On the individual level, recall the father's actions in The Road. He regularly uses binoculars to scan the landscape and to look for any signs of people or movement. If he sees people at a distance, then the father avoids contact. Surveillance is a useful way to exercise some amount of control under conditions of anarchy.
The government also uses surveillance to exercise control over the population -- this includes domestic populations and international populations and can be as simple as passing through security at the airport or going through a sobriety road check .
Here are some of the ways that the government uses different kinds of surveillance to exercise control over different populations:
1. The US government and other governments around the world request that Google provide user data. Here is a nice graphic that illustrates the frequency of requests.
WASHINGTON — The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.The F.B.I. soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.3. Some members of Congress (not all members of Congress) are working to pass laws that would empower certain domestic police agencies to gather "geolocation data" -- that is, the information stored on a person's GPS and cell phone that tracks their movement. This would enable the FBI to gather that information.
4. The FBI uses GPS devices to track peoples' movement. Without a warrant, FBI agents secretely attach a GPS tracking device to a person's bumper and monitor their movement.
5. City governments also conduct surveillance. Major metropolitan areas like Washington, DC, New York City, and Chicago have extensive surveillance systems that enable police agents to monitor peoples' activity. Chicago has 10,000 cameras placed around the city, for instance.
Here are my questions for you to consider and thoughtfully comment on:
What do you think? Surveillance is an important aspect of modern government. Does that mean all government surveillance is justified? For reasons of security, should the government be able to conduct as much surveillance as deemed necessary? Or, can there be too much governmental surveillance? If there can be too much governmental surveillance, where is the limit? Who should be responsible for drawing that limit -- and saying this is the proper amount of surveillance and we will accept no more? And, what are the potential risks to the population if the government collects information on all aspects of peoples' lives? What is the value of having a part of our lives that are outside of governmental surveillance?
Surveillance is detrimental to the protection of the people in this country. Certain check points, such as the airport and roadblocks, give us reassurance to live our lifes without a second thought. I mean it's much better now then it was before 9/11/01, but even before then there were still needs for surveillance that the society had.
ReplyDeleteBrian Wilt
PSCI 100.04
Allowing the government to used information from google in my opinion breaking the 4th amendment in my opinion the government needs a warrant before searching through all my records. The government uses surveillance to protect the country by using cameras and video recording which I am okay with, but in the future the government will have surveillance cameras installed in your homes. In tracking your cell phone and finding your location I understand the reason why the government tries to find out where somewhere is in case they are a terrorist or they are missing. The government should only focus their surveillance on people who don't pay taxes and citizens who have committed a crime.
ReplyDeleteI'm completely fine with the government being able to take these "extreme" measures. I'm okay with this because safety comes first. After situations like 9/11 security risks are at an all time high. As long as the government has probable cause to hack into electronical devices and track vehicles. I feel their should be set guidelines that outline what they can monitor and certain reasons that are required to be proven to do so. If someone plans to attack the country or someone I say go for it, track them. It should ONLY be allowed for certain, severe crimes such as; terrorism, murders, and drug cartel. When I have kids in the future I'm going to be more then willing to give up some of my privacy for them to be safe. If you're not doing anything wrong then let them look. Freedom isn't free.
ReplyDeleteAmber Kollar
PSCI 100.03
mwf: 11:10
The government has every right to conduct surveillance. They are not intentionally invading privacy for no reason. They are trying to get to the bottom of terrorisms and murders and such.. Surveillance is only making us and our country more safe and in my opinion there is nothing wrong with that. Unless you really have something to hide, then it shouldn't be too much of a problem. I'd rather be safe than sorry.
ReplyDeleteTaylor Frankenberry
PSCI 100-03
mwf 11:10-12
I for one believe that if the government has justified reasons to be watching over someone, that they should be allowed to. I however think that there could be cases where the government would either be prejudice and watch over a certain group of people maybe due to ethnicity or religion. If they have a justified reason to watch then they should. As long as they don't over step boundaries that lead towards discrimination and such. I'd rather live in a society where they have surveillance and be safe, than live in a society where there is no form of surveillance or some net of security.I don't believe that the government should be able to invade into someone's personal homes. The surveillance should occur outside the privacy of someone's home and somewhere in the public eye.
ReplyDeleteChristina Folkers 100-03
MWF 11:10-12
The government has absolutely no right to conduct surveillance upon its people. At the very least this is an invasion of privacy, at the most it is a travesty of government that is used to repress its people, destroy our democratic state, and to replace it with an overly powerful, morally abject totalitarian regime. I believe that the line between helpful security and overbearing "Big Brother" are quickly becoming made to look like one and the same. When people think this and are willing to give up every other liberty for security, they'll end up losing both and we'll be living in something like A Brave New World or 1984.
ReplyDeleteBrendan Darby
Tu Th 1225-1305
In my opinion, the government surveilling the people of our country is crucial for our protection as a nation; however, with probable cause. Check points and various other security measures at airports and other major locations, is very important, especially after September 11th. I believe the government being on a constant high alert is good for our country.
ReplyDeleteKaila Burch
PSCI 100.04
T-Th 12:25-1:40
I agree with Kaila when she says they must have probable cause. Tracking me without reason is something I do not believe is right. I think that is taking it over the top. However, surveilling people with a probable cause, with only the nation's best interest at heart is very important for us.
ReplyDeleteDylan Nick
PSCI 100.04
T-Th 12:25-1:40
I think that government survelliance is a good thing to have but I feel that it should be monitored by the police and government officials. If it keeps us safe and gives us security I am all for it. I think that it helps police and other officials by tracking those who may endanger those who are innocent.
ReplyDeleteTiffany Didawick
PSCI 100:04
I think there should be a line drawn. Having cameras throughout a city? I understand them being at stop lights to catch people who run redlights but I'm sorry if the government were to install a camera at my street corner I'd be a little creeped out. It's an invasion of privacy! Also I noticed it's ok if there is probable cause being a theme, what would be a probable cause? Littering? destruction of property? robbery? I think some surveillance is needed, but like I stated before there has to be a line drawn somewhere.
ReplyDeleteAshley Wright
PSCI 100.3
MWF 11:10-12
I don't believe that the government should be able to keep surveillance over us in certain situations like where this is probable cause. If there is no probable cause then I feel as though it is an invasion of privacy. As the founding fathers said before us, "government has no place in people's personal lives". Now I agree with this idea but I believe that there is a thin line between invasion of privacy and keeping our safety intact. So again I feel government should not invade our privacy unless they have probable cause to, and in the situations where our safety needs further surveillance.But not on a regular basis.
ReplyDeleteBrianne Fisher
PSCI 100 T-TH 12:25-1:40
I believe that the government has every right to watch the things that we do on a daily basis to a certain extent. With government surveillance, I do feel safer as a person to know that there is security out there watching the things that go on to protect us from danger. With that being said, I think that it needs to be kept to just that, surveillance for safety. I dont feel that it is necessary to hack onto something such as Facebook or email and invade someones personal space. It is one thing to protect someone from harm but to be nosey and in someones business is a different story.
ReplyDeletePSCI 100:04
T/TH 12:25-1:40
The government needs to do surveillance in order to keep the citizens safe. That is the only reason they should watch what we do. If a person is doing nothing wrong and living like a citizen should then there would be no need to watch us. The truth is that not everyone can be trusted. I agree that the government needs to have a limit on how much they can do. We elect people that need to use good judgement on how much surveillance is needed. The risk of having to much government in our lives is a revolt and overthrow of the government. Criminals would just continue to do business further underground as well. The best thing about not having government watching is the sense of freedom and individuality.
ReplyDeleteI am fine with the government having complete control over surveiling the country, I agree with Amber in mentioning 9/11 the government has all the right to monitor any suspicious activity that could further harm the U.S this though has probable cause, i however dont agree witht the fact that the government should record my every phone call or place a tracking device on my vehicle without no necessary reason too. I also agree with what Corbin has said about the truth is that not everyone can be trusted, If we have to much government involvement in our lives where does the sense of freedom and individualty go ?
ReplyDelete~Jenna Hoffman
MWF 11:10-12 PSCI 100.3
This is just my oppinion, but I belive the government need to have survalence. There is a point to it, like I wouldnt want them to have cameras in mt living room or bedroom. But to keep terrorists from another attack on our country, the government should be vigil over everyone in this country and not from this country. Like the Army Major that started shooting in a military clinic. Or the terror cell in Pa that planned an attack on an Army base. A local retailor allerted the FBI to them when he saw their video. Just think of the damage they could have caused. Im definatly ok with our government monitoring us as long as it doesnt strip my freedoms from me. Sorry about my typeing. My daughter is laying on my right arm. Chad Watson TR 12:25-13:40 PCSI 100
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think the govt. has every right to some surveillance if deemed necessary. Surveillance at grocery stores, airports, etc are necessary to the economy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, searching through someones trash probably is not the best type of surveillance unless they are a character of interest. The govt. definitely needs to have some limits and restrictions on how far they take their surveillance. Americans still need to have a sense of freedom and security.
Rose Walker
PSCI
T/TH 12:25-1:40
The government needs to do surveillance in order to keep the citizens safe. That is the only reason they should watch what we do. If a person is doing nothing wrong and living like a citizen should then there would be no need to watch us. The truth is that not everyone can be trusted. I agree that the government needs to have a limit on how much they can do. We elect people that need to use good judgement on how much surveillance is needed. The risk of having to much government in our lives is a revolt and overthrow of the government. Criminals would just continue to do business further underground as well. The best thing about not having government watching is the sense of freedom and individuality.
ReplyDeleteCorbin Clark
PSCI 100.3 MWF 11-12
Obviously government surveillance is necessary to keep people safe. While some people feel there is a certain line that shouldn't be crossed, I feel there isn't. If we want to be safe the government should be able to use surveillance the furthest extent, in order to keep us safe. If we have nothing to hide then there shouldn't be a problem with the government monitoring people who they feel could be a possible threat.
ReplyDeleteChristie Seidel
PSCI 100.3 MWF 1110-12
I think surveillance is a good thing, but from what I read in this article the government is taking surveillance to far. There is a line between privacy and surveillance and some of the things they do is invading privacy. I can understand tracking things in google, that is a way to find out what people are interested in, top things people look at and so on. For the agents to go through peoples trash is going a little bit to far. I understand that could be a way of finding terrioists but I think there is other ways of doing it instead of searching through trash. Surveillance is a good thing but when it is invading the peoples privacy like digging through the trash I think it is being taken to far.
ReplyDeleteAlexis Kun
PSCI 100.3
MWF 11:10-12
There does need to be a limit on how far government surveillance can go without invading a person's right to privacy, but people also need to keep in mind that government has good intentions on the actions that are being taken. No one wants another September 11th attack and in order to prevent such an attack, then certain government actions are inevitable, and if that requires the government to have to monitor it's citizens a little more closely then so be it. If your innocent, you should have nothing to hide.
ReplyDeleteKari Still
PSCI 100
T/TH 12:25-1:40
I feel that it is good that the government surveils people in society but there should be a limit as to how much survailing that they do. I do not believe all surveillance is right. I don't think that they should use surveillance like using gps and stuff like that unless it is absolutly necessary.I meean the government surveillance is intruding into people lives in some cases.
ReplyDeleteKaitlyn Matthai
PSCI 100.3 MWF 11:10-12:00
I do not agree with all surveillance. I believe that as American citizens we have rights that deserve to be respected. The U.S. government no longer respects these rights andd there is absolutely no justice in invading someone's personal life. Some things are private and need to remain that way. Our government has forgotten what the Constitution stands for. Although I believe their intentions are well, they go about the situation in the wrong manner. Privacy is important and I don't think that should be invaded unless there is a reason to. Without reasonable or probable cause, the government should be limited on what they can or should know about one individual. But who can say what is too far? What one person or group will stand up to the entire government to make a change? And even if so, would it matter? Even if we as citizens wished to change things, how would we? We can not possibly stand up to our government. Our country has changed many times since it was born, and it still continues to. The government is slowly taking over. Sooner or later, we will have no control, if we even do now.
ReplyDeleteJessica VanFleet
PSCI 100 T/R 12:25-1:40
Government surveillance is put in place to aid in our safety. Knowing there are highly trained people putting their lives at risk for the safety of our country means a lot to me, as I feel it should for most. It is not for their own personal pleasure of wanting to learn and/or know everyone's business, but for aiding in the prevention of such a traumatic event as September 11, 2011. Prevention of terrorism is just one benefit of close government surveillance. Hearing, seeing, and witnessing all the illegal acts that take place today, I feel there is no such thing as too much government surveillance. Cracking down on the drug rings, robberies, and murders are just a few more reasons for the need of close government monitoring. In conclusion, I feel too much is better than too little.
ReplyDeleteMegan Manuel
PSCI - 100.04 TR
I do believe that the government has the right to have surveillance in order to protect us. Although I don't believe they have the right to do it without a warrant for people who haven't done anything. But I do agree that they should do it to people who have committed a crime or are illegal aliens. As long as the government doesn't go passed that, I don't see a problem.
ReplyDeleteKourtney Weld
PSCI 100.03
MWF - 11:10-12
I have absolutely no problem with government surveillance. Many will argue that it is a violation of rights and the Constitution by taking away certain freedoms. I will not argue with that point; yes, some freedoms are partially sacrificed to help protect this country, but only in certain situations. For example, there are many people complain that the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is taking away the freedom to privacy. They are not taking away freedoms, the freedoms are willingly sacrificed by every individual who agrees to the screening procedures. It is not a Constitutional right for Americans to fly on a commercial jet, they have every right to refuse the screening, but they will not be getting on an airplane. This same situation applies to almost every situation in which freedoms are "violated". If a person wants each and every one of their freedoms to be preserved they should never go out into public, purchase a cellular phone, or own a computer with internet access. It is the choice of the American to sacrifice certain rights, it is not forced upon them by the government. We are always left with the ultimate freedom: The freedom of choice.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the government does have a right to conduct surveillance because their job is to do whatever they need to do to keep us safe. However, I don't think that alone gives them a right to invade people's personal lives. I believe they should act on suspicions or anything that seems dangerous or as a threat to our country. Other than that, I don't feel there is any reason for them to fish out personal information.
ReplyDeleteSara Paquet
PSCI 100.03
MWF- 11:10-12
While I think that surveillance is important to be able to survive and have a working society.. I believe that going so far as to put devices in to be able to extract information from our cell phones is a little extreme. If the government needs that much control over what were doing on a day to day basis I think there is something wrong.
ReplyDeleteI'm not okay with being watched this extremely. I have seen the movie Eagle Eye, and I loved the movie but if that was my life I would not like someone watching my every move. There has to be a line that should not be crossed. I don't mind that they watch at certain points, that is understandable after 9/11, but they have to have a line that gives people some sort of privacy and respect for themselves.
ReplyDeleteKayla Myers
PSCI 100.03
MWF 11:10-12
Like many people have stated that surveillance is very very important, what i beleive is that there needs to be a define line. The google issue I believe that they should really consider what people are searching if someone is searching for things such as bombs, high powerful guns, etc. I think it should be taken to consideration that this is suspcious. As people living in the United States we want saftey but I dont think that surveilling every aspects of our lives is a good way in keeping us safe. When that line had been crossed by someone (breaking the law and or doing suspicious activities) then sure using cell phone tracking and such is a good way to put that suspiciouness away. But if everyone starts figuring out that everything they do is being whatched then people are going to get smart and they will never be able to find any of the true "bad" guys doing anything bad.
ReplyDeleteRyan Potts
PSCI 100:04
T/TH 12:25-1:40
I believe that there is a fine line between too much security and feeling watched and not enough security and feeling unsafe. I personally do not want another September 11th attack because my own family was involved in the attack itself. I am sure that the other families would agree with me.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government has to do what needs to be done, such as monitoring cell phones and computers. How else are they going to find out a possible attack. On the other hand I believe that putting a GPS device on a car is going overboard. I know if they did that to me I would be furious and would fight it. I think that is ridiculous because I am an American citizen and have been since birth, and they would have no reason to do so. Kind of like what happened to that guy at the Mall of America, taking his video camera was outragous. I feel that is going over the line.
Hope Fraser
While Surveillance is seen as a good thing under most circumstances in the US, it can still be a danger to us as citizens. The government tells us that it's to keep us safe and to prevent crime, which it does a lot of the time. But when the government uses surveillance to monitor our actions just for the sake of information on our daily lives, that is crossing the line. If the government had that much information about us, it could take over. We need our privacy so that we can overthrow those that seek to gain too much control over us. These limits of government surveillance should be set by the people, but it's easier said than done.
ReplyDeleteMichael Citro
PSCI 100-03
I believe that government surveillance is necessary but, I think that the United States government is taking advantage of the fear instilled in Americans post-9/11. I think that modern technology has orchestrated much of it. Back in the early 80’s there was a terrorist in this country that terrorized people for over eighteen years. This was before the internet was developed and before people developed an intimate relationship with the cellular devices. He terrorized people by mailing them bombs and it took over eighteen years for the government to capture him. Today, the government will be able to access exactly when I send this blog, because of my internet connection. I wonder if Ted had a cell home or an internet connection if it would have taken eighteen years. Before 9/11, few Americans believed that anything like 9/11 could happen in the United States. Since then the surveillance throughout this country has heightened to an all new level, but I don’t think that we are any safer. Terrorist have existed in this country, 9/11 was just a large scaled event. I don’t like the fact that my cell phone has GPS capability, but there have been situations where GPS has saved the lives of people. I don’t like the fact that the government can pull my internet records to see what I have been in search of. But, I am sure that the mother of some young girl who has disappeared with someone she met on the internet is grateful for it. I don’t like the flashing lights of the traffic camera that has just taken the picture of my license plate as I run a red light, but does that camera cut down on the red light “runners” that kill people every year. I think that government surveillance is a double edged sword; it provides security in one sense and invades privacy in another sense. I think that Americans could really care less who is watching them, as long as it does not interfere with their “freedoms.” I also don’t think that many of them will really stand up to protect their constitutional rights. I have often said that it would be hard for Americans to pull off what the terrorist of 9/11 pulled off, not many of us are willing to die for what we believe.
ReplyDeletePatricia Claude
PSCI 100-03
In my opinion I believe surveillance is not only just but is also highly necessary. I mean really think about it, if it weren't for surveillance and and cameras some of the nations highest criminals would of never been caught. Now while arguing this point there is a lot of pros and cons involved. For example, the pros are that our laws and citizen rights are being protected in a around about way. However for the cons, I feel like our privacy is being invaded and stepped upon, as if our personal lives are no longer personal; they can be invaded at any point with us being completely oblivious to it. I also believe that if these "necessary" decisions are to be made then they should be made by the people that will be ultimately be effected by it. And for the government to be able to gather information on one person in my opinion is absurd, the government should only be able to do so on one condition, that condition being if your a criminal of some sort or you have given reason to be checked into. And yes, I would love to feel like I have a personal life that hasn't been intruded into by the government. Oh and one more thing, I think that if the government is looking into your personal business they should at least notify you before hand even if there is nothing you can do to stop, at least you would know what was happening.
ReplyDeleteMegan Frazer
PSCI 100-03
11.10.12
There can definitely be too much surveillance in government today. Like we said in class about the drug testing, it's invading Constitutional rights, and people are not doing anything about it. When I lived in the dorms at WVU, they told us there would be random drug testing. I, personally, was never asked to take a drug test and they may have said that just to scare us, but it's most definitely an invasion of privacy. In the cases of the people questioned at the Mall of America, surveillance is obviously being taken to the extreme, and innocent people are being hurt by it. So basically yeah, I think they might be taking it a little too far.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there needs to be a line drawn concerning surveillance. If there isn't, it will just increase in many and more than one way and, next thing you know, every single thing we say or do will be observed by someone else. I know that technology is on a constant increase, but does that mean that we have to use everything to the maximum. Think about say 50 years ago...was there this much concern about surveillance?
ReplyDeleteAlso, concerning the Mall of America audio we listened to on Thursday:
I think they're nuts for arresting a man taking a video at the mall. It is his right to take a video if he wants to. Are security officers going to come up to people video taping in New York City and question them because they look "suspicious"? I would hope not. I also think the security employees at Mall of America are trying too hard to be heroes. Maybe that is why everyone looks so suspicious to them...they are looking for something to be wrong about what people were doing.
Amanda Lundstrom
PSCI 100:04
TR 12:25-1:40
I think that there is definitely a limit to what the government should be able to survey and when it becomes neccesary. This is a hard thing to define. Everyone has mentioned that since 9/11 there has been a heightened sense of surveillance. I do think to some extent that there needs to be surveillance to keep our country safe, but I also feel that the way that the government goes about it is not as effective as it could be. In the example of the Mall of America, the majority of the people they "investigated" were harmless people. I think that they are being a little over crucial with the way they are investigating there. They can check out a situation if it seems a little out of sorts but to hold someone for hours and involve the FBI for these minimal things seems like a waste of time and money to me. Although "better safe than sorry" does apply I am just not sure where to draw the line. So to me this is a very hard subject to define.
ReplyDelete~Sara Balog
PSCI 100-04
TR 12:25-1:40
I think that the amount of surveillance we have in the US is entirely too much! In many cases the government has no reason to violate peoples privacy. I think you should be notified if your being watched or your phone is being listened too out of respect for the people who pay their taxes which help fund their actions. Not everyone is a suspect and i feel that too much time is wasted (in some cases) on surveillance without a good outcome. There are also cases where the wrong person is being watched and police or FBI raid the wrong persons house,preventable mistakes.
ReplyDeletepsci 100.03..sorry
ReplyDeleteI believe that surveillance is a good thing, but from what I have read in this article the government is taking surveillance to a bit of an extreme. There is huge difference between privacy and surveillance and some of the things they do I think is invading someones privacy. For someone to go through other peoples trash in my opinion is a bit to far. Surveillance is very important and I am glad that we have it,but at the same time the government I feel trys to control of our lives with it. However like others have stated I rather "be safe then sorry".
ReplyDeleteAmber Collis
100-03
I believe that there should be a line drawn between how much surveillance the government is allowed to do and how much society thinks is necessary. I don't know if there will ever be a complete agreement about where it should be drawn but I think that people need to work together to find one.
ReplyDeleteBriana Simpson
PSCI 100-04
T/R 12:25-1:40
I think that some survailence is ok. Traffic camaras and security camaras in malls and other bussiness are fine. But the government should not be allowed to look at the GPS info on my phone to see where I have been.
ReplyDeleteDwight Shilling
PSCI 100-03
MWF 11:10-12:00
Surveillance is what keeps our streets and public buildings safe. I always view it as, if you dont have anything to hide then what are you afraid of?
ReplyDeleteI think surveillance is a needed part of a saf community.
Abbie McMullen
MWF 11:10-12
Unless you're a big time criminal and they have a justified reason to, I don't want the government to know exactly where I am every day. That starts to cut into our personal privacy. It's unnecessary.
ReplyDeletePSCI 100.03
Tessa Rakowski
I don't agree with the government taking ever person's every move with the GPS systems. Although, I do think that the road blocks, security checks, bag checks when going into a big event, and sobriety checkpoints are very reasonable. I also think that having cameras in towns are okay. That way if something does happen there is a way to find out the exact details. Even if it is something small.
ReplyDeleteKirsten Dorosh
PCSI 100.03
MWF 11:10-12
I do believe that it is necessary to have surveillance from the government for ourselves. However, I feel like they should have a justifiable reason to invade any individuals privacy. The level of government surveillance as of now is a bit intense, but it is certainly understandable.
ReplyDeletePSCI 100.03
I think that surveillance is important to a certain degree. If the government has reason to believe that you could be up to something bad, then they should have the right to see what you are doing. But if you are just buying a soda from 7/11, they don't need to know about every small detail about your life.
ReplyDeleteDanny Kremen
PSCI 100-04
T/R 12:25-1:40
Surveillance is definitely necessary, but only to an extent. Surveillance is an excellent source for the safety of the people. However, I believe there can be too much governmental surveillance. The limit should be drawn when surveillance starts affecting the privacy of the common people. I feel number 4 goes a little too far with surveillance. Not only does the FBI use GPS devices to track people’s movement without a warrant, the fact that they attach it secretly, without the person’s knowledge, is a bit disturbing. Surveillance would probably lower crime rates but depending solely on technology would somewhat defeat the purpose of police officers, security guards, etc.
ReplyDeleteTracy Ocampo
MWF 11:10-12
PSCI 100-03
Due to the issue of 9/11, security has been lifted to unimaginable heights which is necessary. I don't think that putting GPS on peoples cars or tapping into people's telephone is needed. I don't think that the government is to be blamed on their actions of security. How would you feel if you were in the President and someone attacked your soil? You'd be a little scared and want to do anything possible to make sure this doesn't happen again. Check points and airport security have been improved which has been very helpful. Mall security could be beefed up a little bit.
ReplyDeleteTroy McNeill
PSCI 100.03
MWF 11:10-12
John Winterstine
ReplyDeletePSCI 100
T/R 12:25-1:40
Surveillance is often many other places as well and is done so without any government action. Areas like casinos have an enormous amount of cameras that can often catch a persons every movement, but 99% of people remained unphased by it and enjoy their experience. Often times closed circuit cameras operated by businesses catch individuals committing criminal acts not against them, but those that just happen to fall into their camera range.
I'm very much for high levels of surveillance in America today. If it helps prevent terrorism or may catch someone who has kidnapped a child, how could anyone not support that? But my expectation that what I purchase for groceries being made known to others and that a gps system not wrongfully be placed on my car makes me feel as if those that intentionally misuse surveillance should be held accountable and should face a consequence.
I'm against the amount of surveillance performed by the government, but I think surveillance is necessary. I don't think the government should be able to watch whoever however they want. The government should end their surveillance at the private parts of ones life. The agencies who run the surveillance should police themselves on these activities. Having part of our lives outside of the Governments sight would allow more people to trust the overpowering government.
ReplyDeleteZach Moore
PSCI 100-3
I think the surveillance by the government has gone too far. If the FBI gets a warrant then they should do all the surveillance they want, but without a warrant I think they are infringing on peoples rights. In the constitution it says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.." The government is violating the constitution
ReplyDeleteSteven Lesko
PSCI 100-04
I believe the government can use unlimited surveillance if and only if they have probable cause as to why they are searching that particular person. Also surveillance should only be used on those suspected of committing a crime that puts other peoples lives in danger. Using surveillance to track anyone they please and being able to track everyone's moves and actions is a huge invasion of our privacy and rights.
ReplyDeleteGarrett Hess
PSCI 100
MWF 11:10-12
Surveillance plays an important role for exerting control over the population, in this time of age, with terabytes of information in their hands, we just hope them to not to use it against us. But considering how they they persist people to exchange information with them, we can't stay relaxed.
ReplyDeleteWe can't avail a government service unless we exchange our information to the them, giving false information otherwise would result to tons of penalty. It's the government's main role to provide order and security. in order for them to exert order, it is necessary for them to have control, control by the form of surveillance, making sure people are not acting outside the bounds of normalcy.
But it doesn't necessarily mean that the government should conduct all forms of surveillance, as it would invade your privacy. As from what we can see in courts, our background information could be unforgiving. By just using your patterns of behavior, anyone could do a sting operation on you that would make you look like you're the suspect on any case. our background and past actions can be used as an evidence in court despite having no significance to your case. with enough information about one person, the person can be accused, controlled and manipulated.
What I think the government should do is place surveillance in public places but not into prying someone's private life. it's the governments role to provide public security, while it's in the responsibility of the people to provide order in their daily lives.
Leslie Uri Acuesta
PSCI 100
MWF 11:10-12
I don't think that all government surveillance is justified, or that the government should be able to conduct as much surveillance as it wants. There is a limit to how much a person should be monitored, and how that information should be gathered. I know that, with new technologies, law enforcement and some government groups have been able to prevent harm or help those in harms way through surveillance. Having GPS devices in cell phones, viewing call records, and hacking into someone's computer has and could help find missing persons, criminals, and murderers. This is a good thing for the population. However, there needs to be a limit, and just because there is a lot of surveillance doesn't mean something can't go wrong.
ReplyDeleteI think that with too much surveillance comes paranoia, for both government personnel and the general public. In books, movies, and even some TV shows there have been situations where the government has too much surveillance and runs peoples everyday lives. This is not good for anyone. People need things that are just their own, they need privacy. For instance, you could be married, with kids, and have been together for 30 years. That doesn't mean that, even after all that time and all those experiences together, you want your partner watching you go to the bathroom. Heck, you may not want them being in there while your taking a shower(I think most people can relate to that). People NEED privacy. There are reasons we only talk about certain things with certain people.
Taking privacy away through surveillance will only lead to bad things. People will probably rebel or form secret organizations in which they can escape some of the government surveillance. At least that's what I think. People can be quiet for awhile, but everyone has a breaking point.
Now, who should be able to say how much surveillance we have? That I'm not really sure of. Every person has a different opinion, so I don't know if the U.S. population could come to a reasonable limit. Maybe it needs to be a combination of the government and the people. Then we could see the government's stand on the matter, and what most citizens are thinking. Whoever decides, there has to be a clear limit. People need privacy.
Katlynn Almansor
PSCI 100
TR 12:25-1:40pm
Personally I think it's a load of b.s. that we americans are being surveyed in the manner that we are. Don't you think they should be more worried about the illegals coming into this country and surveillancing them more. I don't have anything to hide from the government...however, it is none of their damn business what I do in my daily life, who I talk to, what I talk about, I have a right to privacy from the Government and they have absolutely NO reason to be digging through my private messages and such without my permission!
ReplyDeleteHeather Seek
PSCI-100-04
I hate that I am always being watched. I want my privacy. I think that it is unreal how much people get accused for being possible terrorists. What if i'm a very sarcastic person and they randomly are tapping into my phone lines? Am i a terrorist then? Or am I conspiring against the government? It's so crazy how much the GOVERNMENT assumes about their own citizens of this country!!
ReplyDeleteAshley Bryant
1225-140 TR