Welcome to Tri 2!
According to the Fourth Amendment, "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." This amendment was written and ratified in a very different time - one where there was no internet, no email, no cell phones, etc. There has been a significant dialogue since this summer about what expectations of privacy should we as Americans have and when and when is it not legitimate for the US government to listen/monitor/record our digital communication. Considering the NSA/Snowden scandal answer the following questions:
- Is the NSA violating our 4th Amendment rights and if so whose responsibility is it to rein them in?
- What are examples of governmental actions you find constitutional and what are examples of governmental action you find unconstitutional under the 4th Amendment in the name of national security?
This post is due on Friday, December 13th but the response post isn't due until Friday, January 10th. Please use a minimum of 3 sources. If you don't know where to go I highly recommend going to the Guardian - their reporter Glenn Greenwold broke the Snowden story and they have a lot of coverage.
Good luck and let me know if you need help finding research to back up your opinions.
Labels: 4th Amendment, privacy
posted by maby-keirstead @ 1:44 PM
44 Comments:
The NSA, I’d have to say, is violating the 4th amendment. They are searching, and seizing, unreasonably, without warrant and with quite improbable cause. This has pissed everyone off, and I do mean everyone who is someone. Europe was unscrupulously spied upon, and they did not like that.(3) In fact, I actually rather applaud their reaction. If the United States hits the EU, the EU will hit back, by doing the opposite of what the US wants. That’s the kind of thing I like. Less dramatically, but more of a point, is the fact that large, information-based companies are just about ready to sue the NSA for the information breach.(1) That may be hypocritical, the stealing of information, because both track your data for information on who you are. However, it makes perfect sense that the companies do that. The companies are out to get one thing: Profit. They don’t have to be nice about it. However, the Government is there to protect the people, not sell it to the people, so they do not have as good of a reason to grab Google and friends’ information. It’s the difference between a money-run item and a morally-run item. Frankly, the NSA is not being too moralistic. But then again, the NSA are none too impressive themselves. In fact, some parts are downright laughable. They went on to World of Warcraft, popular internet game, to scout for terrorists.(2) Think about that. Their reasoning was the similarities of communication. They didn’t find any terrorists, no official ones at least. However, they did find some other suspicious characters and reported them. After different NSA groups reported each other for a couple of weeks, the NSA had to form a special group to deal with this kind of internal relations. Think about it. We’ve got what amounts to idiots with lots of money, lots of time, and they are screwing around like a kid on the internet. Except they’re supposed to do a job that earns them plenty of much-deserved hate. Yeah, that’s pretty dang stupid to keep those yutzes and putzes around. As for acts that are unconstitutional or constitutional under the 4th amendment, well, it may not say privacy, but it may as well. I read the entire thing as a privacy clause, minus the word ‘privacy’. If the government wanted to do any searches, they’d need a warrant from a judge, excepting a few cases.
The one exception would be emergency situations, such as imminent threats to human lives. All else, and I’m not buying it. Sorry, but if you found something that wasn’t what you were looking for, the Supreme Court already said that that didn’t count. Even if the law was broken, they’ll need to do a separate investigation for that. In terms of national security, we shouldn’t have this all-encompassing force trying to get everything, as it just leads up to some big Snafu’s. Thing about the internet is that it isn’t like air-space or landmass, because it, by its nature, does not belong to any one country. So, while the constitution has troubles fitting over that, the NSA has more. The NSA can’t try to ‘own’ places, because those places, namely the internet sites, are international, and exempt from US law. Companies can do it, because they can easily be international. The NSA is trying to apply the US to the Internet, and that just is a big nope. National security is about protecting us, not going on the offense. So, the NSA is overstepping boundaries, trying to apply the US law where it doesn’t apply, trying to be more of an offensive shield. They got the offensive part right. Both Europe and Big Business will agree with me on that part. As for a finale, let me say one last opinion peace. We should slash the NSA’s budget and apply it to more useful things for Americans, like that health-care deal that needs some serious help. Sounds like a good idea, no?
(1)http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tech-surveillance-20131210,0,925635.story#axzz2nDUoyYWq
(2)http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/10/world/spies-dragnet-reaches-a-playing-field-of-elves-and-trolls.html?_r=0
(3)http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/26/nsa-surveillance-europe-threatens-freeze-us-data-sharing
I believe that, under the original writing of the fourth amendment, the NSA’s current activity violates the rights guaranteed by said amendment. Specifically, the part about “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” However, I believe that times have changed significantly since the writing of this amendment, and with the introduction of the internet and other mass media, I feel that the amendment should be altered to reflect today’s society. For example, as president Obama said, “Some surveillance is necessary to prevent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, but the agency's activities are constrained in the United States”(1). Therefore, I believe the fourth amendment should be altered to give the government enough surveillance on the country to actively protect it from foreign threats. Also, a fact I feel has been ignored by many Americans, the NSA and the government are not actively trying to harm citizens. I don’t understand why people believe this, as the government stands literally nothing to gain from doing so. The NSA has been pursuing valid targets and has no interest in wasting time on people unlikely of committing acts of terror (2). I have a hard time believing the NSA has the time and resources to read everybody’s emails and texts, and an even harder time believing that they would have any interest in doing so. While I feel NSA surveillance is a good thing, I do believe some regulations should exist, simply so the NSA carries out actions as directed by the government. I think this because there is some evidence the NSA was acting without governmental direction on certain issues (3). I believe that in matters of national security the government is more capable of protecting the people if it has more power. Under the constraints of the fourth amendment, the government should be able to monitor web searches, and if certain phrases such as “bomb construction” are searched, this would be “clear and present danger” and allow the government to look into this situation further. However if this was a false alarm, the government would have no reason or ability to punish this person, so in the end no harm would be done. I feel this is allowed by the fourth amendment because the internet is not specifically owned by any person or country, so technically use of the internet is not protected by the fourth amendment as it was written.
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/14/nsa-contact-lists_n_4099147.html
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/08/nsa-morale_n_4409849.html
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/obama-nsa-reform_n_4394842.html
I believe that if one were to take the fourth amendment with a very strict interpretation of the Constitution, then the NSA's actions are violating the rights protected by it. The amendment protects the right of the American 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" (1). However, I think that because our world has changed drastically since the writing of the Constitution, the amendment should be adjusted to better fit our world's circumstances today. Because of this, I don't think that anyone has a responsibility to necessarily 'rein them in'. While Obama continues to apologize for the actions of the NSA, Republican Congressman Peter King believes that the president "should stop apologizing, stop being defensive. The reality is the NSA has saved thousands of lives not just in the United States but in France, Germany, and throughout Europe" (2). While I would like to have found a few more specific examples as to just how the NSA has done this, I think the Congressman has a point. Most Americans see the NSA spying on them as an imposition on their fourth amendment rights, but I see it as necessary protection. I don't have anything to hide, and it makes me feel much safer knowing that the people that do have something to hide are being placed under surveillance by the government. While I believe that NSA surveillance of the American people is relevant to our government, I disagree with its spying on our allied nations. Although former vice president Dick Cheney claims that these actions are "enormously important to the United States, to our conduct of foreign policy, to defense matters, and to economic matters," (2) I find it hard to believe that spying on the nations that we have allied ourselves with for years improves our safety or economic situation in any way. I believe that the amendment should be adjusted and guidelines put in place so that the NSA works in a way that the government wants it to. One of the present issues regarding the NSA today is that there is evidence that they acted without any direction from the federal government in numerous cases (3). I believe that the government has the right to look further into cases in which specific key words have been searched on computers in the United States. For instance, it's almost a given that anyone searching nuclear bomb construction or other controversial or illegal material does not have good intentions. Anything that has the potential to harm the American people should be looked into. If it turns out to be a false alarm, the United States and the American people will still be better off from a safety standpoint than they were before. Overall, for people that have nothing to hide, NSA surveillance should present no problem.
(1) http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
(2) http://www.politico.com/gallery/2013/10/nsa-spying-15-great-quotes/001396-019825.html
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/obama-nsa-reform_n_4394842.html
The NSA is clearly violating the 4th amendment. The programs and tactics that the NSA is using violate many of the protections that citizens are assured. It seems that now citizens are guilty of terrorism until proven innocent. Through the use of secret courts which judge the secret programs the entire American legal system is being compromised. It is impossible to hold anyone accountable for these programs as they are all considered top secret [1]. This makes it difficult to rein them in. At this point I feel it is too late to rein the government in. There are too many secret organizations within the government that have vast amounts of control. Congress may pass legislation that would try and remove these powerful groups but there is no way for anyone to know if it was followed. The citizens of the United States need to rise up and say enough is enough. We need to stop being complacent and realize that these surveillance programs do affect our lives. I personally am tired of hearing the phrase, “I'm doing nothing wrong, so I have nothing to fear.” That is the wrong thinking. When we go down the path of giving the government more and more power it only takes one bad person to use that power in a horrible way. In fact, the NSA has already abused its power by ignoring the court orders from the secret FISA court and looking up people illegally. Using surveillance techniques the NSA has not stopped one terrorist attack [2]. Even if you have nothing to hide, there are many laws and regulations on the books that you may be unaware of. It should concern you that at any time the government is tracking your cell phone and requesting data from your internet and cell phone providers. It is up to the people to stop this surveillance by stop electing the same Republican and Democrats into Congress.
All of the NSA surveillance programs are unconstitutional. Ranging from the Patriot ACT to PRISM, they all over step their bounds and restrict the privacy of Americans. For example, PRISM goes into user data for Apple and Google. They are also getting information about your browsing and habits [3]. They are also allowed to get data without a warrant [4]. This was made legal through a top secret court. Lets think about this for a second, a top secret court that has zero checks on it is supervising a top secret program that also seems to have no checks. The entire system that our country was founded on is in shambles and people seem fine by it. One might make the argument that since these programs are of utmost national security it is good they are kept secret. However, the NSA has never thwarted a terrorist attack [2]. We are all more likely to die driving to school than in a terrorist attack but yet we are spending billions on surveillance and not driver safety. I would argue the terrorists have won, they have created a culture of fear, eroded our constitution, and helped create an all-powerful government. The terrorists end game was not to kill as many Americans as possible, it was to destroy the US from within. Personally, I would rather have as much freedom as I want and maybe risk dying in a terrorist attack than be watched by a big-brother like program.
Annnnd now I'm on a watch list.
[1] http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323823004578593591276402574
[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/busting-eight-common-excuses-nsa-surveillance
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
[4] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant
I personally believe that the NSA is violating our 4th Amendment rights through their surveillance techniques. That being said, it is a very slippery slope. We are being forced to find a balance between civil liberties and the cost of civilization as we know it, and it is a balance that is proving hard to strike.
NSA Director Keith Alexander said today that "there isn't a better way" to defend the country from potential terror threats than the current tactics they are using (1). I am calling BS on that one. I believe that their is another way of upholding our national security besides unconstitutionally collecting information on millions of unsuspecting Americans. A large problem is that most of us have, unknowingly, granted the federal government and the NSA permission to take and use our personal information however they deem fit (3). By clicking "I agree to the terms of service" button whenever we create social media accounts, we are essentially waiving our right to privacy and granting access to our personal information on the internet. That being said, the fact that we all have "agreed" to these terms probably makes the NSA's access to some of our information constitutional, though I do not condone the way in which they have obtained our permission, by hiding the implications of our agreement behind pages of dense test. However, I doubt these waivers grant the NSA all of the constitutional ground they need to access all of the information that the currently do. I view anything less than fully acknowledged participation in internet surveillance to be an infringement on our rights.
I believe that it should be the federal government's job to rein in the NSA and their abuse of our constitutional rights. This is a difficult demand though, because obviously laws regulating the internet are in their infancy stage and we are still figuring out what the proper thing to do is (2). Since the use of the internet exploded exponentially, it is understandable how we arrived at this quandary. The ability to communicate instantly, and for the internet to hold and process sensitive information, came about long before we began to realize its ramifications. But we can't go back to the past and tame the beast now. I believe that the US government needs to lay down the law and clearly characterize the use of the internet and how our rights are applied to it. Only then will we be able to solve the NSA issue and regain a grasp on our civil liberties.
(1) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/11/alexander-nsa-surveillance-snowden/3989233/
(2) http://www.jmls.edu/directory/profiles/oneill-timothy/pdfs/column_March2011.pdf
(3)http://www.pcworld.com/article/2079183/nsa-caught-with-its-hand-in-googles-browser-cookie-jar.html
Thanks you guys for getting our conversation started! Hopefully others will join you soon! MAK
I think that the NSA is violating our Fourth Amendment rights, and it’s the government’s responsibility to rein them in. The Fourth Amendment protects our privacy rights and it states that the people have the right “ to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” Clearly from the actions from the NSA, it is violating the amendment. Many things have changed since the 4th amendment has been established, so I think that the Fourth Amendment needs to be changed to fit in with today’s society. With an adjustment it will set a more defined standard of our privacy rights along with the growth of technology. I think it’s constitutional when the NSA is carrying out orders from the government, however, there has been evidence that the NSA has been acting without any orders (3). With this evidence it is clear that the NSA needs to have standards on what they can do and when can they access private information. Its constitutional when the government is using private information to spy on any potential suspects who may cause harm to our country when necessary. I also think it’s constitutional for the government to monitor searches with key terms to check if it has any relation to a possible threat. What I had disagreed with government’s actions was spying on European leaders. The NSA was monitoring German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s communications, which ended not too long ago (2). The NSA has also reportedly monitored phone conversations of 35 world leaders (2). The cost from spying on the Europeans has “severely shaken” our relations with many European countries (1). As Angela Merkel has said, “trust will have to be rebuilt” (1). Many of the nations want the US to make a change to its spying actions (1). French President Francois Hollande stated that he wants and “end to these practices and...these monitoring schemes” (1). I understand that the US is spying primarily to tackle terrorist attacks, but I there are limits to when it is okay to spy and when not to. Former Vice President Dick Cheney stated that these actions are “important to the United States, to our conduct of foreign policy, to defense matters, and to economic matters." I do not see spying on our allies as a gain in better security for our country especially when we have been allies for years. I agree with President Francois Hollande’s statement that “people should not fear having their personal data being used” (2). There needs to be some limitations to what information the NSA has the right to access to and they need to follow government orders. The Fourth Amendment was established to protect privacy rights, therefore we need to begin applying the amendment to today’s society to continue protecting privacy rights with the evolution of technology.
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/28/politics/nsa-spying-key-questions/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/world/europe/europe-summit-nsa-spying/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/opinion/slobogin-nsa-spying/
I believe that NSA surveillance violates the Fourth Amendment, and I don’t think any one group or person can be responsible for reining the NSA in. It’s important that the government actively tries to protect citizens against terrorist attacks, but the NSA has overstepped its constitutional boundaries in a number of ways. The NSA collects huge amounts of data and metadata on citizens from a variety of sources and claims that, despite mandates that all data collected from people found to be U.S. citizens be destroyed, they are unable to filter out data from people living in the U.S. or in foreign nations. The NSA has been forcing companies to give the government access to users’ emails and other information, which seems unconstitutional (1). As the ACLU’s principal technologist Chris Soghoian pointed out, you communicate with other people through the postal service and phone companies but you would not expect those companies to be obligated to give that information to the government without a court order or a warrant, so why is this data collection an exception (1)? Further, the “one-paragraph order,” signed by a Fisa court judge to verify its constitutionality, allows the NSA to keep the data of a person proven to be living in the U.S. if it contains “evidence of a crime” (3). To me that seems similar to a cop searching your house for stolen goods and finding drugs and trying to use that as evidence against you in a drug case, which would not be permissible because that evidence would be obtained illegally, as the Supreme Court ruled in Mapp v Ohio. It is also a little disturbing that the NSA has been tracking cell phone locations with the GPS technology installed in most phones (2). Maybe this case doesn’t apply the same way as precedent, but in a case where a government attached a GPS device to a suspect’s car, the Supreme Court ruled that using such technology to track an individual qualifies as unreasonable search and seizure and thus violates the Fourth Amendment (2). There are a few government actions that seem acceptable under the Fourth Amendment that have come up with the NSA scandal, like the unfortunate situation with Lavabit owner Ladar Levison. In search of information about Snowden, who was a user of Lavabit, the government obtained a warrant and ordered Levison to turn over certain information pertaining to Snowden, but Levison refused to comply, arguing that he didn’t want to give out information that would “defeat its own system,” referring to encryptions on Lavabit’s data for security (1). From what I read, the government had a legitimate warrant and followed correct procedure; however, Levison did not comply. There has to be a compromise between safety and privacy, and hopefully we find the solution sometime in the near future.
1 http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/4
2 http://dailyprincetonian.com/news/2013/11/aclu-attorney-speaks-on-nsa-the-fourth-amendment-in-the-era-of-mass-dataveillance/
3 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant
This comment has been removed by the author.
In terms with the Fourth Amendment, the NSA is violating our constitutional rights. The NSA was found conducting “warrantless searches for the phone calls and emails of American citizens (1). I consider this to be a total invasion of privacy. I believe that unless the government has reasonable proof to suspect a person, they should not be tapping their phones. The fourth amendment states that Americans have “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.” (2). Seeing as it directly states in our constitution that the NSA needs probable cause or a warrant, I don’t believe there’s a way around our constitution’s logic. The NSA had information like phone numbers, email addresses, IP adresses, as well as usernames and real names that they used to conduct surveillance (1). while there may not have been telephone or email back during the time of the constitution, I think that both could be covered under security of “papers”, as it is stated in the Fourth Amendment (2). When trying to justify their actions to a senate panel, NSA director Keith Alexander said that their reasoning behind why they did such a mass wiretap was because there was “no other way we know of to connect the dots” (3). I don't think this is a realistic argument because mass data collection could include me and I don't believe my phone calls asking my mom what we are having for dinner are a risk to national security. Alexander also said that the number under surveillance isn’t “that big”, which I find a very vague term and not a solid argument point at all(3). The NSA and president Obama also both stated that there needed to be curbing on some of the NSA’s authority (3). To me that is them saying that they acknowledge that they overstepped their bounds and what they did was not right. They admitted that they violated our given rights, and I wont argue against them.
1.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/nsa-loophole-warrantless-searches-email-calls
2.http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Fourth+Amendment
3.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/nsa-chiefs-keith-alexander-senate-surveillance
If you take the words in the 4th Amendment in a literal and strict sense, then yes, the NSA would be violating the 4th Amendment rights of the American people. They have illegally intercepted US phone calls and emails without warrants (2). And according to internal audits within the NSA, there have been thousands of incidences where they have broken privacy rules and overstepped their authority (3). However, because the world we live in now is vastly different in both technology and foreign relations with the rest of the world from the world the writers of the Constitution lived in, I believe that this is one amendment that needs to be updated. In the amendment, it says that people have the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that warrants need to be specific in what is to be searched (1). This, to me, does not adequately cover the areas of internet, emails, and telephone/cell phone communication. As our world continues to move in the virtual direction, the 4th Amendment needs to be able to keep up and more clearly define what is and is not going to be covered under the privacies guaranteed by the Constitution. As for who should be responsible for reining the NSA in, I would say the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), who is currently in charge of some of the oversight, although Obama has said that there may be some reform needed in order to make sure that the FISC only approves operations that are constitutional (2).
One governmental action that I find constitutional in regard to national security would be to survey known terrorists through phones and other communications, for obvious security reasons. Another governmental action that I would consider constitutional would be if government agencies were to look on web searches or postings on social media sites for key works such as "bomb" and other indicators of potential threats to national security, which would allow the government to act defensively if they needed to in order to protect the nation. What would be unconstitutional, however, is if hits off of the keyword searches turned out to be nothing, or the surveillance of American citizens without ties to terrorists or probable cause. The government should not be able to detain or continue to monitor their activities. Overall, I think the internet is a grey area when it comes to the 4th Amendment since no individual technically owns it. This makes it one area that needs to be specifically addressed in the Constitution, as well as other modern age technologies such as cell phones, in order for the American people and the government to be on the same page about what is and is not covered under the 4th Amendment.
(1) http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/amendment.html
(2) http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-15/world/41431831_1_washington-post-national-security-agency-documents
(3) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsa-privacy-violations-add-fuel-to-the-fire/
I believe that the NSA is violating our fourth amendment rights. The founding fathers wanted to keep the government in check; surely they would not want the government tracking us like they do now (2). It can be interpreted that they would have wanted privacy to be protected even if they could not predict these new technological forms. Even if only “their persons, houses, papers, and effects” were originally protected they surely would have wanted these things digital communications today protected too. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution implies the right to privacy, including the fourth amendment. The Supreme Court needs to go further and redefine the boundaries for our increasingly technological world. Right now, the defense for these encroachments on Americans is the war on terrorism; they are invading our privacy to protect. However, if they are going after terrorists whenever they suspect someone of being a terrorist they should only be able to go after that one person, not the ordinary American. They need to get individual warrants for each suspected terrorist (1). There is a fine line between national security and privacy. As I mentioned before the Supreme Court can help to reign in the NSA. However, it cannot just be them. The government itself has to keep the NSA in check. There have been reports that the NSA was going rogue and did not actually receive orders to spy on Americans (3). If that is the case someone in the government needs to watch them to make sure it does not happen again. Also, Congress can pass legislation to help protect American’s privacy. I find it constitutional for the government to spy on someone who is suspected of terrorism and that they have a warrant for. The warrant should be fairly easy to obtain. I find it constitutional for the government to have the programs that they use to spy, but they can only use them in certain cases. I find it constitutional for the government to have different standards in school and airports with security. I find it unconstitutional for the government to spy on ordinary American’s phones, emails, and other digital communication without probable cause.
(1) http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/8/sen-rand-paul-supreme-court-needs-re-examine-fourt/
(2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matt-sledge/nsa-says-tracking-america_b_4386443.html
(3) http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/12/5200142/end-the-nsa-nightmare
The NSA is definitely violating the 4th Amendment rights guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution. While the Constitution was written long before the digital age, the intent of the amendment is clear: the government cannot violate the privacy of people without probable cause and a warrant that particularly describes “the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (4).” What the NSA has done is in clear violation of this. They have violated personal security by collecting personal information about the communications of citizens, have done so without a warrant, and with no specific intent other than to prevent terrorism (which is really too vague, especially when the NSA has collected cell phone data from millions of Americans) (1). Really it is the responsibility of all divisions of the government to rein in the NSA and help restore constitutionality to the shady sides of government agencies. Courts need to do their job and rule some of this crap as unconstitutional, the Senate needs to continue hearings into this whole issue, the House needs to work on legislation to restrict the NSA and other agencies, and the executive branch needs to seriously step up and take leadership as they have not done so yet (2). Under the 4th Amendment, I would find most of what the NSA has done constitutional if they had proper, transparent court ordered warrants. However, I don’t think the mass data collection the NSA has utilized is under any circumstances constitutional (1). A warrant gives permission for privacy violations with a specific purpose or intent, and because mass data collection is by its very definition so broad, it is impossible to have a specific purpose or intent that applies to all of those individuals. Also, I find many of these privacy violations constitutional in times of war in order to maintain the national defense, but I do not consider a “war on terror” to be a legitimate war that invokes these special wartime privileges. While the NSA may argue that their tactics are necessary (2), I think their tactics would prove just as effective if they were forced to get warrants. It may actually help, as the NSA would be forced to concentrate on the more realistic threats to national security. I seriously doubt that the NSA has stopped any serious threats by monitoring Facebook posts (3). By restricting the NSA, Americans could potentially regain some rights to privacy while also making the NSA and other security agencies more effective.
1) http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/1
2) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/nsa-chiefs-keith-alexander-senate-surveillance
3) http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/04/opinion/snowden-chilling-effect/index.html?iref=allsearch
4) http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
The NSA is definitely violating the fourth amendment. The concept that people are innocent until proven guilty is a major legal right that citizens of the United States have and is therefore very important to preserve. However, in light of the recent NSA dealings, it seems as though when terrorism is being considered, citizens are guilty until proven innocent. Even if arrests and prosecutions do not take place before proof of guilt, attempts to gather that proof can begin at any time, with any level of probable cause, and can be used to convict. Since all of these abilities were decided upon by secret courts in the first place, the entirety of this process is corrupted, and the continuation of secrecy is certainly not helping to lessen that corruption. Even if the government itself attempted to curb the growth of these secret processes, there would be no way to ensure that they really did stop. That makes it even more important that efforts to stop it begin now.
The Patriot Act, PRISM, and many other NSA activities are all unconstitutional and would be seen as such in any other context. If police search a house and find unrelated evidence, it cannot be used in court. If police attach a GPS device to a suspect’s car, it’s unreasonable search and seizure. But private conversations that reference crimes or GPS data pulled from a cell phone can both be used in court, even when there was absolutely no reason for suspicion before the discovery of that evidence. There are no grounds for this double standard. Although many people believe that their innocence means that they have “nothing to fear” from the government’s surveillance, the fact that the surveillance is occurring at all is a major issue: the ability to tap phone lines and read emails is already too far, in my opinion, but it could very easily lead even further if the government and the public do not send a signal that such behavior is unacceptable.
The excuse for this invasion of privacy is defense against terrorism, but overseas policing suggests that the absence of recent attacks has less to do with any of our government’s efforts than with the possibility that few terrorists exist at all. The same investigation also suggests that terrorists’ (and particularly al Qaeda’s) capacity to do damage may have been exaggerated the entire time and that the lack of substantial terrorist attacks since 9/11 may have occurred independently of any growth in our defense systems. Moreover, many countries still experience terrorism even with more extensive security apparatuses and far more in-depth policing of citizenry than the United States. Even if terrorism were a big enough issue to warrant invasion of privacy, a whopping zero potential terrorists have been found through these efforts. Given that almost everyone has agreed to the terms and conditions of a website without reading them and that the NSA tends to hide their requests for permission to have access to information within those walls of text, a large majority of Americans are likely under surveillance, and this has been going on for quite a while. To have a track record of zero under those conditions is less than impressive.
...
...
Although the American public does have a responsibility to voice its opposition, I believe that the federal government needs to provide the so-called “firepower” to back up that opposition. The internet is still too up-and-coming to be fully involved in much of the United States’ legislation, so it’s understandable that the lines separating constitutionality from unconstitutionality are a little unclear from the government’s point of view. However, it is definitely clear that the NSA’s actions are a violation of privacy. I believe that clearly defining infringement of privacy as also applying to the internet would in itself be a huge step forward in solving this problem. It is, after all, a huge problem. Through secret courts and programs, the NSA can easily gain information about the browsing habits, private correspondences, and many other activities of innocent citizens—all without the use of a warrant and seemingly with absolutely no checks on their power.
1. http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/61911/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-terrorist-threat-the-myth-of-the-omnipresent-en
2. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323823004578593591276402574
3. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant
4. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
5. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/busting-eight-common-excuses-nsa-surveillance
6. http://dailyprincetonian.com/news/2013/11/aclu-attorney-speaks-on-nsa-the-fourth-amendment-in-the-era-of-mass-dataveillance/
I think that the NSA is definitely infringing on our 4th Amendment rights. I think people don’t realize how invasive the NSA can be. They can tap into your cell phone line, your email, and your texts; all private things that the government shouldn’t be able to look at without a warrant. Yet the NSA keeps doing it. Take into account the recent scandal of the NSA vs Snowden. Reportedly, Snowden disclosed up to 200,000 classified documents to the press which contain details revolved primarily around the NSA mass surveillance program (1). Some say that he is a hero. Some say that he is a whistleblower. And some say that he is a traitor. I think that Snowden is a combination of the first two. After many years of the NSA snooping on millions of people in the US, I think it was great of Snowden to call them out once and for all for their violation of the 4th Amendment. Apparently, Snowden's release of NSA material was called the most significant leak in U.S. history by Pentagon Papers leaker Daniel Ellsberg (2). This is big news and I applaud Snowden for taking a stand. Americans deserve, especially the innocent Americans, way more privacy then this. Continuing on, I think that it’s the US citizen’s responsibility to rein the NSA in. Snowden is leading the way for the rest of us to take a stand. If Snowden can go as far as to expose highly classified documents of the NSA, the least we can do is to raise our voices in protest to the NSA, demanding more privacy. An unconstitutional government action would be the program PRISM. In case for people who don’t know what PRISM is, it goes into user data for Apple and Google they also get information about people’s browsing and habits (3). This is a prime example of a violation of American’s privacy. I agree that times have changed and that means technology has become more advanced and the NSA has more ways than ever to snoop into innocent people’s business. Because of this, the citizens of the United States need to stand up more than ever for more privacy and make the NSA stop violating the 4th Amendment.
(1) http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files
(2) http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/4
(3) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsa-privacy-violations-add-fuel-to-the-fire/
The NSA is violating the fourth amendment of the Constitution. According to the fourth amendment,
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." (2). The NSA has seized incredible amounts of Internet and phone usage from private companies and U.S. citizens. Instead of seizing them from individual people, they take the records of the private communications companies with which citizens do business under contractual terms of service, which don't authorize data-sharing with the government (3). This is very unconstitutional. They have no right to go in and take private information of corporations as well as people for the sake of compiling massive databases of personal information. This isn't a security issue, it's a privacy issue. American's should be absolutely astonished that the government is abusing their power like this. The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to prevent them from doing unlawful searches and seizures, which is what the British soldiers did to the colonists (1). If the founders saw this they would be distraught. They went to great depths to check the powers of the government and now it has more power than ever before. They would be sickened at the sight of this. Even in a free democracy, government will grow, and always is trying to get more power and to expand. It's the nature of government (1). This kind of government acting in secrecy will continue to do this unconstitutional behavior until somebody or some people decide to do something about it. An argument that it is constitutional is that it helps catch criminals/terrorists who are clear and present danger to the us (1). However, these arguments are nonsense. The NSA does this in the name of security. My question is when will Congress, the President, and other lawmakers cry for liberty? And are Americans willing to give up their constitutional rights to the government all in the name of "safety?" I for one will not stand for it.
Works Cited:
1)http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/07/end-runs-around-constitution-nsa-obama-and-fourth-amendment/
2)http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment4/amendment.html
3) http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323823004578593591276402574
The NSA is violating rights that are granted in the 4th Amendment. They are conducting nationwide and global sweeps of private information in the digital realm. One example is the collection of cellphone location data from around the world used to tag cellphone users with suspicious calling and location patterns for further scrutiny (1). This is a violation of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches,” as it searches the private data and communications of people without any probable cause, unless owning a cell phone is probable cause to suspect someone of being a terrorist. The purpose of the 4th Amendment was originally, and should continue to be, to prevent the government from being able to look for illegal activity in a haphazard way that intrudes on the privacy of ordinary, law abiding citizens. The degree to which the NSA’s activity intrudes on privacy is a matter of personal opinion, and I believe it is currently very slight, but I oppose the NSA’s activity because of the precedent it is setting for future surveillance policy.
The main argument used to defend the NSA’s tracking of phone records and emails is that it is necessary to combat terrorism (2). However, it would be difficult to argue, persuasively, that the wiretapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone, and the phones of other allied world leaders, is necessary in the war on terrorism (2). As to actually combating terrorism, I personally do not believe the threat is so great as to justify the tracking of the private digital information of anyone with a cellphone and internet access. It is acceptable to have stringent security measures at places such as airports because there is a tangible and significant threat related to allowing someone with an explosive or other weapon onto an airplane, the same does not hold true for monitoring private digital information as the threat is far removed from the place and time of actual surveillance.
Keith Alexander, National Security Agency director, argued that the tracking of the phone records and other data of nearly all Americans is the only possible way to tract the possibility of future terrorist attacks (3). To assume that tracking digital information is the only way to look for terrorist activity is very narrow minded and uncreative. As far as seeking out terrorists goes, I would hope the government doesn’t just watch computer screens hoping for something incriminating to be sent by email, espionage should be much more interesting than that. The security measures that have become standard at airports have made it far more difficult for potential terrorist attacks to be successful, and I think such security measures are far more useful in protecting the US against terrorism than searching the private digital and communication data of virtually everyone in the US. While it may be true that tracking phone records, cellphone locations, internet activity, etc, significantly reduces the probability of a terrorist attack from being organized, though I am skeptical of this, it can’t eliminate the risk and is still unconstitutional.
To legally monitor someone’s digital communications the US government must establish probable cause of illegal activity otherwise it is in violation of the 4th Amendment. The government should not be allowed to ignore the Constitution even in the name of national security. Congress needs to stop the NSA’s indiscriminate searches of private communications and digital information, or else amend the Constitution to make such actions legal.
1.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-tracking-cellphone-locations-worldwide-snowden-documents-show/2013/12/04/5492873a-5cf2-11e3-bc56-c6ca94801fac_story.html
2.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/29/james-clapper-us-allies_n_4175638.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular,nsa
3.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/nsa-chiefs-keith-alexander-senate-surveillance
I believe that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment with its actions of listening in on phone calls and wire tapping. I believe that this actions should be considered searches, and according to the Constitution, the government would need reasonable cause, and a search warrant to proceed. By storing the data that they collect, they are hoping to use it to persecute criminals for crimes that they commit at a future date (1). I believe that it should be the governments job to collect this data, but only if they see a dire need for it. I believe that collecting this data is not all bad if it is to stop a known terrorist, but by merely listening to an average person, it is a violation. (2) I think that it is constitutional in times and war and other troubling times. If the collection is for the nations security from an imminent threat, then the citizens should feel no shame in giving up information.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/22/nsa-bulk-data-collection-constitutional-rights-aclu
http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-spying-violated-the-constituion-2013-6
I believe the NSA is in violation of the 4th Amendment. The NSA has the ability to gain information on all Americans, such as phone records, without a specific warrant. The 4th Amendment clearly enumerates the need for a warrant when conducting any search. Also, a warrant protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” and indicates a need for “probable cause”. It goes against the intent of the 4th Amendment to use a warrant to access thousands of records, as the NSA has done, as warrants were created for use against a single person and an isolated event (1). Some people argue that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t be worried about government surveillance. This mindset is dangerous as it gives the government the freedom to monitor activity of innocent citizens without any incriminating evidence or a warrant (2). Uncontrolled government surveillance allows the government to treat citizens as guilty before innocent which undermines our entire justice system. The idea that as Americans we must choose between safety and freedom is a false choice. There is a difference between secret government operations to keep us safe and secret law. As Americans, we have the right to know how our law is being interpreted. The secretive, corrupt NSA action that has been taking place is keeping the truth from Americans (2). When citizens do not have a sense of what power government programs have and how they are using this power, the system becomes undemocratic and the government gains the upper hand (2). As Senators Ron Wyden and Mark Udall have pointed out regarding FISC “Most Americans would be stunned to learn the details of how these secret court opinions have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot Act,” this section amended FISA and allows the government to conduct surveillance on both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens (3). Even those in the government who have previously defended the NSA are speaking out against NSA spying on allies. Diane Feinstein, the chair of the Senate intelligence committee and long-time supporter of the NSA, said that her committee, who is supposed to receive classified briefings, has been kept in the dark about NSA activities (4). Feinstein also indicated that President Obama was unaware of NSA spying on allies such as German chancellor Angela Markell (4). So not only is the public kept in the dark about NSA activity, the federal government is also lacking insight. This creates unchecked room for corrupt activity. It is necessary that Congress passes new legislation to check the power afforded to the NSA by such amendments as FISA (3). An overall review of all intelligence programs is necessary so that other areas of government and citizens are aware of how the NSA is carrying out its investigations and surveillance (4). I believe that NSA surveillance is completely legitimate and necessary when used to gain intelligence on actual threats. NSA information is important to protect against terrorist threats and provide a level of safety for Americans. In order to follow the 4th Amendment, there must be probable cause for the government to enact searches. However, I do not believe NSA spying is in accordance with the 4th Amendment when used to spy on Americans without probable cause.
1) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/20/fisa-court-nsa-without-warrant
2) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/opinion/why-care-about-the-nsa.html?_r=0
3) http://www.policymic.com/articles/46745/nsa-phone-records-why-is-the-government-able-to-obtain-your-phone-records-anyway
4) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/nsa-surveillance-dianne-feinstein-opposed-allies
Time to mix it up. Since everyone seems to be debating the same side of the argument I’d like to throw in a curveball. The NSA is not violating our fourth amendment rights. In the fourth amendment it 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.” (1) There was a court case in 1967 (Katz v US) where a man was charged with a crime because of evidence found while he was using a payphone, the court concluded that because the man believed he had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” the evidence from the payphone could not be used (2). However, living in the 21st century nobody has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when they are online. Everything that is posted can be seen by every human being who has internet access, so assuming the things you do online are constitutionally protected is absurd. Everyone now knows that when you post something online, it is there forever. You sign away your privacy when you press “send.” Another case that paves the road for the NSA is Smith v Maryland where a man was convicted of robbery with help from a tracker placed on his phone. The court ruled that Smith's reasonable expectation of privacy was not violated. Using a phone, even if not consciously doing it, requires a person to bring a third party, the phone company into the act (3). I can see, however, how it could be argued that there is a difference between searching online and having a conversation over the telephone and the different expectations for privacy. That argument would still not be enough in court, however. My other issue is that after 9/11 when the Patriot Act was the talk of the town, the majority of the nation favored the act. The Patriot Act essentially expanded government surveillance while reducing checks and balances on powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and being able to challenge the government searches in court (4). So, everyone was so gung-ho about making it a law in 2001 and are now calling for a government reign-in. Unfortunately, that isn’t how it works, the American people were so excited about signing away their freedom for protection in 2001 and now they want the system to completely flip so they can have their freedom and privacy back.
(1) http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment
(2) http://attorneyutah.com/nsas-surveillance-doesnt-violate-fourth-amendment/
(3) http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-11-11/news/bs-md-rodricks-1112-20131112_1_maryland-court-nsa-edward-snowden
(4) https://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act
I think that the NSA is violating our 4th amendment rights. Though it is not necessarily a right to privacy, there are many ideas that have been implied by the founders that can apply today. With phones, if the NSA hacks into your speaker without a court order they are essentially making the person less secure and they are doing everything that the British did back in the 1700s. While back then peoples possessions meant the physical items in their houses, today most of our essential information is stored electronically on the phones. So by the NSA seizing your phone without a warrant, they are taking your possessions away from you as they are the ones controlling it, not you. The same goes with computers as well. According to Rand Paul, the warrant they have received under the Patriot Act is violating the spirit of the law because it means that the NSA has one warrant that counts for every citizen, but warrants are only supposed to be for individuals. He says that the technology used for any other purpose is a good thing, but he doesn’t want the government or private companies to know more about you than you do.(1) An example of the NSA going too far to the point of their actions being unconstitutional would be the US government forcing the email site Lavabit to release all of its data about its customers. This was because Edward Snowden used Lavabit as his email service. The government the collected 40,000 user’s data. The government has a warrant for the data used by an unspecified person. But because the government got all real-time information about all of the customers, including those that they did not have a warrant for, their actions are directly unconstitutional because they searched without a warrant or probable cause. Lavabit as of the article was challenging the government because the move violated the end user agreement of confidentiality.(2) A constitutional use of the government on 4th amendment rights would be the police being allowed to take the DNA of criminals. I see it as constitutional because the people have already been convicted as criminals so it doesn’t violate the ‘innocent until proven guilty’ thing. The police have a reason, it doesn’t harm the individual, and is no different than fingerprinting. The police in most states are now required to take DNA samples alongside fingerprinting on criminals. Because they are seizing DNA, they have to have a warrant, which is basically issued when the person is convicted of a crime.(3) I think that while there are good rights that the 4th amendment gives, the government is slowly taking away our rights under the NSA and the Patriot Act. I think the founders would think that the government surveilling regular citizens because one could be dangerous would be exactly like the British before the revolution. It is our job to tell the congressman to halt NSA spying and possibly cut funding in some areas, or try to challenge the constitutionality of the what the NSA is doing.
1.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/8/sen-rand-paul-supreme-court-needs-re-examine-fourt/
2.http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/11/fbi-demands-lavabit-violated-fourth-amendment-levison
3.http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/03/news/la-pn-supreme-court-dna-crimina-suspects-20130603
It is often said in today’s world that security and freedom are inversely proportional. If security goes up, freedom goes down and if freedom goes up, security goes down. But at what point does one out power the other? There is a fine line between security and the alienation of rights, a line that the NSA has crossed on more than one occasion. The very system that they have set up is unconstitutional. At their disposal, they have “unauthorized access to intercepted communications, the distribution of protected content and the use of automated systems without built-in safeguards to prevent unlawful surveillance.” (1.) Why the NSA isn’t talked about more is beyond me. I personally don’t find much of what they do constituitional. Look at any one of a long list of programs they have applied. One that has gotten a lot of attention is the Patriot Act. The name has always amused me, for it is not a very patriotic act. Officially known as Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, it legalized spying on American citizen the government deemed suspicious. Another violation of “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches,” (2) is their tracking of “suspicious” cell phone users locations and their calling patterns. (3)Looking back to first trimester and the basic ideals of democracy, it only works if the government functions with the consent of the governed. I’m sure very few people who were tracked by the NSA gave them their consent first. At least not knowingly. It’s a secret. It’s as if the NSA is a nosy parent and the average American citizen is a little kid. The parent constantly watches over the kid but keeps secrets from him/her, because what we won’t know won’t hurt us. Unfortunately that’s not how the U.S. legal system is set up. The founding fathers set up a system of government that gave the power to the people. Over the last decade, as technology has increased, that power has shifted towards the government slightly. It’s a slippery slope. Many of the people who support the NSA’s activities support them simply because they say that they have nothing to hide. While that may be true right now, what happens years from now when they might have something to hide? Not necessarily something criminal but something personal that they don’t want the government to have access to. It is important to fight for our 4th Amendment rights as the line between public and private becomes shadier.
1.) http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-15/world/41431831_1_washington-post-national-security-agency-documents
2.)http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
3.) http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-tracking-cellphone-locations-worldwide-snowden-documents-show/2013/12/04/5492873a-5cf2-11e3-bc56-c6ca94801fac_story.html
The NSA is not violating our 4th Amendment rights. It is true that the government tracks and monitors nearly everything. They collect internet data, surveillance cameras are used in many public areas, and any personal conversations can be supervised (2). However, not all the data that the government collected is supervised and observed. The data they collect is not accessible for observation unless there are suspected threats. Even when there is a need to access the data, only a small number of trained analysts are allowed to search the data that has been collected. The process for gaining access to the data include providing evidence of terrorist activities in documentation and the approval of access by a supervisor. Then, and only then, can the suspected person’s records in the database be traced. Meanwhile, the identity of the person interested is kept a secret from the analysts. This guarantees the security of the surveillance system and protects the suspects observed. (1) If that is the process that the NSA have to go through to access the data collected, government surveillance is constitutional. For example, under the NSA data access system, for the government to review data collected they have to satisfy the probable cause needed for search and seizure. This system helps to protect the privacy of American citizens. However, I do find the act of the government hiding their surveillance actions from the citizens unconstitutional. For example, the phone surveillance program has been ongoing since 2006 and it was announced to the public just now, not by the government, but by an employee who thought it was an unconstitutional act (3). It is as if the government is taking away the 4th Amendment rights of citizens to request a search warrant before search and seizure can be conducted.
1. http://nation.time.com/2013/08/01/the-surveillance-society/
2. http://nation.time.com/2013/08/01/americans-sharply-split-on-privacy-issues/
3. http://www.macombdaily.com/government-and-politics/20131212/nsa-director-says-your-phone-records-are-vital-to-national-security
“The right of the people…against unreasonable searches and seizures...” The most important word in that sentence is “unreasonable.” I don’t believe the question today is whether or not government monitoring of activities is seizing or searching: I think it is evident that because the monitoring has the ultimate goal of finding a terrorist, it is a search (1). However, I do not believe it is unreasonable. Evolution is an amazing thing, however just as our medical and communication technologies have evolved so have the technologies of terrorists. It is scary to think of the damage one can easily cause today (2). One of the tools in our arsenal to combat this is monitoring the activities of a large population of people, and we use this tool in preemptive manner to protect the citizens harm (rights don’t have much meaning once a person is dead). Now, this doesn’t mean a witchhunt for all illegal activities justified. This program should only be concerned with terrorist activities, in my opinion a “clear and present danger” to society, and oversight from both the Legislative and Executive branch should ensure that (3). I sympathize with the fact that under a strict reading of the Constitution, NSA activity would be in violation. However, a strict reading of the Constitution also values a class of human beings at ⅗ value so I find it hard to argue that strict readings can be relevant to modern times. Additionally, if law enforcement were to use the same methods as the 1800s we would have lost the War on Terror about 2 days after it started. I believe the government has few borders when it comes to national security, however I don’t believe their powers and capabilities should be labeled as constitutional or unconstitutional (1). It is too much of a grey area to apply those names. In my opinion, national security interests should be classified as humane or inhumane. All humane actions should be tolerated and quite frankly even some some inhumane actions should be tolerated, however the bottom line is that applying the Constitution to national security simply doesn’t work.
1) http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/12/political-scene-surveillance-the-nsa-and-our-values.html
2) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsa-bulk-collection-surveillance-keeps-us-safe/
3) http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/12/12/how-could-the-nsa-change/
I think the NSA is violating our 4th amendment rights. Attorney Gregory Schulz writes that not until recently did the Supreme Court decide cases that could potentially set the precedent for the NSA’s actions to be a violation of our 4th amendment rights (3). In Katz v. United States (1967), the court decided that evidence used in court from a recorded phone conversation was obtained from an “unreasonable” search because Katz had a “reasonable expectation of privacy” (3). Because of this precedent, and the number of justices who agreed with it in the more recent Antoine Jones v. United States court case, if the Supreme Court agrees to review the NSA phone-records case, the NSA will probably lose the case on the basis that people have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when they use their phones and the NSA clearly violated that (3).
However, since the Supreme Court has refused to hear the case, it’s unlikely that this will happen (1). This is frustrating because a bill that was meant to restrict the powers of the NSA did not pass in the House earlier this fall (2), so basically our government either won’t or can’t do anything about this issue. Ideally, I think the NSA should be able to make a distinction for themselves where the line is drawn on what is permissible by the 4th amendment and what is not. But since it is a Constitutional issue, it does fall into the jurisdiction of the courts, so I think it is the responsibility of the courts to deal with this.
I think the scope of the NSA’s phone-tappings and association-records is too big to be permissible under the 4th amendment and the 1st amendment, regardless of whether or not it is in the name of national security. It’s one thing to target one specific suspect and tap into their phone conversations, like in Smith v. Maryland, and it’s another thing to record and analyze everybody’s phone conversations (1). In my opinion, the NSA’s actions in this situation go way beyond being justifiable in the name of national security.
(1) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-plea-to-look-at-nsa-program/
(2) http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/10/nsa-surveillance-practices-violate-the-constitution-issa-says
(3) http://attorneyutah.com/nsas-surveillance-doesnt-violate-fourth-amendment/
In short, yes, the NSA is vastly violating our 4th Amendment rights, along with our right to privacy and possibly association (1). The fourth amendment was set up to protect people from being constantly worried they were being watched or could be searched at any moment, which the NSA is violating to try and find a small amount of information from a small proportion of society to possibly help them in the future it just doesn’t make sense.
The responsibility to rein in the NSA should go to the Supreme Court, but they have declined to hear the case (2) even though it deals with a direct Bill of Rights issue. In the absence of the Supreme Court, I appreciate how other parts of the issue have stepped up, like the large majority of the technology companies have (3). They are stating that they won’t stand for the Federal government broadly asking for information, and ended up making a call to the government to be clearer in what information they want and why they are asking them. It is much harder for the government to just blindly take from companies if they jointly make a point to not tolerate that. Obama has also put in some efforts, like appointing a committee to figure out what the US government will do, which their opinion on this should be in soon. While this is not a perfect reaction, I appreciate a reaction in the right direction.
As far as what I find constitutional and unconstitutional, I find keeping a broad watchful eye over everyone quite unconstitutional, whereas keeping ties on known threats to national security slightly more constitutional as long as there is a warrant and frankly is somewhat known to the person. The government cannot just break into anyone's home and find incriminating things, they must have a warrant. Why should electronic things be any different?
1.http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/22/nsa-bulk-data-collection-constitutional-rights-aclu
2.http://www.thenation.com/article/177248/these-lawmakers-have-plan-reign-nsa-spying
3.http://www.politico.com/story/2013/12/technology-giants-nsa-eavesdropping-100856.html
I believe that the NSA is violating our right to privacy. If anything the government should start to better regulate what they are doing to us. The NSA shouldn’t just be able to see our phone calls and text messages. Including that the websites like Google, Yahoo, and other email providers should have better defenses from the NSA. The NSA even went into gaming and services like Xbox live(2). I see that as a major waste of time because if they're starting to try and find terrorist in services like these then their is an issue in the NSA. They are spending taxpayer money on trying to find threats to national security in places like that then they need to start doing a better job. The government is their to protect and preserve our rights not to infringe on them. Recently though a panel has tried to better regulate the NSA when monitoring outside the nation which I think is good(1). Many people believe that it is wrong to spy on other countries yet I believe that it is alright because we are trying to get information on threats outside the U.S. which I believe is the NSA’s main job(3). Overall though I believe that the only unconstitutional action the NSA is doing is listening and monitoring the U.S. citizens, because as citizens we should have the right to our privacy. Many people though say that we have to do this especially during war times and that during these times we need to give up rights. We can’t though give up these rights though because if we do then during the next war or the war after that will the government begin infringing on even more of our rights. So as a nation we need to start fighting to keep our rights and resist these infringes since the NSA shouldn’t just be able to see my calls since because who I call is my privacy. Even big phone companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint should help the average person and put stops to what the NSA is doing, so we all can have the right to privacy because that is our right as being an American citizen.
(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/world/americas/obama-panel-said-to-urge-nsa-curbs.html
(2)http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/nsas-virtual-waste-time-spying-world-warcraft-harder-you-think-2D11724106
(3)http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/10/nsa-uses-google-cookies-to-pinpoint-targets-for-hacking/
Okay, third try since the school wi-fi keeps on eating my submissions.
The NSA is definitely violating the fourth amendment. People seem to be really concerned, at least among our peers, about them accessing social networks for information on you, but this is simply the tip of the iceberg, as anyone can do that if you are ignorant enough to be posting incriminating material on those sites. The real issues come around the other things they are accessing. For simplicity's sake, I will refer to everything concerning cryptography and such tech as locks and keys, as this is not the proper forum to go super in depth on the issues and involved terminology of cryptography. First abuse: They have actively forced through locks(brute force programming) to access the personal information of thousands if not millions of citizens(1). This is rather analogous to forcing down a door and searching a home. Second, they have imposed various standards upon corporations such as Microsoft to weaken their locks, and make everyone's information more vulnerable to the NSA and other malicious, non government groups, much to the chagrin of many internet based companies(2). Finally, they are wasting resources and abusing surveillance for stuff such as spying on ex's(3) and having heavy surveillance on chat functions for games such as World of Warcraft and systems such as Xbox Live(4), a clear misappropriation and misuse of funds for methods that do not improve the national defense of the American people
http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/12/5200142/end-the-nsa-nightmare
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/microsoft-google-apple-call-for-end-to-nsas-bulk-data-collection/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/24/nsa-analysts-abused-surveillance-systems
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/world-of-spycraft-nsa-gchq-hacked-wow-and-xbox-live-other-games/
I believe the NSA is violating the rights of the United States citizens. Yes now that we are in the 21st century and most things are technological but the things we do on technology are our business and still should be protected under the constitution. According to Fox news one of the main arguments the NSA uses is the 4th amendment restrains them from gathering information to keep the country safe (1). The problem with that is where is the line drawn in a country where everyone is innocent until proven guilty how can you just invade an American citizen’s privacy without a warrant without their knowledge of it and without telling them what their accused of. Without restrictions on this power it gives the government unlimited power and basically does away with the fourth amendment. One of the main reasons these things happen is the patriot which makes it easier to spy on people in times of war. According to the Washington Post Wisconsin Republican Representative James Sensenbrenner called the bill a joke, he also said congress has become cheerleaders for the NSA and the government was severely overreaching their power (2). I don’t ever believe there is a time when the government should be able to uninhibitedly be able to go through personal information of any American citizen it’s a complete contrast of the supreme law of the land and if they can do it why even have the fourth amendment. According to an article by the Huffington Post major tech companies have asked for stricter government surveillance laws (3). We talk all the time about overreaching powers of government but this is the most blatant in the history of the government.
1. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/07/end-runs-around-constitution-nsa-obama-and-fourth-amendment/
2.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/12/11/the-switchboard-patriot-act-author-calls-feinsteins-nsa-reform-bill-a-joke/
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/09/nsa-limits-sought_n_4410556.html
Although the times have taken a dramatic shift into the digital age from a time where cell phones were still a concept to the world when the fourth amendment was created I do believe that the NSA has too much power and is infringing upon our fourth amendment rights. In the fourth amendment it states that the government is not allowed to enter our homes, look at our papers, or go through personal effects without the presence of a warrant. However now and days they can do that without us even knowing it. For instance it has been proven the NSA keeps track of every single search and website opened on the internet in the US. If the government is reading a personal email without a consent or knowledge of the person whom it belongs to and without a warrant why is it different than reading a piece of paper mail. Also it is possible for the governemt to activate a cell phone and take pictures or listen in on a conversation, this is definitely violating a person’s privacy and yet no one has a warrant to do it buit its okay? As Edward Snowden put it , “The government has granted itself power it is not entitled to.”(1). I believe that the responsibility of restricting the NSA belongs to congress and the president. The president isn’t powerful enough alone I believe to bring down the NSA however he can get the publics attention with a much greater capacity than congress but congress has the weight behind it to bring down the NSA. I believe that the NSA’s power to go through email and demanding phone companies to hand over all information about phone calls made under a provision of the Patriot Act. (2) This allows them intel to millions of American’s which is completely unconstitutional. They don’t have a warrant to do so nor did they even express what they were doing to the people they were doing it to. It may be a different case if the NSA was finding vital information but according to Senator Mark Udall, "It didn't work for e-mail collection, it's not working for phone collection. It has never been proven to Senator Wyden or me that any of the bulk collection has provided uniquely valuable intelligence that had led to the disruption of any plots." Personally I could live with the government going through emails if I felt that my well being and safety was being better protected however so far with such little if any evidence of the NSA catching any terrorists I have to say it is not right of them to creep into the peoples personal space. The problem is the NSA has taken upon itself to monitor peoples searches and conversations without actual consent or direction from the federal government(3). I believe that it would be constitutional for the NSA to monitor the internet if they filtered it through key words people searched and phrases like “Building a nuclear bomb for dummies”. Obviously the person searching for that has no good intentions. All in all even with the change of technology of when the constitution was written to today I think the NSA and government have over stepped their bounds and violated our fourth amendment rights and think we need to make a stand and straighten them out taking back our rights
1) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/10/white-house-nsa-leaks-edward-snowden
2)http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/26/heres-how-ron-wyden-wants-to-rein-in-the-nsa/
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/05/obama-nsa-reform_n_4394842.html
The NSA is without a doubt violating our 4th Amendment rights. They are clearly collecting information on data on citizens without providing warrants. The real question is whether we should allow the Constitution to be violated because of the changes in the world since the Constitution was written. I think this is not a good idea. We have done well this far with the Constitution as the foundation of our nation, and who knows what will happen if we start to mess with it. It is also clear that the NSA is out of control. They have done many worrying things such as tapping German chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone for over a decade, breaking into Yahoo and Google data centers without consent(1) and collecting millions and millions of phone calls, texts, emails, and social media posts by American citizens. We must realize that these things don’t go away. The government will always have the data they collected to use how’d they’d like. It is up to the American public to voice their displeasure with these methods of surveillance, as policy makers really have no reason to get rid of illegal surveillance if they are top secret and the public does not know about them. This is also the biggest problem with reigning in the NSA’s power. Many of their actions are top secret and will go on as long as their operations are not leaked. I think it is nearly impossible to stop them unless there are consistent leaks or a Libertarian candidate is elected as president(2), as they are strongly against this type of surveillance, but even then that’s not for sure.
I believe that any type of search, physical or virtual, is Constitutional if a warrant has been issued and there was probable cause that allowed the warrant to be issued. Any other search is unconstitutional. Let’s keep it simple (Something the government has an excruciatingly difficult time with in all aspects, apparently), because as soon as we start making exemptions is when it starts to get complicated and messy.
1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/nsa-yahoo-google_n_4178227.html
2. http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/nsa-libertarians-gary-johnson-boon/2013/10/29/id/533596
3. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec13/nsa1_12-12.html
To begin my response to these hazy violations to the 4th amendment, I just have to ask: didn’t America allow these types of violations in the Patriot Act? Why is it a big deal now that people know that the NSA is tapping their phones and reading their emails? I couldn’t find any articles that satisfied my questions about the extent of the tapping. Personally I was against the tapping from the beginning. If we allow the stealing of rights in time of war, what’s to stop the government from always being at war and negating the whole constitution? The war on terror seems to have been leading down that pathway before Snowden. Now, Snowden is crooning about being a whistleblower while Congress wants his head (1). While I do not condone what Snowden did, as a breach to national security, it sometimes seems like the US is just unhappy about being caught. Its rather embarrassing to be caught spying on many world leaders (2). So the question remains what we should do about all this. As with everything concerning the US government, it is by the people and for the people. So, the media, other countries, and Congress should all work together to force reforms and stop this from happening again. As for what that includes is a bit tougher. One article talked about how phone tapping is considered legal since people should assume such records are public (3). I disagree. There are certain things that can be considered public: posting on social media, writing a blog post, public actions, etc. Phone calls, mail, and password protected internet information are not public (Though it gets a little sketchy around the internet parts). The government should not be allowed to infringe on liberties whenever it wants, or else, what is the point of those liberties?
1. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/europe/edward-snowden-manifesto/
2. http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded#section/1
3. http://attorneyutah.com/nsas-surveillance-doesnt-violate-fourth-amendment/
With all of the evidence the news breach over the summer has provided about the NSA and its activities, I believe that the NSA is violating our fourth amendment rights in the literal sense. In the fourth amendment itself, the Constitution prohibits the government from searches and seizures without a warrant. (4) While the searches and seizures that the NSA has been holding are far from what the original writers of the Constitution knew of, the intent of the fourth amendment protects the people from this type of search without even being notified. The NSA isn’t being held to any strict guidelines that keep them from stepping over the line. According to an audit of the NSA, the agency has stepped over that line thousands of times a year. (1) They have looked into e-mails and percepted telephone calls of many Americans over the loosely defined term the agency was made for. And despite the news scandal that was leaked over the summer, the NSA’s policy has remained largely the same. (2) I understand Obama’s weakness in this situation if he shuts down any part of protection against terrorism and an attack occurs, he will be blamed for the attack but because he is keeping this agency up and running it reflects badly on his view of the fourth amendment. The NSA director himself, Keith Alexander, pointed out how if the program is cut it would be failing America’s safety and that the only way to prevent attacks on the nation is to scoop up many American records to find the few who mean danger to the country. (3) There is no perfect way to protect the American public from harmful people without a little distrust of those inside it but the searches that the NSA has been holding against the American public are not Constitutional and should not be happening in this way.
(1)http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-15/world/41431831_1_washington-post-national-security-agency-documents
(2)http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/13/nsa-review-to-leave-spying-programs-largely-unchanged-reports-say
(3)http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/nsa-chiefs-keith-alexander-senate-surveillance
(4)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
I believe that it is very apparent that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment rights of citizens of the United States. Since the 1967 decision in Katz v. United States, there has been a precedent that citizens have an expectation of privacy, within reason (1). As an average member of society who is not under investigation for any crimes, I believe that I qualify to claim possession of the expectation that I am not being spied on by my government or anybody else for that matter. However, through a very secretive and murky (classified) process, these rights are being blatantly ignored. Since the Edward Snowden leak, more people have become aware of the fact that this type of crime is being allowed to take place. The scariest part of all; the only people who can rein in the problem are the same people who allowed its creation in the first place. If a the defeat of a 2013 House bill aimed at curbing the power of the NSA is any indication, there is no true end in sight (3). And since this program was operating in secret before, who is to say that even if it is officially "reined in" that it will not continue to operate as is out of the public eye. While the threat of terrorism is very real in our society, it is a very slippery slope from reasonable surveillance to a police state. For example, the NSA is receiving access to information not only limited to your browsing history but your habits as well (2). I can see no need for the government to possess this information, and hardly find it a "reasonable search" if most of out digital information is being collected and stored for future use.
An example of government action that I believe to be constitutional under the 4th amendment would be the execution of a search warrant, with probable cause, of a person's possessions. However, I most certainly do not support the collection of a huge "vault" of data that can be searched through whenever by people who are not accountable to the American people for any purposes that they desire under the umbrella of "the investigation of potential terrorism".
(1) http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_35
(2) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/us-tech-giants-nsa-data
(3) http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/10/nsa-surveillance-practices-violate-the-constitution-issa-says
I believe that the NSA is violating the rights that are given to citizens through the fourth amendment. That being said, it is a very different time than when this right was given and a lot of things have changed since then. We are at an age were terrorism is major danger to a lot of countries and I feel that governments are just trying to find to diminish the threats of terrorism in their countries. This does not clear the NSA for everything that they have done. I believe that in the European cases, the government probably lost a lot of trust between nations and that will have to be rebuilt over time. Overall though I would rather have the government watch what people are doing than to have the risk of a terrorist attack and no way of detecting such attack. I see this more as the government trying to do its job in protecting its citizens from foreign or domestic harm. I think that the president should make the attempt to reign in the NSA and other secret organizations but I also understand that this is a large task that would be very difficult for the president to settle down by himself. I think that the NSA’s actions can be deemed unconstitutional. Their actions have violated a very important right to citizens and they should be punished for it. That being said I also believe that they weren’t completely wrong in doing so, with that in mind I would say that the next step is to make changes to the constitution that reflect the current time and cultures of our society as a whole.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/11/nsa-chiefs-keith-alexander-senate-surveillance
http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/nov/01/snowden-nsa-files-surveillance-revelations-decoded
https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying
The NSA is definitely violating the fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. They are secretly spying on ordinary, innocent peoples' phones, emails, and many other things that we may not know about. It is clearly stated in the Constitution that the government needs warrants “particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (1). Without these warrants granted by a judge, the NSA should not be snooping around our emails, web searches,or phone calls. These illegal searches by the NSA are clear violations of our privacy and are not what the framers of our Constitutions wanted for our country. Not only is the NSA spying on ordinary people, they have hacked into the computer servers at Google and Yahoo (2). The government is becoming too controlling and they are constantly overstepping their boundaries. They claim that these surveillance have prevented terrorist attacks but yet they fail to mention to us details of the prevented attacks which lead me to believe that they lied about that. It is important that we remember that we live in a country where "Government by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth," as stated by President Abraham Lincoln. The government does not run the people, we are their boss and it is up to us to control them and elect the government officials that support illegally spying on its citizens out of office. A majority of Americans (58%) do not support this illegal data collection by the NSA on ordinary people (3). Because of this, it is extremely important that people continue to make their voices heard so that the NSA is not allowed to spy on people without any warrants. I believe that searches that are constitutional would be searches granted by a judge where there is clear evidence and proof that someone is up to no good and that a search of the person's house and other entities is necessary. An unconstitutional search of ordinary people would be if the government tracked your search history and they found that you searched "how to make a bomb". I believe that if they wanted to follow up on this search and monitor the person, they are entitled to do so if they first obtain a warrant. It is quite possible that a student is doing a research project for science class and is researching uranium and plutonium and what they are used for. In this incidence, the NSA might infringe upon the student's privacy and track their emails, phone calls, web searches, and maybe even social media outlets without having concrete evidence that the student is researching uranium and plutonium to construct a nuclear weapon. Overall, it is important that we take a stance and protect our rights before our government turns us into an oppressed society.
(1) http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/how-the-nsa-is-breaking-the-law/#axzz2nbkaxaEG
(2) http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/07/end-runs-around-constitution-nsa-obama-and-fourth-amendment/
(3) http://www.cbsnews.com/news/most-disapprove-of-govt-phone-snooping-of-ordinary-americans/
After 9/11, America was thrown into an anti-terrorist frenzy. It was a highly logical follow up of a terrorist attack, however, we are still in the process of learning what that means. People don’t want their rights violated, but would it help prevent future terrorist attacks? With the amount of insanely advanced technology in modern society, it is almost impossible to track all of the ways that the government/NSA can keep an eye on everyone. Although the wording of "right to privacy" it not explicitly detailed in the original constitution, it has been debated enough times (via the fourth amendment) to assume that the right to privacy is of the utmost importance to almost everyone in America. That being said, I do believe the NSA has overstepped some boundaries in its surveillance process. It is necessary for social media sites to hand over information of the court has mandated it, but it appears that now they don’t even need a court order to investigate someone’s information. However, I believe that people need to understand that by having social media sites, you open your life up to an exponentially increased amount of people, so is it really that shocking that the government might want to keep an eye on its citizens in a time where social media is a popular form of contact for many terrorists? Many people are still deeply uncomfortable at this privacy infringement, so I believe it is society’s job to rein them in. We all have the freedom of speech, so instead of people complaining on social media about the government looking at their social media, people should get out there and talk to the courts or to their local legislatures. That is the beauty of having so many levels of government, it is easily accessible and everyone has the opportunity to have their opinions heard.
If the only way the government can prove that somebody is a terrorist is by tapping into their phone, then I believe that is more than constitutional and I say go for it. However, if they bust down every person’s door in America without any actual proof of any terrorist affiliation, I say that crosses a line. There needs to be a balance between acting with solid proof versus the rumored “everyone is being monitored.” Once they make it clear what evidence they need before tracking someone, I think the line between ‘constitutional’ and ‘unconstitutional’ will be much easier identified. Today’s Americans have some of the highest double standards in history: they want to be protected by the government and say it’s their job to keep us safe, but as soon as the government and the NSA try to do something about it, Americans say it is unconstitutional. This is a touchy subject with many people, and although I understand that the right to privacy is important, I also believe that a sound national security is important also.
https://www.aclu.org/time-rein-surveillance-state-0
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/03/guardian-not-intimidated-nsa-leaks-alan-rusbridger-surveillance
http://www.nsa.gov/index.shtml
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/19/us-usa-nsa-spying-idUSBRE9AI11Y20131119
Based on what the Fourth Amendment states I believe that the NSA is violating The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that it 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. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to recognize what is constitutional and what is not. 1) A federal judge in Washington ruled on Monday that the bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records by the National Security Agency is likely to violate the US constitution. On top of that 2) Judge Richard J. Leon, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, held that the metadata program probably constitutes an unconstitutional search and seizure.
I believe that there are times when it is alright to tap into conversations when the government is sure that it will ensure the security of others. One way it is constitutional is say that the government found out that there was suspicious activity going on between a group of people and that the government knows how to stop them but the only way to do so is to tap into calls that they know are going to happen. But overall it's unconstitutional. There's no privacy. People have to be worried about what they say or do due to the fact that the NSA can hear and also see what you are writing. It violates the rights to unreasonable search and seizures. That is why I believe the NSA is unconstitutional.
1)http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/nsa-phone-surveillance-likely-unconstitutional-judge
2) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/nsa-metadata-collection-f_b_4611211.html
I believe that the actions of the NSA were unconstitutional. Specifically, I find their harvesting of data regarding the nature of phone calls Americans are making unconstitutional. To me, it is common sense that this kind of search and seizure of around 300 million people is “unreasonable” and therefore a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Agreeing with me is the ACLU deputy legal director, who finds that, “The constitution does not permit the NSA to place hundreds of millions of innocent people under permanent surveillance because of the possibility that information about some tiny subset of them will become useful to an investigation in the future” (1). Also in agreement are Senators Wyden, Udall, and Heinrich, who wrote, “The bulk collection of Americans’ telephone records... by the National Security Agency is, in our view, a clear case of a general warrant that violates the spirit of the framers’ intentions” (2). But who is to rein in the NSA’s activities? I believe that the legislative and judicial branches of government, at the urging of citizens, should be the ones to tackle this issue. I think Congress is inherently a better branch to safeguard liberties since congresspeople are from many different backgrounds with different purposes, and are constantly checking each other. The president, on the other hand, can sometimes abridge the rights of Americans when faced with the consuming power of commanding an entire branch of the U.S. government. I believe that the judicial branch will be successful in reining the NSA in because their job is different from the other two branches at a very fundamental level. While the executive and legislative branches are concerned with fostering a successful country, the courts’ only goal is to safeguard the rights of the people.
While I am not an expert in efforts to contain terrorism in the United States, I think that any searches or seizures that are conducted after finding probable cause and obtaining a warrant or constitutional. A search or seizure done without probable cause is unconstitutional. This seems simple to me. For example, the police having reason to believe that a person was conducting illegal activities and obtaining a warrant then conducted a search is a constitutional action. However, using data the NSA obtained before the person had come under suspicion to corroborate police findings is unconstitutional (3).
1)http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/22/nsa-bulk-data-collection-constitutional-rights-aclu
2)http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/26/opinion/end-the-nsa-dragnet-now.html
3)http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/independent-review-board-says-nsa-phone-data-program-is-illegal-and-should-end/2014/01/22/4cebd470-83dd-11e3-bbe5-6a2a3141e3a9_story.html?hpid=z4
I do believe that the NSA is violating our 4th Amendment rights. The main reason I believe this is because most of the fishing that they’re doing is unneeded and unwarranted, both metaphorically and literally. Collecting random phone records and searching extensively into anything outside of open social media (which is often posted to the public without password), should be beyond their realm unless connected to specific crimes and investigations, and unless the agency can prove or justify their searches to a court of law, and to some point, to the public at large; after all, they were created to protect us, the people they’re violating. Doesn’t really make much sense to be invaded by one power to avoid being invaded by another. The fact that they no longer need warrants to search some forms of communication, or choose not to obtain them before hand, is also very concerning. I think that, because of this, it is every person’s responsibility to follow up on their activity and defend their rights, protecting themselves against intrusion; from terrorists, government, and otherwise. The first steps are following up with representatives, participating in discussions, and creating or signing petitions. Government officials and representatives also have a responsibility for following up on citizen concerns and fears. The people involved need to take responsibility for any damage they’ve caused to American citizens, including the people organizing and carrying out the missions and searches.
Constitutional searches, to me, are searches that are conducted under warrant. Searches that can be justified to a court of law, or reasonably linked to investigations and REAL crimes also count. Searches conducted by the law, and that will hold up in a court. Searches that are only performed to investigate obviously suspicious people - not ALL people. And searches without a warrant should only be conducted on social media, like facebook and twitter, chat rooms and online groups that are open to the public without password or membership, or by listening to people in public without the aid of recording devices placed outside of the body. This is because these spaces are public forums, open to the world - any person could overhear or see this information, so while it’s protected some (pages and conversation protected by password or only open to members to view) it isn’t protected as highly as other forms of communications. If they are able to infiltrate (become members or legally obtain passwords, or find a mole inside the place/group they’re searching) then that’s also an acceptable and constitutional form of search because it is within reason to call this consent or searching within plain view - they were allowed in to look.
It’s generally unconstitutional to search emails, phone records, texts, other non-public forms of communication, or wiretap people’s phones or watch their live streams; and always outside of a specific investigation. These forms of communication are meant to maintain a certain level of privacy, and search of them without a warrant wouldn't be protected by the constitution. National security is important. However, a nation is made up of people, and people must be secure. If the people aren’t secure, the nation isn’t either. What the NSA is doing is undermining all security.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/07/end-runs-around-constitution-nsa-obama-and-fourth-amendment/
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/09/the-fourth-amendment-and-new-technologies
http://www.theguardian.com/world/the-nsa-files
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#C
I agree with Judge Richard Leon when he says “the sweeping NSA collection of U.S. phone metadata constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment.” He also talks about the case Smith v. Maryland Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court held the installation and the use of the pen register was not a search within the Fourth Amendment so therefore no warrant was required. Justice Leon argues that times have changed since the case was argued and that “advances in technology and people's use of cellphones mean that old case law no longer holds.” I agree with him when he says this. It is like telling girls that they have to wear poodle skirts because thats what girls did back them. We have greatly advanced in technology which means we have to make new amendments to anything that may violate our rights. Justice Leon also states that the Government has not sited any instances where the analysis of NSA’s collection actually stopped an attack or helped the Government. That is why I believe that the NSA is unconstitutional and that Justice Leon is correct.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home