Galliongton on the US News site, you find that his main argument is that most of our communication is already being monitored, and that we would not catch criminals without being monitored. He says we used wiretapping to catch and stop organized crime in the past and that the internet is no different. That criminals and other unwanted people should be monitored for national security and the safety of the greater population. He also adds that the NSA only uses the gathering information when needed, like when a warrant is presented (Galliongton). He and those like him, believe that security is more important than internet freedom. That is not inherently wrong, and he is far from the only …show more content…
They claim that because there are horrible child porn creating terrorists on the internet, everyone should be watched in case they are one. The Power of Critical Thinking calls that method of thinking a “composition fallacy” (Vaughn 170). The idea is that one cannot create a logical argument by basing what is true of the parts must be true of the whole, and in this case the idea that a small minority of bad people can be watched legally, therefore all people can be watched legally because of the actions of a few. That is not the only fallacy used in that argument as a hasty generalization in which “The drawing of a conclusion about a target group based on an inadequate sample size” (Vaughn 191). It would be like hating all Muslims for the actions of ISIS, or seeing all blacks as thugs because a black guy stole your bike. In this case though, seeing all people as criminal terrorists because of the small minority of people that actually are criminal