism funding to the ability to wiretap the phone of any suspected terrorist without getting a warrant first. This has brought up many controversial discussions on whether it gives the government too much power and whether it goes against our constitutional rights. This paper will discuss the contents of The Patriot Act and whether or not it should have been signed into law.…