Current Event #8: Government Invades
American Citizens Right to Privacy
Due: Friday, November 2nd, 2012
A recent issue surrounding the rights of American citizens privacy has come into play at the federal government level as it concerns to wiretapping. Known as the FISA Amendments Act, the arguing plaintiffs state that this particular act allows the government to target people without any suspicion of wrongdoing. This in turn, brings up the question of whether or not an invasive program as such will be subject to any meaningful judicial review. This makes many fearful that if no regulations or checks and balances are placed on government officials, from monitoring phone/email records, the privacy of many non-threatening citizens will be violated and subjected.
What You Will Do:
Read the CNN article found at the following address link to respond to the following questions: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/opinion/jaffer-abdo-wiretapping/index.html?hpt=op_t1.
1) How do you feel about the government having the ability to access the phone and email records of citizens found guilty of wrongdoing as well as non-threatening individuals in attempts to obtaining personal information?
2) Should there be judicial review conducted on government officials to protect the privacy of American citizens from being taken advantage of? If so why, and to what degree do you suggest conducting an audit and who should be apart of this judicial review committee?
3) Do you foresee a major shift or change in the way people will utilize their communication devices, if the government wins this case, which will truly end the privacy of all citizens' phone/email records from being wiretapped? By chance, does this debate issue cause you to rethink your communication correspondences with the individuals you call, text, or send emails to?
***Remember to answer all of your questions in complete, detailed sentences/paragraphs.***
Avery Acierno
ReplyDelete10/30/12
Waters Period 5
1. I find it a little disturbing that the government can obtain personal information of people who don’t pose a threat via phone or email records. I understand the need to monitor possibly threatening people with a criminal record for national security. Still, I feel that the government shouldn’t be able to look at everything, especially from harmless people. They could come across some embarrassing or personal things. I feel a little less secure now, knowing whatever I put on email, phone, or even this blog could be seen by outside eyes.
2. I think there should be judicial review of this situation only if problems begin to arise, which is likely to happen. If everything is kept quiet, and no personal information is leaked or wrongly accused, then the system is working fine and no review is needed. However, if problems arise where citizens’ privacy is taken advantage of, then I believe it should be looked into. This is because personal privacy is important. That would be a big problem in violation to citizens’ rights, and should be taken to a great degree. If problems come up I would have the U.S. Supreme Court be the judicial members of the audit.
3. If the government wins the case, some people will change how the use their technological communications. Some people will start sending messages as if outside eyes are viewing it, making sure to leave out information that is personal or could get them in trouble. However, I think most people will continue messaging as they always have, unaware of the new lack of privacy. This could lead to some major confidentiality problems. If it goes through, this does make me rethink me technological communications. I will always have to be careful with them and realize outside eyes could see whatever I send.
Nathan Guskeiwicz
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
10/30/12
1. I understand why the government should have the ability to access phone and email records, because they could stop some potential threats. But it seems a little nosey to me. I see why they should be able to look at people who have committed crimes in the past, but I don’t understand why they should with people who haven’t. It seems like it will be a lot of extra work for just a little result.
2. I do think that there should be a judicial review for the FISA Amendments Act. Its preventing people from doing business in other counties because they are worried about privacy issues. Also privacy is one thing that many people value about this country. I think that it should go to the Supreme Court to be decided.
3. I think that it will definitely change the way people communicate. It takes away everyone’s privacy when it comes to communicating electronically. It wont really effect the way I communicate with other people just because I don’t say anything totally confidential on wireless communication. I think privacy is really important to people, therefore I wouldn’t be surprised if someone comes up with other ways to communicate privately.
Sam Bauers
ReplyDeleteWaters 2nd
10/30/12
1) To me its a little awkward now knowing that there could be government officials looking at all of my personal writings on the internet after reading this article. I understand that sometimes they do thing like wire taps to people that could be dangerous or pose a threat to national security, but im just a fifteen year old boy who poses no threat and shouldnt be watched by a hawk or have my personal privacy invaded. However nothing you post or say is really private anyway so I dont think its to big of a deal. And who knows maybe since there are people watching now others will be a little more careful what they say on the internet.
2) I think that if it came to a point where people were being exposed and there was personal information that was just a little less personal then it should be reviewed by the supreme court. If the government and only the government can see it and no one else can see it then I dont really see a problem. However once someones personal rights that we have in America is broken than something is needed to be done. Thats why America is so great however now they are taking it away from us.
3) Yeah if the government were to win the case I dont think I could ever say anything again without being wheary or scared. You never know if the government would take something out of context or think you are talking about something else when you really arent or take something the wrong way. Like I said earlier though it might turn out to be a good thing if the government wins so people wont say such terrible things online.
Claire Lancaster
ReplyDelete1st period
1) I think it is fine for the government to access records of guilty people (emails, phone calls, texts, etc.) because essentially, it will help the case go a lot faster, and if the person tells them not to, well that just proves their guilty. Why would an innocent person say don’t check my email if they don’t have anything to hide? Now, a person who has not found to be guilty? That’s a whole different ball game. Your invading their privacy for really no reason, and it is violating the constitution.
2) Sometimes I think that people’s personal stuff should be investigated, but that’s only to a certain point. They shouldn’t go through all of their personal stuff unless they have proven that person to be guilty already and they just need this for backup. But just if they think someone may be up to something? That’s when they cross the line of what’s too personal.
3) If the government does win this case, I think there will be a major change in how people use their electronic devices for a little while, but I’m sure eventually there will be some genius who comes along and develops a way that the government cant tap into your personal communications. This doesn’t really cause me to rethink what I say through text/email/phone because I’m not ever saying anything illegal, if court were to think me of being a suspect for anything, they wouldn’t find any valuable information. Maybe other people should think more carefully that “I’m not just sending this text to my friend, but I could be sending this to the government too.”
Anna Grace Kelley
ReplyDelete10/30/12
Period 7
This case brings up mixed feelings for me. The government definitely has the rights to check people’s personal records and stuff, but it is also invading people’s privacy. The FISA law would make court cases go a lot faster and run smoother, but it makes a lot of people uneasy considering the fact that they can look at anything you’ve ever sent, searched or opened. If it came down to it though, I would vote to pass this law because of how much easier it makes court cases.
Because this law is dealing with privacy, I think that a judicial review would be a good idea. It seems as if the government is trying to pass this law for a good cause, but it definitely brings up questions. America is known for its freedom and right for privacy, and this law questions that. So yes, I think a judicial review is a good idea.
If the government were to pass this law, everything would change. People would start paying more attention to how they use their electronic devices and what they access or send. Another reason this law could be good is that it would prevent people from doing such terrible things online, but that’s not the issue here. This law would change a lot of things in America, so we will just have to wait and see what happens.
Gabi Brenman
ReplyDeletePeriod 7
People who have done wrong should be allowed to have their emails and phone calls searched. They have valid reasons to be suspected, and searching through their personal emails and phone calls would help keep people in the United States of America safer. However, it is completely different to search someone’s phone lines and emails when they are currently innocent. If someone does not have a history of breaking the law and there is no reason that another could be in harm’s way, they should not be searched.
I believe an audit should only be conducted if this person has a criminal record or if someone has been physically threatened. There should be a special group of people who get to be on the reviewing committee. I think the president should get to choose those people. The reviewing committee should be a group of honest, fair people.
If the government gets to wiretap, and it is widely known among American citizens, then people who are smart would stop using phones and emails to communicate private information. People would be more likely to meet in person to discuss private matters. If the government gets to wiretap, people will begin to be much more careful about what they say over technology. People would need to stop using sarcastic comments because the government may take them as serious threats. I think the government should have limited access when wiretapping.
Danielle Reviere
ReplyDelete5th
In my opinion if a person is not doing something that is wrong then you should not listen in on their phone calls. I get that we are supposed to be equal and I get why the government is doing this, but I think that the government should pay closer attention to the people who are doing something wrong. Plus it is violating our right to privacy.
I think that because they do not leak any information there should not be a court case. But if any information was released then there should be a case that goes to the Supreme Court. I do think that listening in on people’s phone calls is a violation of privacy, but if none of the information is released then it should not be taken to court.
I think that if this passes people will be more cautious of what they say or write, but a lot of people are already cautious of what they say. So due to people already being cautious it probably would not be that big of a shift. I am already cautious of what I write, so this just assures me that I am right to be cautious of what I write online.
Elise Dixon
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
1. I believe that if there is a person that is threatening or was a criminal then I think that it would be ok for the government to watch their emails and calls. But, I think that it is extremely wrong that non-threatening citizens would have their privacy violated and the government watch their phone and email records. For all we could know, one of us could have our email and phone records watched by the government. The fact that this is happening is quite scary to me and makes me feel more paranoid that this might have already or will happen to me.
2. I think that there should be a Judicial review conducted on government officials. If these government officials want to watch over and violate innocent and non-threatening peoples privacy then they should be judged on weather or not they should even by saying if they want it to happen. I think that on the committee there should be non biased people that are not politics. They should also be people that can easily see how people work and think. They should ask the people questions while checking whether they are lying or not to see how they are morally
3. I think that there will be a great amount of people that will think more about what emails, texts and calls that they send. I also think that there will be people that do not see that the government can look at anyone’s private information. This does not particularly change the way I think when talking to people since I previously knew that the government can do this. I also think that there will be people that will freak out when they find this out and be extremely paranoid.
Paige Haskins
ReplyDeletePeriod 7
October 31, 2012
When it comes to searching through the privacy of anyone, there are limits. Its a right and rights can't be taken away. If there is a legit reason to why someones personal emails, calls, or texts like there suspected of a crime or somelese illegal then thats different. The goverment would have the right to search through them if there reason was approved by a judge. That would make the most sense to me. If the person has no crime history and is honestly innocent then the goverment has absolutely no right in looking through their personal messages.
I think that if the situation came to the point of absolutely needed a audit, then thats what should happen. Reform can be taken, but only in drastic messures. Privacy is one of those topics that can go either way and to decide weather or not certain things are private is an opinoin. I would assume and like to have the Supreme Court decide these laws.
If the goverment does install a privacy act then yes, I would assume that many people would begin being much more careful about what they send. Even if its just to a friend or family member it will be less detailed I think. Especially texts and phone calls, Those will probably be kept to a minimun of information. I personally would be more careful about what I said. If i offend someone with a call, email, or text and that person has access to it then it completely defeats the whole point of having a phone to make "private" calls.
Emily Molina
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
Personally, I see nothing wrong with the government wiretapping intpphones and e-mails. In a way, it is like the random bag checkings and full-body scannings in airports. They happen to both innocent, guilty, and previously guilty, and it is done with the safety and security of the country in mind. So I do not see a real problem with this degree of monitoring, as long as the government has a valid reason to do so. If the government is just tapping into conversations and e-mails for no reason whatso ever, and there are suspicious people around that have motive to do something bad, then I believe that they would be the top people to look into. While it does seem somewhat discriminatory to do this, I still see it as vital. Think of the person as a piece of paper, and a crime is like crumpling the paper. You can unfold the paper afterwards, or make someone see their wrongdoings and get them to renounce and regret their ways. But the paper will never be perfectly smooth again, the person will never be the same after they have commited a crime. The purpose of viewing convicted peoples' e-mails and listening to their international phone calls is just to make sure that they have not relapsed into an unlawful, dangerous person who is willing to harm people to get what they want. Also, a criminal always starts out as a citizen that has commited no bad acts. A bad person starts out as a lawful one. Due to this, I do not see it as a problem to monitor good citizens as well, as long as they are not the main focus of the searching.
While I do not see it as a problem for the government to be wiretapping into e-mails and phone conversations, I do know that some people do not feel the same way. Certain people find their business to be strictly their business, and I completely respect that. So I think that they and anyone else should have the right to challenge the FISA Amendments Act. But due to the way it is stated in the law, people cannot challenge it without proof that they have been discretely supervised, and the government is unwilling to give out that information. That to me seems suspicious, so I think that a judicial review would be a good idea. People have the right to reform the government, and they cannot do that if the law is twisted to make it impossible. I think that a judical review should be conducted because at this point, that is the only form of justice that people can get when it concerns this law.
I do not think that people will begin changing the way they utilize electronic communication devices because we rely on them too much. It would be too big a shift for so many Americans. Plus, I am sure that most people are oblivious to this law, or think that it does not concern of affect them. As for me, I will not change the way I use my phine or e-mail because I have nothing to hide. I do see it as a little bit creepy for random officials to be looking at what I have sent people, but it does not endanger me or put others at risk.
Albert Yam
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
10/31/12
I don’t think there is a problem with the government being able to access your phone and email records. I think the government has a good reason to access those records. It could speed up the process of solving a case if those records were used. If the government were to look at someone’s records, as long as what you said is not illegal, you shouldn't be worried.
Since this law deals with privacy, and privacy is a big part of the constitution, there should probably be a judicial review. The government seems to be passing the law for a good cause but since it deals with privacy, it should be somewhat questioned. Because the constitution has the right to privacy in it, and this law deals with privacy, I think it should have a judicial review.
If the government wins, people would be more cautious knowing the government can access their information. People will start to watch what they say if the government can access those records. I will not really change the way I use my email because I have done nothing wrong so even if the government were to check, they wouldn't find anything to arrest me.
Markale Cordova
ReplyDelete10/31/12
Period 5th
1. Honestly I think it’s very weird and awkward about how the government officials know our personal writings or other business that we have on our phone, computer, etc. I mean understand that they are trying to do there job by taking away dangerous people who would be a threat to our society, but I don’t want people to be knowing everything I say or do. Meaning I don’t want to be hawk, stalked, or followed in any sort of way. Although, it’s pretty neat how these people do there job to catch dangerous people around us; it makes the national security job a little easier. But overall I think it’s weird that they watching us (Americans), but I wouldn’t (and maybe others) don’t want to be stalked by any means necessary.
2. If it came to the point where they have to go through our personal information then I guess it would be fine. Only if they are viewed by the higher authority only (police, supreme court, etc.)
Because once others information is revealed to the whole world to see, then you’re screwed and feel very embarrass about the situation; then it would need to stop. It would break on the rights that we have as Americans for privacy. So, unless they have hard evidence that they can back-up on about dangerous man/women a loose then that’s fine, but they don’t need to look
at every single information though.
3. If the government were to win a case about anything they are doing; then I would be proud for them and then be more strict or scared about what I’m trying to say to anybody. As long as the government does not take anything to seriously or the wrong way then I don’t see why not they can’t continue doing what there doing because obviously it’s working for them so yeah.
Current event # 8
ReplyDelete1. I feel that the government has a right to know what people are planning to do if it concerns them but if individuals aren’t planning to cause harm of any sort their business should be their own.
2. No there shouldn’t if Americans are being taken advantage of it would be for good causes.
3. No it is not the person you communicate with it’s how you communicate with them.
Ian Hufford
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
11-1-12
1) How I feel about the government being able to access phone calls and e-mails is that while having security is important, I do not see the importance of tracking people with no previous convictions. However, all people have rights and we should be able to keep them. while the security could be increased by tracking, it is not needed for people who are not suspected of illegal activities, in my opinion.
2) I think that if we are going to have unrestricted, unauthorised searches (by the user) of peoples phones and E-mails, the government should need a warrent to search peoples private data. Then, this program could be effective in stopping terrorism and illegal activities.
3) No, I think that the average person will take the ‘it will never happen to me’ mindset and continue to keep the normal usage of their devices. However, criminal organizations will probably just find other ways to communicate, rendering the program useless. If this gets passed, I will most likely continue to keep the normal usage of my phone and e-mail.
McKenna Willoughby
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
11/1/12
1) In my opinion, I do not like the idea that the government can access my information whenever they want. That is personal information, and if the person is non-threatening, then they shouldn’t be allowed to look at it. I do agree that the government should be able to access information on threatening citizens phones though. That would make the country a lot safer. But, if the government can access our private information, then couldn’t other people find a way to do so as well? That idea worries me.
2) I believe that there should be a judicial review. Privacy is a large part of the constitution, and this law would probably cause a lot of problems if it is passed. I do think that the government is trying to pass this law for a good cause though. But it would probably cause more problems then fix them.
3) I think that if the government is able to pass this law, then people will probably be more cautious when communicating through technology. If they know that the government can access it, then they will probably say a lot less. It might even be possible that people will start communicating more through talking again.
While I do find the concept of wire tapping slightly unsettling, I understand why there is a need. I would feel much more uncomfortable if an unknown corporation were reviewing my personal records, but I doubt very much that the American government would use my information for anything other than my safety. I believe that this is an ok practice, as long as it does not get out of hand. As soon as government officials start to abuse their power and we turn into a police state, I will rescind my approval. This practice is used to keep us safe and I have no objection until the motive for it changes.
ReplyDeleteAs I said before, until people start to abuse their power I will agree with this practice. I believe that there should be a basic probe installed, one that would lightly skim for any indiscretions. Then, unless anything is found, the probe would be rescinded. However, if something should come up there should be a full investigation launched. After the completion of the investigation, the government's wire tapping abilities should be restricted to a minimum. If they show that they cannot be trusted with this power, then we should take it away until they have proven their reliability again.
I doubt that there will be any major change in the way we use technology unless provoked. People rely too much upon their connections with technology to separate from it without a threat, or incentive, of sorts. If there happens to be a scandal, I am sure that there will be new passwords installed and systems changed but even then I doubt that there will be any major shifts.
simon dunson
ReplyDeleteperiod 7
1) I can see why the government should be able to see what people who have committed crimes talk about and listen to their conversations but I still think that people deserve their privacy. Don't you think its a little nosey to look at all peoples emails and listen in to their phone conversations. Also listening to innocent peoples conversations is just wrong like seriously that is taking away our writes from the constitution.
2) I think there should be a judicial review. If the law was passed it would just cause more problems than help. Privacy is a major part of the constitution and taking away that would be like taking away our freedom.
3) If the law is passed then i am sure many people will be very careful about what they say over the phone or over emails. I would be paranoid about it even though i wouldn't be doing anything wrong it is just scary. Peoples use of computers and cell phones would be greatly decreased if this law was to be passed.
Jacob Engel
ReplyDelete7th
I understand why the government wants to do this. It decreases the threat of terrorism and the like, but I would also be a little nervous if people could hear my conversations. People could probably trace the phone calls. What if there was a pedophile who traced a kid's phone and came into his/her house. I think that people who monitor phone cals should go through rigorous background and psychological tests to make sure they are not meaning to do harm.
Since privacy is a big part of the constitiution, than I think that there should be a review. Privacy is such a huge part, I think that there should be a judge to determine if this is constitutional or not.
I don' t think that there will be a drop because unless people are talking about doing illegal things, then you won't really care. If I was doing something, then I wouldn't care what the government thinks of me because chances are, I will never meet them.
Mimi Kramer,
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
11/1/12
I understand why the government would need to use the practice of wiretapping for the safety of our country. It is alright, but only if they don’t take advantage of it. I would think its okay only if they were sure that the person was a threat and looked into that person's life before just getting into all of their personal information. It is kind of weird that the government can see everything that you send and do online, because we do so much online now.
Yes I think its fair that there is judicial review of government officials. I think that if they did this then people would feel a lot more safe. It could make citizens feel taken advantage of and like they had no power if they didn't have a say in this. Yes I do think that there should be an audit in this case.
If they do allow this to happen, then I think that lots of people will stop utilizing technology. One bad aspect of this is that people could try to find ways to communicate so that the government cannot tap in. This could be an issue because the government may not like this and it could start conflicts between the government and citizens. But yes I think that I would try to talk more to people in person to feel more private and secure.
Emily Chang
ReplyDelete11/01/12
Pd. 1
1. It makes sense that the government is trying to do this for out safety, but I can't help being a bit apprehensive about it. Throughout the years, I've heard that what you put out on the internet may affect your future, but the government may be recording your conversations for no apparent reason. There is a fine line between effective precautionary measures and going too far. In this instance, I think it is a bit unnecessary.
2. I definitely think that there should be a review because people have a right to their own privacy. Many people are unaware that this is happening and would probably be upset if they found out. Privacy is a big part of the constitution and should remain part of our lives.
3. There may be a small amount of people who monitor what they say and do because of the law, but most either won't know or won't care. Chances are, the only people that go through a great change are those that know they are guilty of something or those that are doing illegal things.
Julianna Turner
ReplyDeleteNovember 1, 2012
World History, 2nd
I think that it is acceptable for the government to monitor our emails and calls. They are doing it for the overall security of this nation, it is not something the government is now doing for amusement. Also, they are mainly monitoring criminals or previous criminals because no person can go through such an ordeal without being changed. People are the the same after they commit crime and are punished for it. it is especially easier for them to fall back into their own habits compared to an innocent American. The government has shown that they are doing this for the protection of society, and if you have nothing to hide then it should not pose a problem.
I think that if it becomes an issue of privacy, then there should be a judicial review. But if a personal information is leaked, it could cause a number of problems. I would advise a group of people to oversee this amendment. They could randomly select some of the recorded phone calls or emails and check to make sure they are not in violation of the privacy of the American citizens. Also they should check to ensure that measures are to be taken to protect the personal information contained inside the emails or phone calls, unless they are used as evidence.
I don’t think people will change their ways, especially if they are innocent. If a person sees no reason as to why they would be eavesdropped on by the government i doubt they would alter what they say. People who are guilty or previously convicted could become more careful about their actions. But overall, most people are already cautious of what they say, therefore I do not think it would make that much of a dent if this amendment were to pass. My aunt once told me that “You should text your friends as though their mother is going to read it.” It is a good idea especially because you are taking a risk when sending anything to another person. It could be pictures, emails, texts, instant messages, videos, etc., you never know who else might see it. If you disagree with the government monitoring your emails or texts then you have the right not to use your email or phone.
Jessi Szymczak
ReplyDelete2nd period
This case can be looked at from multiple points of view. If someone were to do something that did not follow the law or something that the government needed to know about, it would make sense for them to need to access their personal information from online; such as, email, phone calls, facebook, etc. I also think that it it ok for the government to have access to these things by people that have not done anything wrong, however there is a line that can be crossed because all americans are entitled to the privacy.
I think that there should be a judicial review. If this law was passed it would probably create a lot of problems with other Americans because they wouldn't want there privacy exposed and have their verbal freedom taken away. However, if people started to abuse their verbal freedom that that is when the help and overlooking of things could come and be a part of watching things.
I think for a fact that if the government wins this case that people will start watching how they communicate with others online. I also think that most people will not agree with this, and that they should be able to have their privacy with things online. This wouldn't change how I talk to people online, however I would probably imagine someone reading what I write no matter what I am saying.
Veronica Kim
ReplyDelete1st period Honors World History
11/1/2012
1) I think invasion of privacy can be argued both ways. Of course, the government wants the best for the people, and I can see why they think that reading people's emails and such will help with this, but I can also see the other half - you don't want anyone going through your bedroom, or the stuff in your closet; why would this be any different? Sure, they catch some people doing bad things, but otherwise I feel that the government is just blatantly abusing its rights by snooping in on people's business.
2) I don't know. It's a really complicated thing... it's a very win-ish-lose-ish situation. On one hand, you're invading someone's privacy; on the other, you're possibly catching them red-handed. People could say that freedom of speech allows them to do whatever they want, but then again that can only go a certain extent. If problems arise (which, given the circumstances, is very likely), then yes, there should be a judicial review. Obviously, if the government keeps the information they gain to themselves, there's no point. But if it's leaked... well then, there may be an issue.
3) Yes. I do. I think people will be more inclined to go incognito when using Chrome, or simply just stop utilizing technology as much. Sometimes, it's just going a little too far, and that's what I would think if the government won this. Then again, it would also teach people to watch what they say on the Internet. But anything you say can be taken badly, especially if, say, you're on Facebook and referencing an inside joke - that could be seen as something very wrong, which would result in a person being unfairly accused. So if the government started tapping into my phone and computer, I would definitely decrease the amount of time spend online. Everyone needs privacy.
Abby Kameny
ReplyDelete5th period
11/1/2012
It is ridiculous that the government is considering monitoring citizens’ private e-mails and phone conversations. I believe doing so would interfere with our personal lives. The government needs to mind its own business. I am aware this idea came up most likely because of September 11 or other dangerous events. However, spying on people’s phone and internet conversations would only persuade them to be more secretive. I understand doing this to individuals with criminal records, but innocent citizens should not have to suffer.
I believe there should be a judicial review. Citizens deserve to have privacy, and violating that would upset a majority of our country. Privacy plays a major role in the Constitution. Although this law is for a good cause, I believe it would cause more problems than solve them. The members of the judicial review should definitely be unbiased, and should be certified in protecting the privacy of Americans.
This law would drastically change people’s actions towards communicating with one another. They would be more reserved when e-mailing or calling people, and I believe the situation would result in citizens talking to each other face to face more frequently. I highly doubt this would be an accurate system. If the law were passed, people would know that the government had the ability to monitor everything; therefore they would be more secretive.
I think this is absolutely wrong and the government has no right to invade peoples privacy over mobile and social devices. What people do on their own devices is their own business and I think government is getting way too involved in peoples lives and it isn't right.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Durant
ReplyDeleteperiod 1
Honors world history
i Think that it is wrong that the government could access any ones phone or computure is simply a breech of security even if it protects us from terrorist the thought of the government knowing everything about our personal lives is mutch worse than an other terrosrist attack for me
there should be a judical review i think its claerly agest the constitution and more movements in this direction would be worse for america even if the law means good
it would change how i did everything, while i have nothing to hide i have plenty that i wouldnt want to share, its not just the governmet knowing what im doing its the idea of someone knowing everything i say to my freind i might be secritive or rarly talkj if this gets passed
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteShamim Zarei
ReplyDelete2nd period
I think the government should not look at peoples texts,emails,or computer. It's okay if its a criminals phone or computer because they could have a dangerous plan going on. If it was to pass on every person in the United States, then peoples privacy will be ruined and they wouldn't text or use their computers as much. That is why I think the law should only be passed on criminals.
There should definitely be a judicial review on this. Citizens of the United States need to have their privacy so they can talk to their girlfriends/boyfriends or talk to their parents. I think this law is going against the Constitution. The supreme court better review this law before it breaks the freedom of Americans.
If this law were to pass, most Americans wouldn't even use their phones or computers because they need their privacy. Also, they could fear of saying a joke to their friends because the government might take it serious. I would definitely not use my phone or computer as much. Peoples use of computers and cell phones would be greatly decreased if this law was to be passed.
Nikki Thai
ReplyDelete1st Period
1. I think that those who did wrong, should be monitored for a certain amount of years based on their punishment, but innocent people or seemingly innocent shouldn’t. Is kind of what I think, but I also believed that to some degree they should be allowed access to our personal emails, etc. because they’re doing it for our safety. We also deserve our privacy even if its meant for our safety.
2. That’s a hard question. First, everyone deserves their privacy so you have to take that into consideration. Secondly, those who have committed serious offense deserve to be monitored, also. But to some extent they also deserve the chance to privacy after a reasonable amount of years. The committee should be well-balanced, a third of them being past offenders, the second third being recent/current offenders still on trial, and the last 33% should be the average typically person.
3. For others this may a big change, but for me not so much. The biggest change for me may be just feeling a bit awkward when communicating with friends; not that i’m sending things I shouldn’t be, I’m definitely keeping it “appropriate”. Just the simple thought that someone can read and watch and see what you ares sending is kind of creepy.
Emily Ball
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
11/1/2012
I think that the government if taking it too far this time. In this case, I think they should not have that kind of power. What they are doing is going through other peoples personal message or whatever else is on their device, but I think that is showing that they are abusing their power as being a part of the government.
I think that there should be a judicial review. If this law were to be passed, then it could start protests and such. People could feel like they are getting their rights taken away, when they are just minding their own business anyway.
If this law does pass and becomes official, then I think that many people will/may need and want to stop using technology because they may fear that they will get in trouble with the law. If they were to not stop using technology, then people would seriously have to watch what they say whenever using any technology.
Francis Wemmenhove
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
If a person is non-threatening and has done nothing wrong, then the government should not be allowed to access their phone and email records. However, if you have done something wrong, I believe that the government should be allowed to access your phone and email records. It is their own fault that this is happening to them. Also, looking at their records could actually help with keeping the United States safe. However, looking at the records of people who do not pose any threat to the United States, will not do anything in helping to keep the United States safe.
A judicial review is necessary, in my opinion. People deserve their privacy, and their privacy should not be invaded if they have done nothing wrong. I think an audit should only be done if the person has actually committed a crime or done something that was threatening to the United States. In the judicial review committee there should be trustworthy people.
For some people it might change the way they utilize their communication devices, if the government wins the case. However, I would not change the way I utilize communication devices. I do not care about the government seeing what I put in my emails or hearing what I say on the phone. Nothing of that is really something that I would not want anyone to see or hear. Some people do not like the idea of the government being able to access that kind of stuff. Those people will probably utilize their communication devices less.
Blake Johnson
ReplyDelete11/2/12
2nd period
I can understand why the government feels the need to monitor these communications especially after 9/11, but I think that it is a huge invasion of privacy for non-threatening people. I also think it is weird to have to be worried about a person working for the government could be looking through your emails or texts. That seems really creepy.
Yes, I think that there should be a judicial review conducted on government official to protect citizen’s privacy. There are bound to be problems to arise because of the law so an audit is needed. I think that that the Supreme Court should be a part of the judicial review committee
I think that the people who are informed on this law may change their communications slightly. Most likely they will leave out sensitive information that could be compromised and be used against them. Everyone else who is not informed on this law will probably going on communicating as always, not knowing that there might be a government official looking over their shoulder. Personally, I’m not going to change my communications because this law pertains to international communications and I don’t communicate with anyone internationally. In the case that the law was revised or something and normal people communicating with others in the same country were being monitored, I would probably think about what I say to people I’m communicating with.
Claire Kern, Pd. 7, 11/1/12
ReplyDeleteI feel that the government should have the right to intercept the communication of Americans. The government is trying to protect citizens, by looking for messages from bad people about bad stuff. After 9/11, the government should be doing all they can to prevent another catastrophe, like the 9/11 incident. Also, if Americans are obeying the law, they should have nothing to hide and therefore nothing to worry about. But, I do think Americans have some right to privacy of their communication, as long as those Americans are good. The thing is though, we don’t know which Americans are good, and who are bad, which is why I think the government should monitor everyone.
I do not think there should be a judicial review because it is the governments good to protect all the citizens of America. They can’t protect everyone if they are not watching all the communication across the country. If they are restricted, they might not have access to a phone call between terrorists or murderers or robbers or who know what else! And if they don’t know about these calls, then they can’t stop the people from putting their plans into action.
I honestly don’t see a major shift because most people could not go a single day without their cell phone or other device (myself included). But maybe some people will rethink this; they might value their texts and calls and emails privacy more than me. Personally though, I will continue to use my devices for communication because I have nothing to hide.
Cisem Karaca
ReplyDelete5th period
11/1/12
1) Privacy is a privilege, it should be earned. If you have committed a serious crime in the past then you should be punished accordingly. if the government is trying to keep individuals safe in a dangerous situation then I think that it is ok. But when there is no reason to “stalk” someone it should not be abused.
2) There should be a law that has specific standards on privacy matters. When a person is in dangers way or has an intention of causing harm to the society then it should be allowed. Regular citizens do not fall under this category because they have not done anything that can be a potential threat to the community. They should not have access to this information unless there is a valid reason to do so.
3) The texts and email you send to your companions should be confidential. Many personal jokes are exchanged in the process of social communication and have no need to be shared with the government. I defiantly think that people will limit their social communication actions if the government wins this case. The privacy of citizens is important to their safety and should not be used in unnecessary manner.
Kunal Lodaya
ReplyDelete1st period
11/1
On the surface, it appears to be an extreme invasion of privacy, and that our government is going Big Brother. It is also true, though, that such actions will drastically improve the safety of our nation from internal threats-domestic terrorism and similar situations. All the horrors committed in the past decade by extremists could have been mitigated or stopped by passages of such bills. They need to be monitored closely, but I feel like it could be for the better.
Instead of judicial review, constant monitoring should be the policy on such a controversial idea. If it gets out of hand, it needs to be stopped immediately, or the integrity of the government and the people would suffer. However, as a whole, I do believe that a moderate version of such an amendment could have a positive effect.
At first, I feel like once the news reaches the general public, it would cause a tremendous change in a short period. However, if the power is not abused and only used for lawful purposes, not-criminals might slowly realize that they are not in any danger, and the system would resolve. Meanwhile, those really at risk, the ones breaking the law, would be forced to watch their step-or pay the price.
Gavin Rothwell
ReplyDelete11/1/12
5th Period
1. I believe that the government should be able to access phone and email records of people with a criminal record or that are currently suspects in an investigation. However, I think that if the person has no criminal record, and is not currently under investigation, the government should not be able to "sweep up" their communications along with thousands of others.
2. I do think a judicial review should be implemented. Especially if personal information is leaked, or that information is abused, as in the case of blackmail. The punishment for leaking or abusing information should be harsh and immediate.
3. If the government does win this case, I think fewer people will send personal information through email or text. I however, will not. I don't have anything that I don't mind the government seeing.
I would find the invasion of my privacy really disturbing, but at the same time we have to keep in mind why the wire tapping started in the first place. The terrorist act of 9/11 took us by surprise and pointed to us glaring deficiencies in our intelligence gathering procedures. Hence, in an effort to intercept the would-be terrorists before they act, the government started to implement monitoring of phone and emails of private citizens. However, non-threatening individuals should not have to go through this invasion of privacy, but the threat of home-grown terrorists makes it difficult for the agency to pick and choose whose correspondence should be monitored. To me this is a grey area and can be argued either way.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion there should be a judicial review on government officials who implement the FISA Amendment act. As with our government, there has to be system of checks and balances to make sure that any law is being implement properly and not being misused. Therefore, I believe that an audit is essential for this process to fair, and yet keep, our country safe. I think this committee should consist of judges who can evaluate the controversial cases to protect the privacy of all law-abiding American citizens.
I do not foresee any shift or change in the way people utilize their communication devices even if the government wins this case. I do believe that people conducting majors businesses might probably use other means of communication. However, even if FISA was not around emails and phones can be hacked into by other people (like the Rupert Murdock hacking case), and are never a safe means of communication. I do not think that I will change my mode of correspondence by calling, texting or emailing will change.
Abby Thomas
ReplyDelete5th period
I feel that the government should not be able to access the phone and email records of citizens unless found guilty. They should not depend on those as evidence and should not be able to access those records until AFTER the court date and they are proven guilty with other evidence. The government should not be able to access any records unless there is a severe problem that they have good reason to justify their actions.
I think that there should be judicial review. It would help to keep us safe, and it would provide us with a more secure trust of them. I think that there should be severe background checks of government officials, and they should have to prove that they are trustworthy people and won’t take advantage of the American citizen.
I think that people will definitely use technology less and less if they know that their personal property is being watched. I think that they will limit who they text, call and email a lot more. It is not only disturbing to know that you are being monitored when sending emails, texts or talking on the phone, but it is an invasion of privacy and an obstruction of justice to the American citizen.
Alexis Ramirez
ReplyDeleteHonors World History
1st period
11/1/12
1) How I feel about the government accessing to phone and e-mail records is that they have a right to do it. But in my opinion I think that they should not have the ability to access our privacy.
I can agree that the government wants a secured place but they do not need it to take it that far to track everyone of us with our phones and e-mails. But in overall I like the idea of tracking people who are making a plan but I think that this should not be allowed.
2) I think that they should keep our privacy safe and not take it too serious. Other reason too is that privacy is an important thing in America. It depends to because such as some peoples stuff have to be searched. But they look at their record if did something bad like stealing, criminal law etc. Then the government looks at the record and like the supreme court but just them can see it but not other people. This should only be audited if the person was a criminal.
3) I think that most of the people already are cautious know that what they text, send, write online. That if the government wins the case then the communication of friends online, text and etc, will decrease because what they should be careful to write. They would need to communicate in person to talk and stuff. Bu this would drastically change if the law was passed.
Erica Johnson
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
1) I think that Americans that are not guilty, or even a threat to the government should have rights to their own privacy. I think it would maybe be acceptable if they had a past criminal record, or if they are due in court for some crime. Also, the law was created during 9/11, when the intentions were most likely just to keep citizens safe. However, now it is a burden, and most likely not even needed anymore.
2) I would definitely be for the judicial review. Not only would it keep citizens more safe, but it would also enforce the checks and balances in the government system. It would also satisfy the population as a whole, because it seems to me that not many people are in favor of the government keeping track of all communication.
3) I think many people would change the way they use their communication devices (i.e. computers, phones…) because they know that they have no way of keeping it to themselves. If the people know they are being monitored, then there is a less likely chance that the government will actually benefit from wiretapping, since criminals would just find different ways of communication. Personally, I am not really affected by the law, since everything on social media websites, like facebook is already out there.
Autumn West
ReplyDeleteWorld History
November/1/2012
1.In my opinion if a person is not doing something that is wrong then you should not listen in on their phone calls. I get that we are supposed to be equal and I get why the government is doing this, but I think that the government should pay closer attention to the people who are doing something wrong. Plus it is violating our right to privacy.
2.I think that there should be judicial review. It would help to keep us safe, and it would provide us with a more secure trust of them. I think that there should be severe background checks of government officials, and they should have to prove that they are trustworthy people and won’t take advantage of the American citizen.
3.If this law were to pass, most Americans wouldn't even use their phones or computers because they need their privacy. Also, they could fear of saying a joke to their friends because the government might take it serious. I would definitely not use my phone or computer as much. Peoples use of computers and cell phones would be greatly decreased if this law was to be passed.
Avery Scope-Crafts
ReplyDeleteP.1
Although I feel a little more scared by the idea of the government being able to hear my conversations, I think it is a good idea for the government to do this. Yes, what you talk about with other people should be personal. Potentially, this act could save us from a possible terrorist attack in the future. Imagine if we had this before 9/11 ever happened. All the lives that were lost back in exchange for them knowing our personal information. I think that’s a pretty fair trade!
Even though privacy was a big part of the constitution, I don’t think there should be a judicial review. I think people are taking their privacy to seriously. Whatever happened to telling someone important information in person? Americans should just accept the fact that nowadays there is more security and less privacy and more on. This could end up being a huge factor in death and crime rate going down.
Yes, I foresee a major change in the way people will utilize their communication devices if the government wins this case. More people will share their personal information in secret. And honestly, I think that is the way it should be. This debate will not change my use of texting, phone calls, or emails. I try to very rarely share any personal information through technology, because I know it can end up in the wrong hands even without the government going through it.
Ari Horwitz
ReplyDelete7th Period
11/1/12
In my opinion I think it is terrible that innocent people would have to lose their privacy because of this law. On the other hand I think that it definitely makes since that citizens with wrongdoings in the past are monitored because it is a concern for all citizens of the US and it can help contain that safety. People with suspicion of interacting in a bad way with foreign nations in my opinion is ok to monitor as well because our country can make sure they are not of threat, and no one is harmed in the process. The only time this technology should be used is for terror threats because everyone in the US has the privilege of privacy and you cant have that taken away from you.
If there was going to be call monitoring and email monitoring there definitely would have to be judicial review to make sure this technology was not abused or used for personal information. An audit would be needed in the judicial review committee to thoroughly check with the instances this technology is used and when it is appropriate. Many steps would have to be taken to assure that this process is under control and used properly.
If this law is passed then Americans will be very paranoid to send out messages that they usually would. I would be careful also. Even though I am not of threat to terrorism I still would have a feeling that my life was being spied on by government and I would limit my private information over social communication devices. The conclusion is that this law would affect many things in our nation. I don’t disagree with the cause but the government would have to take great steps to making this process work correctly. If it is misused once, then I think it should be discontinued immediately because it is a violation of our American rights.
Connor Korfas
ReplyDelete1st Period
Honors World History
1.I think it is really messed up that the government could be surveilling what I post on the internet. I think it totally violates the ideals this country was built on. As Americans we have the right to not undergo unlawful searches and this new amendment totally breaks this right. I also question if everyone should be open to these searches. There are a lot of kids who use the internet and I highly doubt that they pose any threat to the safety of the government. I think maybe if the government was viewing people with a criminal record or people who have been involved in crime in the past. In any other situation I don’t think it should be allowed.
2.I do think there should be a judicial review if personal information begins to be leaked. If personal information leaves the government offices and becomes public I think a judicial review should be put into action. The judicial review should take place if and only if and constitutional right is broken or any law of that matter. I also feel that if the information collected by the government is used by the government against the individual the judicial review must also be put into action.
3.I definitely people will start using the internet differently. People won’t probably share as much information now that they know they are being monitored. I also think by doing this they have ruined their plan for catching threats to the United States. If they know they could being watched they might not communicate over the internet. I know now I will definitely be more careful of what i put on the internet. Now every time I look up something I think how this will look to someone who could be viewing me.
Lillian Menkens-Weiler
ReplyDeleteMr. Waters Period 5
Honors World History
1) I feel that the government’s ability to access anyone’s personal conversations is a completely inappropriate breech of security, especially for non-threatening citizens. It’s frightening to think that they are able to obtain that information, and it is disrespectful of American citizens. If the government needs personal information, it should be obtained through the person themselves, but certainly not in such away that they must intercept emails, calls, or text messages.
2) I think that there should be a judicial review. It would better ensure our security and safety. I know that most Americans would feel safer if they knew that the people who have this kind of power were trustworthy and would use information to hurt them in any way. The audit should examine aspects of a person that would display how trustworthy they are and how efficient they are, as well as how concerned they are for the safety and security of U.S. citizens. The committee should consist of people who have proven their trust and loyalty to the people.
3) On one hand, this article and discussion has certainly caused me to think about how I interact with people through email, text, and phone calls. Reading this does give me a bit of a scare, but I think that it won’t entirely change the way people interact through their messages. Most likely, this will not run through someone’s head every time they send a message. It is more probable that every once in a while, people will stop and think about what the government can do, but I don’t think that people will really completely adjust what they discuss through their messaging.
Sarah Taekman
ReplyDelete11-1-12
Period 5
Whenever you’re speaking on a cellphone or emailing on the computer, the USA government could be listening in on your every word, and you may never know it. Due to the FISA Amendments Act, which as passed by George W. Bush shortly after 9/11, the government is allowed to wiretap into US citizens’ phone and email conversations. Though it’s mainly directed toward wiretapping into foreign visitors’ discussions, the government is still allowed to listen to innocent citizens as well. I feel divided on this issue of privacy. I understand why the government would want to look into foreigners that could possibly harm the country, but I can also understand why non-threatening individuals dislike the possibility of being overheard. If it benefits the country more than it harms the individual, then why shouldn’t they listen in? If the government overhears something they weren’t supposed to, like an affair, then they should not interfere. The government should only intrude when what they hear affects people on a national level. Additionally, if you are a “non-threatening citizen,” then you shouldn’t have much to worry about being overheard.
If there were to be a court case, I think it should be about how the government should react when they hear a personal trouble that only affects those surrounding the subject. If the government is listening in on a suspicious person, and should hear that someone else is a victim of domestic abuse, is depressed, and other personal issues, then yes, they should be concerned. But the matter of taking action depends on how it relates to the nation’s safety. If anything, the government agents that heard these awful situations should just leave an anonymous tip to someone who could help, and be on their merry way. The case should be a pretty big deal, but I do not think it should change the law of wiretapping into suspicious peoples’ messages. People on the review committee should know what wiretapping is, and how to do it themselves. This way, they’ll know the likelihood of actually “overhearing” someone else’s conversation as they try to spy on a totally different person. They should also know a bit about how wiretapping can protect the country, and a few instances throughout history where it did.
If this law is passed, I feel as though people will become less open about their personal lives on the Internet and on the phone. While people jokingly post things on Facebook, or laugh about illegal things in emails, there would then be the fear of having the government listening in on you. My guess is that citizens would start relying on more face-to-face conversation, and the Internet would become a more formal place. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing though. We do need to get outside more often.
Edward Zhuang
ReplyDelete11/1/12
Period 5
I don’t like the idea of the government access the information of innocent people. This is uncalled for, as there is no valid reason for the government to do such. As for guilty people with previous cases of trouble, I think it’s fine. But there is a line we have to draw. You can’t just monitor everyone.
A judicial review is needed to resolve this conflict. One of the things America takes pride in is their freedom and privacy. Taking away our privacy does not seem right. Right now, I believe our rights are being taken advantage of. A Supreme Court decision seems necessary.
I actually don’t think that we will change the way we use electronics. People will always be the same, messaging the same stuff they have always been doing. I can, however, imagine that there will be paranoia to a certain extent, but it will die out quickly.
1) I think that the government shouldn’t just listen in on people’s conversations if there is no indication that they would be doing anything wrong. For average people like me, it doesn’t make a difference if someone in the White House knows that cross country practice is over and I need a ride home, or whatever it is that I might be talking about. However, for many business owners and executives today, some unknown people having the ability to see and hear everything that you communicate through technology can be a real security hazard. I think that this law should be dealt with much like any other law that involves an invasion of privacy: there has to be proven cause for the government to need to search through your belongings/information/etc. Basically, I think that this country could benefit from government officials needing digital search warrants.
ReplyDelete2) I think that it’s not the government officials, but the law itself that is an issue. It doesn’t matter which government official is looking through your stuff without you knowing, the fact of the matter is that you can’t have privacy invaded in this way without a just cause for the government to be looking. Again, I think that requiring the government to have some sort of a search warrant to tap your calls would be a good solution to this issue, much like it has been for the search of people’s homes or belongings.
3) I think that if the government gets this law passed, people will start relying much more heavily on non-technology methods of communication for the transfer of sensitive information. I think that phone companies would suffer but that airlines would benefit, because fewer people would be making calls and more would be going to see people in person. Personally, I don’t say anything online or in personal emails, texts or phone calls that is that bad, so while I wouldn’t necessarily mind this law, it would definitely make me more hesitant to say things to people over the phone that I wouldn’t want anyone to be able to hear. The only thing, really, is that I would definitely want to know who would be able to hear what I said. Honestly, I think that all this law would accomplish is being a hindrance to business owners and making a lot of normal people paranoid about technology.
^^^^Above Comment is Julia Perkins First Period World History
Deletesorry, forgot to include that
Olivia Wander
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
I think that this is an issue that is a little more complicated than the government just being able to get into your Gmail account. The goal of the FISA Amendment Act is to catch terrorists before they have a chance to commit an act of terror. The National Security Agency isn't trying to find out all your personal information. They don't even know you. They are doing broad sweeps to pick up any suspicious sounding conversations. While I understand that people do not appreciate people getting into their business, I do not have a problem with routine broad sweeps. However, I DO have a problem with the government trying to hide the fact from innocent people they have tapped, and giving out their information to other agencies. It is wrong to deny people the right to complain about this action. We have a democracy. The PEOPLE are supposed to be in charge. If the people have a problem with their information being tapped or spread, and they place privacy above terrorism, then the government should STOP.
There is already going to be a judicial review on the validity of the FISA Amendment. I agree that this issue should at least be examined. I think that this issue should be fairly extensivly examined because it seems to me that parts of the Amendment are not fair. I would go along with whatever the Supreme Court says. If they decide it one way or the other, then that would be fine with me.
If the government wins this case I do not think that there will be a major change in the way people utilize their communication devices. Frankly, I don't think most people know. If this debate were more widely publicized, then I think there might be a larger change, but as it is, most people don't pursue news stories unless they are televised. I think that most informed people will continue to use their devices as they do now, because the Amendment is already in place. If the government wins, nothing will change.
Anna Castellano
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
I think that the government should only have the ability to access the phone and email records of citizens found guilty of wrongdoing not non-threatening individuals in attempt to obtaining personal information because it is invading personal privacy. I understand that the government would want to be able to access the phone and email records of criminals to try and keep America safe and prevent attacks. If a person is not suspicious and has no criminal record than the government should leave them alone because American citizens have the right to privacy.
I think that there should be a judicial review conducted on government officials to protect the privacy of American citizens from being taken advantage of. I think it should be brief and bipartisan both from the public and private sectors. An extensive review will be costly to the American taxpayers. If the private information of a person gets spread and the government is involved, the person would be able to sue the government for sharing their private information.
I do foresee a major shift and change in the way people will utilize their communication devices if the government wins this case. I can imagine that people will be less communicative over phone and email because they will be nervous and cautious of what they communicate openly. Something an innocent person says over the phone or writes in an email could be interpreted wrong and get them in trouble even if they didn’t mean to cause any harm. Many people will probably start meeting in person to discuss private matters so that if the government reads or hears them it won’t be putting the person’s private information in jeopardy of being spread. I prefer direct communication; things are more difficulty to be misinterpreted that way.
George McBurney
ReplyDelete5th period
1. I believe that Americans that are not guilty, or even a threat to the government and should have rights to their own privacy. I think it would maybe be acceptable if they had a past criminal record, or if they are due in court for some crime. The law was created during 9/11, when the intentions were just to keep citizens safe. However, now it is a burden, and most likely not even needed anymore.
2. I would definitely be for the judicial review. Not only would it keep citizens more safe, but it would also enforce the checks and balances in the government system. It would satisfy the population as a whole, because it seems to me that not many people are in favor of the government keeping track of all communication.
3. I think many people would change the way they use their communication devices (i.e. computers, phones…) because they know that they have no way of keeping it to themselves. If the people know they are being monitored, then there is a less likely chance that the government will actually benefit from wiretapping, since criminals would just find different ways of communication. Personally, I am not really affected by the law, since everything on social media websites.
I believe that the government to a degree should be able wiretap those that are not already under suspicion. My reasoning is that I would definitely want to know if I was being threatened in anyway. Though I also believe they should not be able to wiretap individuals who are making international calls for business. This due to the fact that these people may have a product that is secretly formulated, or they may be lawyers that need to know confidential information.
ReplyDeleteIf a committee is created to choose who can be wiretapped it will be a tough job. First off, the committee would need to be bipartisan and also represent many groups of minorities. This is because they need to have an open view to what these people are doing. Also I believe instead of a majority vote deciding if yes, or no a person can be wiretapped a 70 - 30 minimum should be required.
Honestly I think this case will not have that large an impact. This is because the majority of people who even cared if they are wiretapped should be wiretapped. No, this does not make me think differently about how I will use my communications.
I believe that the government should be able to tap people's phones, even if they are not under suspicion for committing a crime. Overall this makes America a safer place, and protects many innocent individuals. However if the call is over business, or a private matter then the government should not be allowed to tap the phone, because of how important those calls can be.
ReplyDeleteI think that it would be very possible for a committee to be chosen to decide who to wiretap. The committee would have to be made up of experienced individuals, from the ages of 50-70, and should be very diverse within that age limit, including ethnicity, descent, and occupation. A majority vote would be a good way to choose who to wiretap.
I don't really think that if the government wins this case it will affect many more people. People still need to communicate, and will continue to do the same things they have always done.
1. I don’t really like that. If the person is a guilty criminal than that might be okay, but for someone who has done nothing wrong, that is a serious invasion of privacy. I don’t like anyone looking at my texts or emails, not because I have anything bad, I just think that my phone and email are mine and no one else should look at it.
ReplyDelete2. I think that people who are planning on doing this should have to appear before a court, and present the reasons why they would want to spy on that person. The court should also moderate how much they listen in on that person. The CIA does that a lot; they have the technology to listen in to everyone in the world. I bet the CIA and FBI have something to do with this.
3. I think that if this continues, people will start using phones less and less, to protect privacy. I think that the postal service will start getting a lot more letters than it gets now. It sounds like an oppressive move, like in a dystopia science fiction novel. But phones are an essential part of some people’s lives. It could cause many people to lose their jobs because they don’t want to use their phones.
Kelly Zhang
ReplyDelete2nd Period
I believe that the government having the ability to access someone’s phone and email records is not right. People, even if they are found guilty of wrongdoing, should still be allowed privacy. A warrant should be required to access these things. It is not just for the government to be able to search through people’s personal phone and email records if they have not done anything that warrants it and if they are not notified.
I believe that there should be a judicial review conducted on government officials to protect the privacy of American citizens from being taken advantage of. People should be able to trust who they put in power. Government officials should be evaluated to see if they have tried to accomplish good on behalf of the United States. Government officials should be somewhat interrogated. They should be questioned on a random day, so that they do not have time to prepare, and they should be questioned by randomly selected American adults. Those Americans would come up with their own questions about the official’s values and what they have done and plan to do to help America. The citizens have a right to know government officials can be trusted, so audits should be conducted.
If the government wins this case, then American’s privacy would be compromised. People would be less inclined to say some things through email and phone limiting people’s right to freedom of speech. People would be afraid to say their views on the government and political parties if they knew that the government could be listening. This would probably affect how some people use their communication devices. This would not change my communication correspondences because I neither have any plan that would threaten national security, nor do I care about government and politics.
Blake Rasnake
ReplyDelete11-2-12
2nd
I feel that if a person is doing something wrong then the government should be able to access their email and phone records whenever they feel necessary. People should not think it is invasion of privacy because if they are trying to find out what someone has done wrong they should be able to look up what ever they want to. The government is trying to protect the people of the United States they should be able to do whatever they think is necessary to protect the people.
I do not think that there should be a judicial review because if they think someone is doing something wrong they should have the right to find out if it was true or not. If you do not have anything to hide then you should not care what the government is doing to your or other people’s phone or emails. If they do not have any evidence that you are doing something wrong then they should not be able to see people phone calls and emails.
I do not think that is changes anything that I would do because I do not do anything bad so there would be nothing for them to find and put me in jail for. If you do things wrong then you probably don’t want them to see who you call, text or email. Since I do not do anything I really do not care.
Carly LeMoine
ReplyDeleteperiod 5
I think that the government has no right to tap into people’s personal information. The only exception I can think of that invading people’s personal space would be expectable is if they have a good idea that someone is planning an attack on someone. Innocent people do not need to be recorded, they have the right to privacy. Yes there should be some sort of law or rule where at least innocent people have privacy. People will ether be paranoid and be careful with what they say or they will just say whatever they want. To me it doesn’t really matter because I don’t know any one who will see what I say. It also doesn’t bother me because I don’t think I really say any thing that very offensive over email or thought my phone
Lily Elnaccash
ReplyDeleteH World History 7
I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand, I don't want people to read my emails or hear my phone calls. On the other, I know that there is no way the government has the people and time to look through/listen to every bit of communication. The screening process must be done by computers that pick out words referring to crime (bomb terminology, for example) or terrorism. Only when the computers notice something do actual people review the conversation or email. I don't commit crimes and therefore don't discuss them, so my private conversations should not be read by actual people. I don't think that most people have anything to worry about.
The article describes how people can only challenge the FISA Amendments Act unless they can prove that they have been supervised when only the government knows who they watch. This is a catch-22 created by lawmakers. They would only do that if they thought that the law would be struck down in court. If they are approached about judicial review of the use of the law, I think that they would try to set up the same situation. FISA should set up rules for themselves and stick to them. They could have random audits by a government-appointed reviewing committee.
I think that the people who will become the most cautious are businesspeople whose jobs may include information that is supposed to remain confidential. For example, my mom designs and sends out lots of surveys at work. Before presenting the data, it should remain confidential. Even after the presentation is over, some survey results are meant to be seen only by the people in a company. So, what if employees discuss those results with each other over email or telephone? People in the government might be able to access those conversations, which means that the results are not confidential. That sort of situation may concern many businesses.
Isabelle Alzona
ReplyDeletePeriod 5
11/1/12
Checking up on people has its advantages and disadvantages. It’s good to check on phone calls of suspects and people accused of wrongdoings. But it’s a whole different thing when it comes to regular everyday people. I think the government should have the right to tap into people’s communications as long as they are actual threats.
I think a judicial review would be a good idea. No one wants their phone calls listened in on and personal e-mails saved and archived. This is a free country and we deserve the freedom of privacy. The reviewing committee should be chosen be the president and they should be people with the skills for the job.
I think if the government wins this case many people will do their talking in person. It might be a major set back for families or business communications over seas. But even if the government wins, they probably won’t care about an e-mail listing groceries or a phone call to your mom asking to be picked up. Even if the government doesn’t care, people will still be careful. No matter what you do, people like their privacy.
Robert Fernald
ReplyDelete1st period Honors World History
I personally don’t care if the government has the ability to access phone and email records of felons but I think that they should not be able to access the property of normal Americans. The reason I don’t care if they track felons is first because I am not a felon and second, they have already done something wrong so the government has the right to limit their privacy. I think that the government should only be able to access the email accounts of American citizens if they have a search warrant and a legitimate reason.
There should be judicial review conducted on government officials to protect the privacy of American citizens. Review would keep officials from taking advantage of citizens for a personal gain. I think that officials should only be able to view citizen’s personal property if they have proof that something is wrong.
If the government wins this case I think people will stop sending personal messages by mobile devices and they will start telling people in person. If this bill is passed I might stop sending as many emails and texts because then I will be paranoid.
Kaitlin Hill
ReplyDelete2nd Period
1. Although I can understand why the government might want to have access to people’s personal records, I find it more than a little disturbing and an invasion of privacy. Communication is huge for my generation, and we are privileged to live in a country where we have the right to say whatever we want without worrying about who might see or hear it. Personally, I don’t want the government to be reading my text messages or listening to my phone calls. That a complete violation of my privacy and my freedom.
2. I definitely think there should be judicial review. Privacy is very important to Americans and it should be protected. I also think the review should help prevent any of this personal information from being leaked. That being that only chosen government officials should be able to access this information and only if they have a legitimate reason to. Ordinary citizens should not have to have their records looked at just because.
3. I think people will try and put out less personal information out over casual text message or email and try and avoid talking about certain things over the phone if they believe the government is listening. Ultimately though, my generation is all about technology and we use it to communicate with people 24/7. Even if the government wins this case, it probably won’t affect the way I communicate with my friends or family.
Kurt Gee
ReplyDeleteWorld history
11/2/12
1. I believe that Americans that are not guilty, or even a threat to the government and should have rights to their own privacy. I think it would maybe be acceptable if they had a past criminal record, or if they are due in court for some crime. The law was created during 9/11, when the intentions were just to keep citizens safe. However, now it is a burden, and most likely not even needed anymore.
2. I would definitely be for the judicial review. Not only would it keep citizens more safe, but it would also enforce the checks and balances in the government system. It would also satisfy the population as a whole, because it seems to me that not many people are in favor of the government keeping track of all communication.
3. I think that it will definitely change the way people communicate. It takes away everyone’s privacy when it comes to communicating electronically. It wont really effect the way I communicate with other people just because I don’t say anything totally confidential on wireless communication. I think privacy is really important to people, therefore I wouldn’t be surprised if someone comes up with other ways to communicate privately.
Joyce Yao
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
Having the government be able to access phone and email records of anyone is kind of unnerving. Yeah, it's good for them to know if someone is talking to someone else about dangerous activities, therefore they can prevent more crime. However, being able to look at everyone's records brings on the idea of invading privacy.
It's difficult to distinguish people who are planning dangerous activities and normal citizens. But I believe that there should be judicial review to protect the privacy of American citizens. I think that there should be a sort of filter that finds key words, such as "bomb". People who are familiar with codes and keywords should be in charge of this.
Everyone, including those guilty of planning hazardous activities, will be less subject to using emails and phones. People who continue to use such things will be more careful about what they say, and who they say it to. I, myself am a bit paranoid if there are government officials reading my emails and listening to my phone calls, not that I have anything interesting to read about. I know that many people are outraged by having their personal information and emails being subject to being read, however it is only government officials and they won't expose you unless it could hurt people. It still isn't good, but it's better than having criminals having access to your personal things.
Jackson Cabell
ReplyDelete7th Period
1) I think that it is fine that they do it to the people that have caused wrongdoing but I think it is extremely unfair that they do it to any non-threatening individual. Citizens should have privacy from the government when they are having a conversation on their phones. The government should not have the right to hack on to those records to fine personal information.
2) I think there should be a judicial review because America has the right to have privacy when communicating with other people. The president and an American representative should be the people involved. This way they can solve this issue in about a week’s span.
3) Yes I foresee that there will be a major change with people using their technology communicators if the government would win the case. If the government didn’t win the case, I still don’t think it would change anything sadly. This debate issue does make me think again about how I use my phone to communicate with other people. I think it’s really weird that the government could be listening to my conversation, I wouldn’t feel very safe with that.
Paige Jones
ReplyDeleteperiod 2
11/2/12
1) I think it's terrible that the government can access people's email and and phone records. I think in some ways it's a good thing, because they can sometimes prevent dangerous situations if they see a message having to do with something that could threaten someone's life. But, overall I think it's an invasion of people's privacy.
2) I'm not sure how to make this more private, but I think that the government should have some limitations. I think if they hear from someone that something is going to happen, they should be able to look through a persons messages, but I'm not sure how else they could keep it limited. Also, I think some people could get in trouble if they were sarcastically saying something, and the government took it the wrong way.
3) If a criminal was planning something, they obviously wouldn't want the the government to know about it, so if they knew the government had access to their message records, they wouldn't communicate about the subject through messages. I think it's kind of strange, having someone I don't know read through my messages, but I don't mind as long as they're trying to keep everyone safe.
Noah Miller Johnson
ReplyDelete11/2/12
Honors World History
First period
1) I think that it is a violation of your privacy and a violation of the fourth amendment. People should not be forced to take highly expensive and counter productive measures to get information that would otherwise be easy to get. Also I think it is the beginning of a totalitarian state. The ability to get information in what ever way that you want is a clear violation of privacy right and the fourth amendment.
2) There should be a judicial review to help protect citizens form corrupt people. I recommend it because people need to have their government help them to try to get private information for for no reason. Also when the laws regarding privacy were written the internet did not exist so the authors could not include privacy laws in it. If you read the laws it become very obvious that the authors want people to have easy way to keep their information for other people.
3) I see a huge shift in the amount of smart phones sold in the U.S. It would also reduce the amount of research done in the U.S. because companies want their ideas and writing to be secret for everyone. I see a lot of free internet sites appearing that will allow you do skirt the law. I use a variety of different email accounts and things like that to avoid people (my parents/brother) stealing my information. I can see a lot of law suits appearing for drug related charges where something relating to the drugs was online or on a smartphone. People will request that the evidence be suppressed because it was obtained illegally with out a warrant. They may also request the charges be dropped because there was no probable cause to warrant their arrest.
David collazo
ReplyDeleteI think that the goverment being able to access phone and email records of anyone is good and bad. It's good because it can capture people who are planing a dangerous plan and this can prevent violence from happening. The only thing that is bad is that the goverment will invade our privacy.
i think that the goverment should have judical review to protect the privacy of others.I think that everybody should be apart of the judical review.i think this would change the way how people communicate because they will not say everything they would want to say and would not use their phone as much.
Hanna Siekierski
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
11/2/12
I find it very unnerving that the government is able to obtain people's phone and email records. This seems to me like a violation of personal privacy, especially if the person whose records they are accessing is innocent and doesn't pose any sort of threat. I do believe though that if the person is doing something illegal or threatening, then it would be ok for the government to access and record their emails and phone calls. This could be used to possibly stop something that otherwise wouldn't have been detected without this system. Overall this makes me not want to use my phone, or email as much, because whatever I send could be seen by the government.
The only time I think there should be judicial review of this situation or the officials, is if problems begin to arise, which may be likely to happen. If everything is kept secret, and no personal information is spread or used to wrongly accuse somebody, then the system is fine and shouldn't require a judicial review. However, if citizens are having their personal information shared or their privacy compromised, then that this system should be looked into. This is because everyone's personal privacy is important and there would be a huge violation to citizens’ rights if this information were to be used wrongly. At this point, the case should be taken to a great degree. If problems come up, for the judicial members of the audit, I would have them be from the U.S. Supreme Court.
I think that if the government wins the case, some people will change how the use their technology to communicate. Some people will start sending messages as if someone else besides the intended audience were to read them. This would involve leaving out any information that was personal or could get them in trouble. On the other hand, I think most people will continue as they were before, either because they are unaware of the system or they just don't care about it. This could lead to confidentiality problems or failure to get an accurate message across. If this does go through, I will have to rethink the ways that I communicate and be careful with them and make sure that I wouldn't be embarrassed or ashamed if someone else were to read them.
period 2
ReplyDeleteI don't see anything wrong with the government wire tapping. It allow them to catch terrorists and criminals before they hurt people. And when it comes to spying on innicent people, it's not like the government is gossiping about your secrets.
I don't think any action should be taken to stop what they are doing.
The only major change I see is people buying products that claim to protect your device from wire tapping. Also people would be more careful about making jokes like "I will kill the president because he did this that made me mad."
Takoda Ren
ReplyDelete10/2, 2nd period
Current event 8
This is the sketchiest event I have ever heard of. I find it odd that the government can just look at other people’s emails and phone calls; they obtain much too much information than needed. It is also a huge violation of personal space and privacy, I feel that it is odd that every single one of my emails or phone calls could be listened or viewed by other people who I don’t know.
I think there should be a judicial review because officials could take information and money from people. I am surprised that they aren’t ashamed of themselves when they do these kinds of things. I think there should be a jury and a sentence of money but not jail time.
If the government wins, then people may decide to start sending letters and just face to face conversation instead of using electronic messaging devices. Everyone would have to stop and think for a moment before having a phone call or sending a message, for they would not want any of their personal information to be looked through.
Current Event 8
ReplyDeleteShomya Mitra
Honors World History, 5th Period
I think the government being able to access phone and email records of guilty citizens is acceptable because they may be planning a crime or other bad action. But when it comes to innocent people, I don’t think the government should be allowed to monitor their phones and email, because they might be saying something private like their credit card number or something and if the government could get into their financial affairs, they would be intruding on citizens’ right to privacy.
In my opinion, there should be a judicial review of officials who violate Americans’ privacy, because it is in the Constitution that all people have the right to privacy. The audit of the officials should be very deep into their affairs to find out how far they peered into people’s privacy. The committee reviewing the officials should be a mix of normal citizens and government employees from a different part of the government, so people susceptible to the spying get to prosecute them.
I don’t think the government will ever stop spying on us, even if laws are passed because there are always people who think the country needs spying to keep the laws enforced. I think if this law is passed, the amount of spying will decrease in the short term, but after a while it would go back to normal. This whole event does make me want to change what I say on email or text messaging, and after learning of this I think I will now try to only say things that aren’t private over airwaves.
David Cho
ReplyDeleteHonors World History
Period 2
1. I think it takes away our privacy if anybody can go through other people’s private conversations. I understand that its for the country’s safety but just going through a random persons personal conversations they have with other friends and family.
2.i think there should a judicial review to protect the privacy of people. well i mean its good that the government is trying to protect the country but it should only be if they have some kind of lead rather than randomly getting into our privacy.
3.not really i dont think a lot of people care but for some people some conversations should just be kept private and not listened to.
1) I think that it is alright. Criminals may have been planning more fiendish schemes before being caught. Could 9/11 have been averted with government stalking? Maybe. This could save lives, therefore it is our duty to pass it.
ReplyDelete2) No. Audits slow things down. If there is a hope of good to come from it, it must be done quickly without audits.
3)Yes. They will be more responsible and careful with their messages. Sext and such less, and there will be less likelyhood of buying illegal drugs on the phone.
Joy Stouffer
ReplyDelete7 period
1) I think that it would be very unfair if the government was able to invade our privacy like that. Nobody should have access to personal things like phone and email records. Private things should stay private!
2) I think that a judicial review is necessary. As this deals with law, everything should be questioned. Only responsible people should be trusted with invading people’s privacy. Also, privacy is a big part of the constitution, which makes this doubly important.
3) I think that if the government wins this case, then people will resort to other forms of communication. I know that if my emails are monitored and I wanted to keep something private, then I would text or speak verbally. I don’t know what more efficient way to communicate then email there is.
Linda Martinez
ReplyDelete10-2-12
period 2
There are some positive and negative things about the government being able to check our email and phone calls. In my opinion I think that ever citizen should be able to have a little bit of privatcy at least with there phone calls/email, but then again it would helpful to the country because it would be easier for them to capture the terrorist and criminals.
I think that its great that the government its trying to keep the country safe but I also think there should be a good enough reason or proof for the government to check someones privacy because it wouldn't be right for the government to check someones calls or emails just because, so there should be judicial review.
There might be a small change on the way people communicate just because there aware that the government might be able to check their emails or phone calls. They might see each other in person instead of using there phones. The criminal would be a little more careful of what they sent.
Katherine Yang
ReplyDelete5th Period
H World History
1) It really astonished me when I read about this. I knew that everything digital, like email, texting, and phone calls, are not actually completely private, but I did not realize the extent to which the government can look into an American’s life. This is a bit disturbing, but I suppose I understand how this ability is necessary for the government to be able to imprison the people that are causing trouble, but it still can be cruel, or at least unjust to people that are completely innocent. Some Americans, if they knew about FISA, would most definitely
2) I do not think there should be judicial review conducted on government officials to protect the privacy of American citizens from being taken advantage of. I do think it is a bit extravagant, but it is often better to be safe than sorry. It can obviously be seen as an invasion of privacy, but it is rather necessary for the security of America in some situations.
3) I personally would not really change the way, method, wording, phrasing, or information I use or release over a phone, email, or text, as I generally do not say anything that would be offensive or rude via call or chat. However, there are most definitely people in the US that will change or stop their texting. Especially if they are saying certain things that would be considered inappropriate, anti-government, or something that seems abnormal to another person in or outside of the United States.
Johnny Huang
ReplyDelete5th period
I think that the government's decision may be, as said above , invasive, but it may also be a decisive move against some cyber terrorists. Aside from that, the plan could also catch criminals, but I highly doubt that a criminal would be dumb enough to use their cell phone or regular email address to contact a relative or an accomplice. Along with that, the wrongdoer most likely will encrypt any messages sent.
The government or any law enforcement should have to have probable cause to be able to check the personal things like phone records and emails. I believe that is the way that is in circulation now and I think that it is effective enough to catch all criminals.
People will not have the same mentality as before; everyone will be more wary and conscious of the constant monitoring of the government. One would have to choose his/her words carefully not to include words that may be misleading that would possibly be linked to conspiring or some other bogus crime that could be perceived from such a thing.
Annelise ter Horst
ReplyDelete11/2/12
7th
1) I feel violated, of course, that the government looks into private information. For me, I do not know whether I would feel safer if they didn’t have access to these records. People always feel uneasy about privacy and the government, but I would want them to have access to suspects’ information to judge a criminal case fully. Records and information evidence can bring the right person to justice, the police should have access to it. While I feel uneasy about someone being able to look into my electronic information, I do not plan to have a criminal record. If I do not do any criminal actions, the officials do not have to peek at my information, so why should I worry about people looking? I do not think I have anything to hide, so it doesn’t bother me as much as it does other people.
2) Yes, there should be reviews on government officials. While not everyone is a creep who looks at peoples’ information, you never know if someone is. We as americans trust that our officials are mostly truthful. That is not absolutely true, so we should make sure our leaders aren’t abusing their power. I believe these audits shouldn’t be so extensive (our officials need privacy too) but they should still be held. I do not know exactly who should be apart of that committee that reviews this. Of course they should be of good character. But who judges their good character? And those people? It goes on; we don’t know for sure who is best, that is why we have trust that it will be performed justly.
3) I believe that some people will change their ways on the internet and devices. Some people have things to hide, and it is their right to hide it as long as its legal. I will not change my ways if this case is approved, I simply don’t think the government will care about my teenage conversations. Ask me that question when I am a crack dealer or loan shark. I am not a bad person, and I am not saying that people who care about this privacy are, but this does not affect me. People have their opinions, and more likely, they will not change. If people want to protest this, great, I won’t get in their way. Security is safety, most of the time, the government is just making sure. This keeps us safe and I do not mind further security.
Keith Segars
ReplyDeletePD. 2
Current Even #8
American Citizens Right to Privacy
The FISA Amendments act was put in place to expand a program of surveillance that was put in place by President George W. Bush after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The FISA Act gives the National Security Agency the right to monitor and share email and phone conversations between Americans and foreigners. I feel that the government has the right to access phone and email messages in order to protect the security of all people. By doing this, it is likely that the messages of non-threatening people will collect. This might be a necessary cost for keeping the country safe. Judicial review of this law is difficult. A person must prove that they were impacted in a negative way through the monitoring of email or phone conversations. However, only the government can reveal if someone was monitored. One way of gaining judicial review would be to follow the same procedure that is used to tap a phone call between people within the United States. According to Wikipedia, a court order is needed for this activity. These orders are only given when there is evidence that a wiretap is needed to detect criminal activity. The ability of the government to monitor email and phone conversations will change patterns of communication. I think people will communicate more carefully and be more sensitive about information that is shared. This does cause me to think differently about how I use my iphone and computer. However, I think the safety of the country is much more important than the right to share information without some restrictions. That will be the tradeoff as the courts review this Act.
Shreyas Pyati
ReplyDeletePeriod 7
I think that if the wiretapping is working, then it should continue. If I were the government however, I would not tap into everyone's phone calls if they are not guilty of a crime. I know that it is hard to judge that, but if they could somehow come up with a way if would be great.
I don't think any judicial action should be taken against government officials that work in this field.
I think that it will force people to be more careful, but if this information is this public, then criminals will also know about it and they will also be extremely careful with their electronic communications. In a way, this could make it harder to find criminals.I will unconsciously be more careful of what I do when I am online or on a phone, but the trade-off is worth it to me.
Rebecca Harless
ReplyDeleteNovember 2, 2012
Period 5
I feel that it is a good thing for the government to access the phone and email records of citizens found guilty of wrong-doing, because it makes me feel safer about the government preventing terrorism. But, I do not like the idea of the government accessing non-threatening individuals’ international communications because it does feel like a lack of privacy. I am kind of sure that if the government realizes you’re a suspicious person, they can get a warrant and then search your files, and I think the government can do this without the FISA act. And could they not just look at phone records for who called who? I do not think government should have full access to our personal phone and email conversations internationally unless there is reason to suspect one person, not the whole of the United States.
I think there should totally be a judicial review conducted on government officials because it will protect Americans’ privacy from being taken advantage of. I have watched a lot of crime shows and, often, the plot is a judge, or cop, or government member gone bad. It makes sense that even if a government official is not bad, there should be reviews on them to prove that they won’t take advantage of access to Americans’ personal business. I believe that the degree of soliciting an audit should be to everyone with potential access to the records and the committee should be made out of important people from different sections of the government and normal people.
I don’t think there will be that much of a change if this wins. I think that the journalists who claim the FISA thing will be costly for them because the personal matters wanted to be discussed by email or phone would have to be face to face, those journalists would be more careful with what they say. Criminals might also communicate less if one is out of the country. Other than that, citizens who don’t watch the news or don’t even know about this or don’t care probably won’t change the way people utilize their communication devices. This might affect my communication correspondences, but not really because I don’t say anything usually bad on the phone, computer, etc., anyway.
Rachel Danner
ReplyDelete7th period
I obviously find it unnerving that the government may have access to my personal information, and I think that it is an invasion of our privacy. This brings up the issue of personal well- being and comfort versus community or national security. This issue is of high contention because of the question that it poses. Is it more important to keep our personal privacy or security? I think if there is question about whether or not the system is being abused by the government officials, then there should be a process for appeal on grounds of privacy infringement, just like with any other program. I think it could be helpful with the indictment of possible criminals or other wrong doers. Being someone who doesn't usually get involved in illegal activity, this will probably not influence my Internet habits very much. However I know that it may affect the lives of some people
Sanjana Vasudevan
ReplyDelete1st Period
I think the government should be allowed to look at the information of a person proven guilty, especially if it will help them in justifying their conviction. However, of an average person, I'm not too sure if this should be allowed. I don't think an innocent person, whom the government has no concern about, should be checked. If the government has any problems they should at least inform the person of the checking, even after they are done.
I think there should be a judicial review. The checking of records should be justified and if someone is just using the government software on the pretense of looking into someone's personal business they should be fired. The audit team should be made of people from the departments of defense, justice and people handpicked by the cabinet.
I don't think people will change their habits too much. Some people might protest, but I think the majority of the people will either not care or not know about the change. Also, since most people do not have suspicious things on their email or phone, not many people will be affected. Personally, I don't think I will be changing anything about my usage of my phone or email because I don't really have anything to hide.
Government Invades American Citizens Right to Privacy
ReplyDeleteWenbo Wang
Period 2
11/2/2012
1. The power and expanse of the technology today is unbelievable, with the ever growing amount of activities both good and bad hidden among the gigabytes. Because of the ever growing reliance on phones and email communication in the busy era of the twenty-first century, the risk of danger transmitted through electronics is in need of people to monitor and control potentially dangerous data. I believe that it is reasonable for the government to access phone and email records of each individual in this country, since it is far too great of a risk for certain individuals to freely transmit data to the whole world unsupervised; especially the people who were recognized for wrongdoings in the past, because their aspect on life may result in further legal complications that will harm the community. The monitoring of non-guilty citizens is reasonable as well, because individuals may change in nature according to their environmental influences. Monitoring citizens by obtaining personal information for detecting dangerous messages is reasonable; unless the personal information is used to weaken the person in question’s identity, economic and social status without a proper reason to do so. The personal information should also not be used to evade legal complications, or be used or sent in any other way than to provide a safety measure.
2. Because the government is absorbing many thousands of electronic messages with little guidelines, there should be a restraint formed on the FISA’s possible unfair usage of one’s private data in the form of judicial review. This is because along with the government maintaining the safety of the country, the private conversations collected in government databases are then no longer the property of the original owner, but of the government. These info can possibly be used for functions other than helping to maintain safety, such as being stated later on by the officials to news broadcasters, creating quotes in news reports that result in unwanted publicity. An audit should be conducted for all the members of the wiretapping intelligence group, and government members who conduct wiretapping and processing of the data every month by a judicial review committee consisting of electronic business and banking personnel, lawyers, internet/cell phone agencies who care about each citizen’s privacy; while keeping the country safe from foreign or internal conflicts.
3. If the government wins their right to process personal messaging data of every citizen in the country, the people will strongly oppose the idea, however; I believe only a fraction will be strongly concerned enough to develop a new way of electronic communication, free from government wiretapping. The majority will either remain in the wiretapping zone of communication due to their belief of their privacy information being safe with the government, or will slowly follow the group who strongly oppose wiretapping. Because of this debate issue among the government and wiretapping, I have slightly changed my opinion upon my own way of communication through electronics. I was aware of the government monitoring messages, however I did believed that the information was safe with the government, and will never be used unfairly; so I was unaware of the major issue presented through the article about the troubling factor of the government obtaining messages with little legal restraint.
Mary Louise Callaghan
ReplyDelete2nd Period
I think if someone has done something wrong they should be allowed to be monitored.. But if you are just a normal person with no criminal record no one should be allowed to acces your personal information or tap in to phone calls or read emails. It just seems completely wrong.
I don't think any judicial reviews on anyone who work In this field, it should just stop unless it is a serious situation
If this wins I do not think there will be much of a change. Criminals might plan or communicate less over the Internet but I do not think many people will change any of their habits.
Ashley Yang
ReplyDeleteWorld History 2nd period
I think its invading privacy that they have access to phone and email records of American citizens. I think this situation is very controversial because they reason they have this breach of privacy is supposed to be for the good of the country. I understand it’s important to keep the country safe, especially after the 911 attacks, but at the same time the government shouldn’t have access to the lives of normal citizens. When people send personal emails or make personal phone calls they want to establish communication between their friends or family, but they don’t want those to be seen or heard by outsiders. Email and telephone are ways of communication without having to travel really far so it’s more convenient for most people, but it is really scary knowing that other people might know what you’ve been talking about. I think safety is very important, but I wouldn’t want people knowing about my personal business either.
I think there should be a judicial review, especially if this has caused problems. If nothing personal leaks out for the public to see I don’t think it’s as bad, but it’s still scary knowing that some stranger might know about your life. I think it’s important to find some sort of compromise, but in this case it might be difficult because it’s either the people’s safety or the people’s privacy. I think checking wrongdoers is a good idea because it can often lead to justice, but I think this is a conflicting case. I think the Supreme Court would make the best judicial review committee because they are already involved in cases that are really big and hard to decide upon and this is probably one of them.
I think if the government wins this case a lot of people will change their ways on communication devices because it’s harder to listen in on people talking to each other on real life. A lot of people are going to realize that there might be a third person listening on personal information and they are going to want to keep their business private. Though I do think that at the beginning people are going to take this seriously because it’s a big shock but then later on people are going to forget and become lazy. People aren’t going to think it’s as big of a deal after some time. I think people are also going to need to talk about some personal affairs because it’s hard to communicate with others who are far away and it’s not convenient to have to travel a long way for one conversation. I think I will rethink what I say on the phone or in my emails because I think it’s really creepy that people might know.
Reagan Roeber
ReplyDelete7th period
1)This is a very complicated issue and I can see both points of view. I think the the government should be able to wiretap to a certain degree. For those of you who don’t agree- I understand why you’d like your privacy, but the whole point of the FIFA Ammendment Act is to catch terrorism BEFORE it occurs. Only wiretapping the people in America who have a criminal record is just stupid. Formal criminals are just as likely to commit a crime as any other citizen: remember that “there’s a first for everything”. Yes, this breaks the constitution, but it’s making America a safer place and I think that safety should come first.
2)The only time I think that there should be a judicial review is if a problem begins to arise. If everything is kept secret and there is no personal information shared between companies, the system is fine and shouldn’t require any judicial reviews. But if this information is shared, then I do think that there should be a judicial review because everyone’s privacy is important and if this was to occur then it is a violation of the constitution.
3)If the government wins this case, then I think that there will be a major shift in the way that people communicate and what they say on electronic devices, but after a couple of months everyone will continue to talk and communicate the way that they used to. This topic doesn’t really impact my life because I would never do or say anything that was illegal and if court were to think of me as a suspect for anything and were to check my phones, emails, etc., they would find nothing linked to such a thing.
Hope Davison
ReplyDelete1st Period
This is going to sound really opinionated, and I kind of hate to admit it, but I think that government workers are just so focused on what they’re doing (because obviously, it’d be pretty bad to slip up when you work directly for America) that it makes them not care in the slightest about people’s affairs. I don’t want to call them robots. But I just honestly think they would not spend their time looking through things that aren’t what they need to be looking at. This does not apply to everyone, obviously. It still makes me feel a little uncomfortable, not for me at the moment (because I don’t have anything I’d be ashamed of being put forth before a stranger I don’t even care what they think), but for when I grow up and face difficult things to be kept private, for my parents, for other people with more sensitive issues they would want absolutely private. I don’t know, it’s not exactly black and white for me. I think the greater value here is monitoring the personal messages of convicts for the overall protection of America. It sounds contradicting, doesn’t it?
Even still, privacy of American people is rooted in the Constitution and is one of the factors that keeps our country stable and less chaotic. There should be a judicial review in my opinion. I believe American people should have a say in what goes down that affects the country. I think outside people, still in government work or respected officials should come in and inspect the root of this law. It’s an important issue and should not be passed by lightly without any scrutiny.
I honestly don’t believe the major population will be concerned with watching their words while talking to a colleague, a friend, a family member, the pizza order man, etc. Perhaps most of the population will carry on as usual, because talking on the phone and emailing is almost an involuntary action nowadays and it’s difficult to sit down and remember, “oh, the government is going to read this email”, but as for the other people, the only thing they can do is watch their back. Personally, I’ll carry on as usual. This is where my opinionated view of government workers come in. When I get older, I believe I’ll carry on as usual. Ultimately, the government is helping to keep convicts from attacking, and this is more important to me than what the government thinks when reading about my weekend plans.
Jeff Richardson
ReplyDeleteHonors World History
Period 1
1) I think invasion of privacy can be argued both ways. Of course, the government wants the best for the people, and I can see why they think that reading people's emails and such will help with this, but I can also see the other half - you don't want anyone going through your bedroom, or the stuff in your closet; why would this be any different? Sure, they catch some people doing bad things, but otherwise I feel that the government is just blatantly abusing its rights by snooping in on people's business.
2) I think that if it came to a point where people were being exposed and there was personal information that was just a little less personal then it should be reviewed by the supreme court. If the government and only the government can see it and no one else can see it then I dont really see a problem. However once someones personal rights that we have in America is broken than something is needed to be done. Thats why America is so great however now they are taking it away from us.
3) If the government gets to wiretap, and it is widely known among American citizens, then people who are smart would stop using phones and emails to communicate private information. People would be more likely to meet in person to discuss private matters. If the government gets to wiretap, people will begin to be much more careful about what they say over technology. People would need to stop using sarcastic comments because the government may take them as serious threats. I think the government should have limited access when wiretapping.
Harrison Young
ReplyDelete7th Prd Waters
11/2/12
I feel that when the country wrote the constitution they gave us the ability to do what we want without any problems. But I think that the government taking over our personal items is just as bad as taking them from us. Also, it is less likely that you will find an individual who has illegal information on their phone and it is very invasive. I think there’s barely a chance of finding criminals this way.
I think that there should be a judicial review conducted on government officials to protect the privacy of American citizens from being taken advantage of because the fact that the government wants to take our property is invasive. It should be taken at a high degree and the people of the country should take part in a vote.
I feel that people might use their devices less because they feel that people are “watching” them. I wouldn’t change the way I use my device because I know that I don’t do anything illegal on my phone so it is not an issue with me.
Francisco Coch
ReplyDelete7
I believe that the government should not have so much access to any individual’s personal information, regardless of their criminal background. I think that the government most likely would not find a lot of important information if they were to check thousands of peoples’ phone and email records, thus making access to substantial amounts of personal information unnecessary.
If many people feel that their privacy rights were violated as a result of the government tapping into their messages, then an audit should take place. It should be up to the victim’s to determine what takes place afterwards.
I think that if the government wins the case, then if this event becomes a big issue then most people will start being more careful on the way they communicate with each other. I also think that if this happens, things will continue as such for a while and then eventually go back to normal.
Jeffrey He
ReplyDeleteperiod 7
1. I find it a little disturbing that the government can obtain personal information of people who don’t pose a threat via phone or email records. I understand the need to monitor possibly threatening people with a criminal record for national security. Still, I feel that the government shouldn’t be able to look at everything, especially from harmless people. They could come across some embarrassing or personal things. I feel a little less secure now, knowing whatever I put on email, phone, or even this blog could be seen by outside eyes.
2. The only time I think that there should be a judicial review is if a problem begins to arise. If everything is kept secret and there is no personal information shared between companies, the system is fine and shouldn’t require any judicial reviews. But if this information is shared, then I do think that there should be a judicial review because everyone’s privacy is important and if this was to occur then it is a violation of the constitution.
Alex Parks
ReplyDelete11/2/12
Honors World History
First period
1) I think that it is a violation of your privacy and a violation of the fourth amendment. People should not be forced to take highly expensive and counter productive measures to get information that would otherwise be easy to get. Also I think it is the beginning of a totalitarian state. The ability to get information in what ever way that you want is a clear violation of privacy right and the fourth amendment.
2) There should be a judicial review to help protect citizens form corrupt people. I recommend it because people need to have their government help them to try to get private information for for no reason. Also when the laws regarding privacy were written the internet did not exist so the authors could not include privacy laws in it. If you read the laws it become very obvious that the authors want people to have easy way to keep their information for other people.
3) I see a huge shift in the amount of smart phones sold in the U.S. It would also reduce the amount of research done in the U.S. because companies want their ideas and writing to be secret for everyone. I see a lot of free internet sites appearing that will allow you do skirt the law. I use a variety of different email accounts and things like that to avoid people (my parents/brother) stealing my information. I can see a lot of law suits appearing for drug related charges where something relating to the drugs was online or on a smartphone. People will request that the evidence be suppressed because it was obtained illegally with out a warrant. They may also request the charges be dropped because there was no probable cause to warrant their arrest.
Anna Zurliene
ReplyDeleteHonors World history 7th period
Obviously I feel safer since they can get information about people who are planning to do wrong things, but even if I’m not doing anything wrong I don’t want them knowing all of my personal information. That on the other hand, does not make me feel safe. If I know that people who are actually trying to do good for the country are hacking into my personal information, I feel very violated. Plus, all of the websites you go on say “we will not give out any of your personal information,” so if the government doesn’t even abide by the laws, how do they expect anyone else to? It’s hard to make a solid decision about this, because it goes both ways considering the well-being of America.
I think there should be a judicial review, especially if problems arise. This is a major violation of privacy. With that said, I don’t feel like there should be a big deal made out of it until problems come up and people’s personal information is given out or the government missuses their power with it. I just feel like people should be aware now that their personal information is not one hundred percent safe. That is the biggest problem, because people are not aware that they are being monitored. I definitely do not think this should be swept under the rug.
Whether or not people will change their use of technology is all a matter of opinion and how people feel about having their personal information shared with the government, who are, of course, supposed to be trustworthy. I think that it will have a slight impact, but honestly most people are just too attached to social media and their technologies to really care if they know they haven’t done anything wrong or haven’t misused their social media in any way. I definitely think people will be much more cautious though, and possibly even paranoid.
1. I think that the government being able to monitor these kinds of things is a total invasion of privacy to the people. Although it would be reasonable to monitor the phone calls and emails of criminals and former criminals as they might pose a threat to the safety of the people around them, but as they were collecting this information from innocent harmless people, I would say that this is unreasonable and unjust.
ReplyDelete2.I think that there should be a judicial review regarding this matter because the government exists to govern the people, not to look into the personal affairs of it's people. Although it is understandable that the government would want to know what the people are talking about, it is unconstitutional, even if justified the government should not be allowed to look into these records without a warrant.
3.I think that the people who have heard about this will try and find ways for their communications to be hidden from monitoring. Even if someone has nothing to hide, privacy in itself is something to fight for. If the government wins the case I think that the government will not completely take over personal communications, but just become more strict and make it easier for them to access these records.
Sam Nielsen
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
In my opinion, I really don't care about the government looking at my emails and listening to my phone conversations. I mean, It's not like I'm planning to carry out some top secret terrorist operation any time soon, so what do I have to worry about? I understand how some people care about privacy if they are giving or receiving information about business, but I doubt the people listening to this would really try to make use of it. The government is not out to steal some restrant's secret recipe or interfere with evidence for some court case.
I really do not agree that there should be a judicial review on this. The law has been passed and is still in effect so, for all I care, these government officials can do whatever they want. Some human rights organizations could argue that there is an invasion of privacy going on, which I do not understand. If an American is talking about something private or something that would be embarressing if another knew it, they might be worried. But, in reality, unless if this private matter is about planning a terrorist operation or robbing a house, then the government will not care. Some government official is not going to go around spreading rumors about what you said in an email. Therefore, unless a citizen has been negatively effected directly by what the government is doing, a court review is pointless.
I think that this means nearly nothing. There will always be those nutcases with tin foil hats and secret bases in case of a government take over, but most people will not care. If they simply live their lives reasonably without breaking the law, then what do they have to worry about? I certainly will not be making any life changes due to this information, just because I don't think it is important. People who do care just need to get over it and accept the fact that the government has to know some things. They complain about their business secrets being compromised, when really the government is simply making sure these secrets don't involve assassinations or bombings. In general, some people will make a big deal out of it, but it will not make a large difference for most.
Sydney Jones-7th period
ReplyDelete1.) I feel that it is unfair to the American people and a violation of our constitutional rights. I understand that this act stems from a greater need to protect the people, but I think that there should at least be some suspicion towards a person before wiretapping. Wiretapping random international calls seems pointless and a waste of money, it also seems that there is a very little chance the government will detect major terrorist threats this way.
2.) Yes, in my opinion there should. I feel that it could be very easy for government officials to abuse their power and listen to certain phone calls for their own purposes or amusement. This is why there should only be certain phone and emails that the government is allowed to tap, ad only when a person of suspicion is involved. I think also the Judicial review committee should be made up of many judges of a different ages, gender, political opinions, and races to get a less biased opinion.
3.) I can expect a lot of angry people who have loved one in other countries that have not done anything to deserve wiretapping or to attract the attention of the government. These people will probably have protests but I expect the government’s act to stand strong. Which will cause some of these people to rely on other forms of communication or none at all. Personally this affects me as I have family in Germany, Australia, and South Africa and although it makes me angry to know the government may be listening to a “happy birthday” call I might make to my relatives I will not do or say anything differently when talking on the phone or emailing, because neither my relatives or I are terrorists so there’s really no need to change our ways of communication.
nick Agusta
ReplyDelete1st period
1) I believe these searches are ok, and overall making this country safer. i dont think people shouold worry about them if they dont have anything to hide.
20 thee should be no judicial review all its going to do is make our country safer. and if people are against that then obvioulsy they don care about their own safety.
3)people will be angry but they shouldnt be unless they have something they need to hide from the government. i also believe that there will be more face to face social meeting if they pass this amndment.
Sophie Heins
ReplyDelete1
I believe these searches are wrong if the goverment has reasons to suspect a person they can go ahead but if they don't then the goverment should not.
There should be one because it is an invasion of privacy.
I really don't think it should be passed. The risk of this specfic power being misused is to high for my personal preferences.
Iain Dixon
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
11/12/12
1. The ability of the government to spy on someone that HAS committed a crime is fine by me. They shouldn’t have committed the crime in the first place. But the ability of the government to spy on perfectly innocent people, thats what really bothers me. They shouldn’t have that sort of power without any bounds or checks.
2. I do believe that this law should be put under judicial review, but I also don’t claim to have any idea who would be good to put on a review committee. Maybe some of the Supreme Court Justices? I don’t really know about that part, I would have to research it more thoroughly, but this law should definitely be challenged in some way.
3. I don’t believe that most people are actually going to try and change the way that they operate their phones, but I do believe that people like myself will attempt to do everything in our power to prevent the government from listening in to what we like to talk about. Its an envision of privacy, and the government needs to treat it as such.
Emma Baldwin
ReplyDeletePeriod 7
11.14.12
1. I think that this situation is a very delicate one. It is easy to justify accessing records of those convicted, but those who are innocent might be offended. It is also a touchy subject because of the possibility that people will be caught performing illegal activities, which could be negative or positive. If this threat encourages people to stop doing illegal things, that would be good; encouraging people to hide their illegal behavior would obviously be bad. Ultimately, though, it is inevitable that whatever valuable information the government does end up with would be immensely shadowed by the vast quantity of drunken texts, forgotten grocery lists, and wrong numbers.
2. I think that there should be judicial review for government officials. It would be very easy for government officials to abuse this power for their personal curiosity, and there is also the danger of politicians exempting themselves from this routine. I think that the judicial review committee should be assembled much like a jury, and should read randomly selected emails and phone calls so that politicians would have a more realistic view of this usage of surveillance.
3. If there is any effect to the way people communicate electronically, it will probably be short lived. The paranoia will only return if it is used as evidence in a major case. Personally, I think that all electronic communication should be carried out as if anyone can see it, so my view is not changed.
Sydney B (late)
ReplyDelete5th pd
In my opinion, I don't really see a problem with the government having that ability. It's not like the information they hear is going to be useful to them unless it's something about terrorists. No one even knows they're being tapped so it's not a big deal if you have nothing to hide. If you're a good citizen that doesn't break the law or plan terrorist attacks, then you shouldn't care. It's simple, really.
No, I don't think that this is a big deal so I don't think there should be a judicial review. I honestly don't see why this is a big deal at all.
If the law is passed, I suspect a lot of people will care. Maybe the criminals will be more careful while using a phone and people doing illegal things will do them in person. It won't change my view on what I text or email or say in a phone call because I am not a criminal.
Bobby Russell 5th
ReplyDelete1) I think it's terrible that the government can access people's email and and phone records. I think in some ways it's a good thing, because they can sometimes prevent dangerous situations if they see a message having to do with something that could threaten someone's life. But, overall I think it's an invasion of people's privacy.
2) I'm not sure how to make this more private, but I think that the government should have some limitations. I think if they hear from someone that something is going to happen, they should be able to look through a persons messages, but I'm not sure how else they could keep it limited. Also, I think some people could get in trouble if they were sarcastically saying something, and the government took it the wrong way.
3) If a criminal was planning something, they obviously wouldn't want the the government to know about it, so if they knew the government had access to their message records, they wouldn't communicate about the subject through messages. I think it's kind of strange, having someone I don't know read through my messages, but I don't mind as long as they're trying to keep everyone safe.
Vanessa Campos-Diaz
ReplyDeleteperiod 7
1)I think that it is an invasion of privacy but i think that it should only be monitored if the information is threatening to the country but they should not be snooping around in peoples buisness because that is their own privacy
2)I think that they should only fial claims to the court if their business is leaked but if the government has not leaked any of their information that they do not have really a reason to sue, it is an invasion of privacy but all the governement is trying to do is protect the country
3)I believe that some peoplewill change the way that they communicate with people throughohone calls or emails because they consider it an invasion of their privacy. But i will not stop emailing or calling people because i have no problem with the government seeing what im doing because I have nothing to hide maybe I will limit the amount of emails i send or the people I call because I do also find it an invasion of privacy.
Casey Patterson
ReplyDeletePeriod 2
12/21/12
1. I guess its ok for the goverment to access our calls, texts and emails. More good has probably happened than bad has happened. I dont think there is a reason to worry if you havent commited a crime.
2.I think that there should be a judicial review regarding this matter because the government exists to govern the people, not to look into the personal affairs of it's people. Although it is understandable that the government would want to know what the people are talking about, it is unconstitutional, even if justified the government should not be allowed to look into these records without a warrant.
3. If this wins I do not think there will be much of a change. Criminals might plan or communicate less over the Internet but I do not think many people will change any of their habits.
McKenzie Matherly
ReplyDeletePeriod: 2
I don’t think there is a problem with the government being able to access your phone and email records. I think the government has a good reason to access those records. It could speed up the process of solving a case if those records were used. If the government were to look at someone’s records, as long as what you said is not illegal, you shouldn't be worried.
I think that there should be judicial review for government officials. It would be very easy for government officials to abuse this power for their personal curiosity, and there is also the danger of politicians exempting themselves from this routine. I think that the judicial review committee should be assembled much like a jury, and should read randomly selected emails and phone calls so that politicians would have a more realistic view of this usage of surveillance.
If the government wins, people would be more cautious knowing the government can access their information. People will start to watch what they say if the government can access those records. I will not really change the way I use my email because I have done nothing wrong so even if the government were to check, they wouldn't find anything to arrest me.