By: Derek Campbell
Surveillance has been a very useful and necessary tool in order for the government to investigate crime for a long time. The use of surveillance has evolved come a long way over the years through the invention of equipment used, such as video cameras, cameras or sound equipment. As our society has evolved people are starting to add surveillance into their own homes as methods to ensure safety and care for their families. The reasoning could either be for when the family is out of town or to just monitor behavior. Over time the government has developed home surveillance laws, to ensure privacy of others. While states have different laws, filming without consent is normally okay but should not be done in private areas. National policies regarding surveillance have caused some controversy because there has been some unwarranted surveillance that has been done in the name of national security. Should government have the ability to surveillance wherever they decide? The public has their pros and cons for the unwarranted surveillance from the government, through actual events that have happened one can see the reasoning for our National security to disregard certain surveillance laws.
The NSA Warrantless surveillance controversy is one loophole the government formed to use National surveillance whenever they please without approval of anyone. This controversy concerns surveillance of persons within the United States during the collection of foreign intelligence by the U.S. National security agency (NSA) as part of war on terror. This high power surveillance clan really got going post September 11th. People in America are all on board for the termination of terrorists’ acts on our country. Alongside the governments advanced technological surveillance options, are the negative side in which certain Americans disagree with.
In a recent New York court case (People vs. Moore), the court denies the police officers “exigent circumstance” in the officer’s plea of him using the phone tracking system to track down an alleged homicide suspect. In court the officer did not have sufficient evidence to offer, so he became at the wrong in using the particular surveillance. This brings up the question of penalty. The law enforcer that misuses government surveillance should be penalized. This in the end will hold police officers and/or government officials more liable for their actions. They possibly will think twice or enable them to find legitimate evidence before using unwarranted government surveillance in order to get their job done.
There is a contrary to these two examples of feasible government surveillance. The public is aware of these unrecognizable surveillance options; this actually parallels Bentham’s panopticon. In Bentham’s panopticon he explains how in prison, the prisoners have no idea when they are actually being watched. And the idea that people know they are being watched is tremendous power over whomever you are surveillance. The fact that people of the United States now know they are basically being watched at all times, most of the time they have no idea how, is a tremendous threat to society. People feel as if they can’t or wouldn’t get away with anything due to high surveillance options of the government, so that forces them for the most part, to abide by the laws.
Interesting connection to the 9/11 attacks, especially about what you stated on how surveillance is to used to increase privacy of others. It is similar to how post 9/11, specific groups of people were targeted for surveillance and forced to register with the government because they were immigrants from specific middle eastern countries, even though none of the people who had to register were actually involved in any terrorist activity.- Maria Campos
ReplyDeleteWow, that article you linked to was very interesting. I had no idea that this form of surveillance, obtained through unjustified means, has no mechanism for being discarded by statute or the Constitution. It appears to be something that should be addressed legislatively as soon as possible, as there is nothing serving as a inhibitor to law-enforcement agents from deceitfully obtaining information through surveillance.
ReplyDeleteIn my view, a round the clock surveillance ensures has a number of drawbacks and advantages. The advantages include that the knowledge of 24-hour surveillance ensures that the public abide by the laws all the time. The other advantage is that it allows law enforcers to perform their duties effectively. Surveillance drawbacks include infringement on personal rights of privacy and the misuse of surveillance by government officials.
ReplyDelete-Sehun Lee
You made a good point with Bentham's panopticon. We really do know to a certain extent what the government is doing now. The NSA is a capable of so much, and how they find loop holes can be scary at times. But things like this are supposed to be for our own safety. The limits that were in place though, don't mean as much as they used to. It's interesting to see how the laws can be interpreted and manipulated.
ReplyDelete-Alexander Juha
This is very interesting and alerting to know the extent to which the government employs surveillance on us. Agreeing with a previous comment, I do think that knowing that we are being watched 24/7 has some advantages, precisely the idea behind the panopticon. If people know they are being watched, they might alter their behavior, and in reference to crime control, this would be desirable.
ReplyDelete