AP Government Post #5

The federal government has stepped up surveillance of citizens in the name of combating  a terrorist threat, many issues like this deal with civil liberties and civil rights and are brought to the foreground of American politics.  How much information should the federal government have about the private lives of American citizens?

This post will close on Friday, November 1 at 5:00 PM

124 thoughts on “AP Government Post #5

  1. While information regarding terrorism and crime can save lives and protect the American public, it only takes precedent over the right to privacy in certain cases. Probable cause is mandatory for violating privacy. Violating the privacy of Americans for the sake of protection must be done with caution and in moderation. Otherwise, standard privacy is put in jeopardy. If there is good reason to suspect a person is planning to commit a crime, or may have already committed said crime, then it is logical to disregard elements of the suspect’s privacy in order to protect the public. Unwarranted or unjustified searches, however, violate the individual’s rights to privacy, with little plausible reward to the public. Surveillance in public spaces is reasonable, but surveillance of private areas by the government is not. Surveillance must meet the same basic requirements of search and seizure.

    • There should always be limits regarding privacy and how much of American’s lives can or should be under surveillance. There should be viable reasons as to why they should be searching, or looking through our private areas or limitations. Just like the right to search and seizure, we are protected. There has to be “probable cause”.

      • I agree with the notion that the United states should limit the amount of survalliance used on citizens

      • Accessing everyone’s person information is a danger in itself. The limit as to what the government can access should only ever be pushed if an immediate, provable, cause is present.

    • Probable cause to me is the most important word anyone can say when replying because it is the line between going too far and being safe.

    • Caution is the key here! We must be strict when allowing those with authority over us even more power. If too much is given the people lose grip and the entire American system fails to be what it set out to be. If too little is given that system may be more free but a complete absence of safety and vigilance make it not worth participating in. Like the many fine things in life, it is a balance. Paradoxically, privacy must be maintained and simultaneously violated. It is a viscous circle. Annnnnd I certainly will not be the one to figure it out… but “probable cause” is a good place to start drawing the lines. Reasons and more reasons. The government must always have a reason to act before taking action on any given citizen.

      • Yes I also believe that there needs to be a balance between the amount of power that the government has over us because the more and more power and control that they have over our lives would certainly be a problem with the actual freedom that we have therefore there needs to be regulations and limits on what the government can and cannot do to our rights.

    • I agree, info should be granted access to the government if it has a threat within or has hinted at a threat. Otherwise, info should only be allowed to be with the person until proven wrong.

  2. Invading someones person life without a specific reason is unacceptable. The federal government only needs to know what applies to them. Withholding impractical information that has nothing to do with the conflicts the government is struggling with right now is horrible. I understand the fact that the government is doing this so citizens are protected but they most likely feel less protected when their personal information is being read and analyzed.

    • I like that you brought up the thing about people feeling less protected when they should be feeling safer. I agree; it scares people when they do not know who is privy to their private information and most people do not deserve that fear.

    • I agree. There is a point where the negative effects of surveillance outweigh the benefits. When citizens no longer feel protected but instead feel watched, analyzed, and criticized, that point has been reached. Furthermore, a line should be drawn between the public and private spheres. The government should not have access to recordings made on private property, most notably audio (and in some cases, video) recordings made by home assistants such as Alexa or Google Home. On the other hand, a camera at a public park (for example) is very beneficial.

    • I agree because the neds will not justify the means. Invading innocent people and their privacy in the name of protection does not make it acceptable. We need to recognize the fact that individuals’ rights to privacy is just as important as safety

    • I agree that the government should not be allowed to invade personal information. There needs to be steps in place and true reason for the government to get this information. Also, the government should realize that they may thing they are protecting citizens, but in reality, they are taking personal unwanted information.

    • I agree, and under select circumstances these searches are acceptable and reasonable. But then again, those circumstances have been getting changed and adjusted nearly every second—due to events surrounding our country. Where do these unreasonable searches stop?

    • I completely agree with what your saying. My only question is, what draws the line? What specifically applies to the government, and what is withholding necessary information? People should be safe, and should feel safe with the government. So what boundaries should the government respect?

    • When governments start looking into the lives of it citizens is scary as we have the right to have a personal life /privacy and it is unacceptable but sometimes its a bit, needed for legal reasons as well for law enforcement to identify criminals but this is a right that can be reviewed so many times with in all branches of the American Goverment

    • I liked how you added the converse affects that making people safer by invading privacy is in fact counter intuitive. People should feel safe with their private belongings nowhere near the hands of the government.

    • I completely agree. Nobody should be allowed to invade any privacy, especially without any sort of probable cause.

    • I agree with your statement and I like how you brought up that the government does not need to know everything that goes on in our lives because you are right! Not every little detail of our life needs to be monitored but also we have the right to withhold information if we choose to.

    • I agree, if our privacy is compromised based on the government having full access to our information, it is unacceptable. the government should only be given access to our records if we have a history of a threat or on a watchlist

  3. The federal government needs to know what pertains to national security, but often oversteps their bounds. Access to one’s private information should be extremely limited and only used when there is probable cause. The government also needs to be more transparent about how they collect information and to what extent they have access to our personal lives, so we can protect ourselves from invasions of privacy. Preventing terrorism is extremely important but civil liberties are as well and need to be considered when determining the legality of surveillance.

    • I agree that terrorism is a serious threat and it is not the government’s job to get involved in people’s personal life. Also, I agree that the government should be more open on how they get there information because the people deserve to know. Protecting the citizens rights is the biggest priority, but sometimes, infringing on those rights is the only way to protect them.

    • I agree with your statement that the government often oversteps its bounds when regarding our privacy. There are certain things that the government can do and when, there also needs to be probable cause when doing this. I am also curious as to how you feel the government could be more transparent with us?

    • I like how you mentioned that the government needs to be transparent about what information they are collecting from the public.

    • I agree. There are issues that are important and the government does need that information but the people do deserve to know who it’s happening and what the limit should be or if it’s an invasion of their privacy/ civil liberties

    • I like what you said about increasing the transparency of how the government goes about surveillance. I think however that could lead to a conflict in terrorists anticipating said surveillance and combating that. However, I do think that individual security should be a top priority.

    • I agree having access should be limited and monitored. Releasing immense amounts of information about people no matter what the reason is and should remain a violation

  4. The federal government should only be allowed to access private information if they have probable cause and can prove it. It is a person’s right to privacy and the government needs to respect that. If someone is suspected of terrorism, then the government should be allowed to access private things, but they still should need a warrant or other terms of permission.

    • I like how you talked about the necessity of needing a warrant, I hadn’t thought about that. It’s important to remember the necessity of having probable cause and a warrant so that one’s civil liberties are respected. I think there need to be specific boundaries of what the government can do and what they can access.

    • You make a valid point on how the Government should have to prove their suspicions and not act solely on them.

    • I agree you make a good point. Some form of permission should be enforced before accessing private information.

    • I agree with what you’re saying, if someone is accused of terrorism or another accusation then the government should be allowed to inspect their personal lives, but only if that person knows what’s going on and if the government has a warrant to do so. But the government should understand that inspecting someone is very frightening and we are all human.

    • I agree, the people have the right to privacy. The idea of privacy should come with probable causes. Probable cause is vague that there needs to be clarification through the government on what valid probable cause is.

    • i agree, probable cause and moderation are the biggest concerns whne it comes to surveillance without infringing on civil liberties

    • I agree, partially. If someone is accused or questioned to be a terrorist, they are now a danger to others, which regards the need for search and seizure. Yes, a warrant is important, but not when someone’s safety is a concern.

    • I liked your point that the government should back up why they must access private property, forcing them to ensure their claims of suspicion are reasonable.

    • I agree with your point. With some information that is needed should have permission to be given out to the government. If there is a serious situation like you had stated then information should be allowed to be given without permission.

  5. There needs to be a balance between what the government can do to both protect society and respect the privacy of its citizens. Civil liberties are important and must be respected and in order for the government to be able to access someone’s private information, they must have reasonable suspicion. Counteracting terrorism is important, but the government needs to have boundaries of what they can search and when.

    • I agree with your point that the government must respect the privacy of citizens, and have boundaries to what they can search.

    • I agree that the government must put a focus on our freedom to privacy but in my opinion I would be willing to give up some of my personal privacy to ensure my safety.

    • I agree with you that there needs to be more of a balance between surveillance for the purpose of protection and respecting the 4th Amendment rights of Americans. The imbalance between the amount of information that the government has access to and our own knowledge of that information is much too great, and that is definitely something that needs to be addressed.

  6. I agree with the notion that the government should limit the amount of surveillance used if it infringes on the right to privacy. In today’s society it’s hard to find the line on what goes against your rights and what follows protocols but it is important to distinguish between the 2. I think we should limit our survalliance and only allow the government to access certain aspects of a citizens private life while leaving the rest up to civil liberties and rights

    • I certainly agree that surveillance of government need to be limited. But, where should the line be drawn? The courts have decided that parts of private life hold a right to privacy (ex: personal phone), but warrants and surveillance limits are typically drawn with vague intentions. How can we create boundaries out the loopholes that have created?

  7. Personally I feel there does need to be a balance between Government surveillance and privacy for the public. In this day and age there is now a need for some form of surveillance to help spot potential threats to national safety. With that being said there are lines that the government should not cross without at the very least probable cause if not a search warrant.

    • I agree, without a probable cause unnecessary surveillance is a violation of our rights. However we need to be vigilant enough for the safety of the public

    • I agree that a balance must be reached in regards to surveillance and privacy. There are benefits and harms with both. Surveillance and privacy are counteractive by nature, and so we must optimize both to provide the best balance security and freedom in society.

  8. To a certain extent the federal government may take/ look at out information. The main and only reasons as to why the government should not know much about you is because it may not be something that person would want to share. If information is needed then it should not be everything in their life. The law and the constitution was made to protect the citizens from the federal government.

    • I agree, every person has a right to privacy and a right to know what information is and isn’t out there. The only way this right should be breached is if a feasible and immediate concern is posed. And that concern should be rooted in unbiased fact.

    • I think the government shouldn’t go to far with knowing our personal information. Whatever we put out into the world , is as far as they should go. If we don’t put out information their specifically looking for , then they shouldn’t invade our privacy just to find it. The government should just obey the 1st Amendment, which is having no law against religion and freedom of speech. Since they can’t make a law against it, they always try to work their way around it in order to get the information they want from every citizen of the U.S., when in reality they should just respect our boundaries and personal space. Especially if someone hasn’t committed a crime previously before. Everything isn’t for EVERYONE to know.

  9. Although, they are using this in order to create a safer society. The right to privacy was created and placed in the Bill of Rights because it is importamt to the American people. The government has its hands on alot of our personal information as is! Giving them permission to take more from us is not ok. When there have been multiple times when they take that information and use or abuse it for their own gain.

  10. The debate regarding whether or not the government is allowed to have access to private information of citizens lives, and how much they are privy to has been around since the start of the country. However, after 9/11 access to private information was granted with the Patriot Act, due to fear of another terrorist attack. The right to privacy is still active; but the American public warrented federal government access to private lives.

  11. Terrorism surveillance is a valid concern, however, it is not an excuse to violate the peoples’ right to privacy. Only if there is a strong probable cause present should heavy surveillance be utilized. Otherwise it is unecesaary beauracracy regulations.

    • I agree that whilst surveillance for national threats is important there are certain lines that they shouldn’t cross

    • i entriely agree with this; trying to protect against terrorism only to then go and infringe on the rights of the people seems like a mistep

  12. It is crucial to national safety that the federal government is aware of what is happening in regards to the lives of citizens. What comes into question is how much information the federal government should be able to access, and in what circumstances should they be able to obtain it. While it would seem reasonable to make probable cause the grounds for search, probable cause is basically having reasonable grounds to search someone which is very vague. Because the definition behind probable cause is so vague, it can easily be abused in situations of fear. Race and religion could be used as grounds to make someone suspicious, which would qualify them for search by probable cause according to its current definition. In order to determine how much access the government should be allowed to have regarding the lives of citizens, probable cause needs to be clearly defined so it will not be abused by the federal government as grounds to have all information. This will determine how much information the government needs to have access to reasonably.

    • I agree that probably cause is very vague when it comes to searches. Fear may cause some concern in proving decisions. I do agree though, it is something that may be abused by anyone of authority. I can see how fear could get in the way. I think it would be safe as long as the authority can only hold them on grounds of suspicion if they are in violation of what the police officer thinks they did. For example the Police should write down what it believes the suspected criminal is “guilty” of before attempting to going further.

      • I agree that fear is a huge reason that the government proceeds with unreasonable searches but also they should be professional enough to put probably cause before anything. Also writing down the reason for searches is very reasonable and should be taken into consideration.

    • I do think it’s interesting that the definition of probable cause is often very vague and subjective; it certainly makes the whole debate more confusing. Perhaps more clearly defined lines of what is probable cause would help, but there’s so many different scenarios that it’s impossible to encompass them all.

    • I agree, the idea of probable cause is very vague causing privacy to be abused. The public safety is crucial when there are threats to the country. The United States have to be safe with the concepts of keeping the public safe. Surveillance is something that needs to come with valid probable cause.

  13. There should be a limit to how much information the federal government has on us but it will not happen, even though it is violating every citizen’s privacy. But who is to say they don’t already know everything about us and are constantly watching our every move. Mainly everything is put online and done using technology. It is way to easy to find information on people. By saying that just let the federal government get the necessary information to take down issues such as terrorist threats.

    • Civil liberties and rights were put in place for the exact reason of protecting citizens from the government. Disregarding this would/does lead to an abuse of power. So while security needs to be a high concern, it cannot over power basic rights. There needs to be a system in place that puts limits on how much information is given, and that amount should be connected to the amount of viable, fact-based concern.

  14. While I am in support of the breaching of citizens’ privacy in the name of securing the general welfare of the nation, I believe it must be done with extreme caution. Surveillance systems should follow a tier setup — with the lowest tier being the standard security on all individuals and then as each tier rises, this is for those who the government feels higher security is necessary for. An efficient way of developing this info is to measure the amount of breaches or violation of laws by said individuals on tier 1; once one breaks the conditions for tier 1 they are moved to tier 2, and so on. This would dispel the common belief that the government is closely filtering and using each and every person’s activities by providing a sense of security that is not too far reaching. Surveillance must be conducted on the minimum requirements as outlined in the 4th Amendment.

    • The tier system is an interesting concept. I like how the tiers would regulate how much surveillance is necessary based on the level of danger a threat presents.

      • Yes I appreciate how it considers the fact that there is more security needed for certain people. The only thing I would caution about this system is just remembering that the tier can only be protected based off past actions. I would hate for it to be upgraded on the basis of race or sex — as this would create more harm than good.

  15. As the issue of privacy from the government has never been much of an issue in my life because I do not do anything illegal, I do believe Americans have the right to privacy. Anyone with probable cause should be search immediately without any question for the safety of the country. Other than that random searches do not do anyone any good. If there is any suspicion it is better to waste time searching than to be sorry no one did when another travesty happens

    • I agree with you that random searches rarely benefit the cause. However, I wonder what would constitute real “suspicion” because I think that’s where a lot of the confusion comes into play when talking about privacy.

      • The government is not wrong for wanting to up surveillance for threat purposes, but we have to ask is it about surveillance or invasion of privacy. I think we should definitely have surveillance in big city’s that can be prone to an attack and because crime rate is usually higher in big city’s for that purpose as well. However the thought that the government is watching and probably listening irritates people and makes us feel less safe even if we are not committing crimes it’s the feeling of not having privacy in our lives the government already plays a big part we don’t want them constantly watching us too.

    • I do not agree on the absolute perspective of being able to search anyone as long as there is probable cause. The reason I say this is because we have witnessed the probable cause reason lead to discrimination and persecution against non white individuals. Also, probable cause is a subjective idea and many times this is abused and not interpreted fairly across all boards. I see this leading to more conflict than progress.

      • Very true, probable cause could be interpreted as anyone pleases. There have been many situations where it has been abused.

  16. I agree that Terrorist threats are a valid reason to up the surveillance in America. However I do think there are some lines that should not be crossed. I believe that there should be a solid line of when prying is too much. I think that if there is suspicion being raised of an individual, more action may slowly (but quietly) be evolved. If the individual is not in violation or is not a terrorist then the Federal Government must back off once again.

  17. I believe terrorist threats are one of the few valid reasons to boost the security of our people but there must be a limit set for how far the government should be allowed to investigate the people’s own privacy. Just like congress having checks and balances on each branch of itself, there should be checks and balances for how much information the federal government should be allotted to access.

    • I believe that it’s a good thing that the government keeps citizen activity under surveillance to a certain extent. If you are not a criminal you shouldn’t have anything to worry about because you most likely aren’t being monitored as strictly at this point. Although keeping some sort of oversight on citizen activity i think there should be limits on how much the government can dig into your information unless there is serious suspicion of terrorist activity. The government should have the ability to tap into people’s phones as they do, but there should definitely be limits as to when they are able to do so and should need permission from a court in order to proceed in tapping in and treat it as an investigation rather than surveillance… if that makes sense.

    • I think most people agree that there should boosted security for protection but that there should be a solid line that distinguishes how far that “breach” of security may go. However, it comes down to what the line exactly entails and what warrants the crossing of that line. I think the idea is very complex but I do believe that if the line were to be crossed there should be restraints as to what the government can and can’t do with what they find.

  18. In terms of privacy, I think that there needs to be a balance between prioritizing national safety and individual safety. While it is crucial that we combat those terrorist threats etc, it is also important that we maintain the integrity of the values of privacy. Therefore, it is vital that we abide by the rules of “probable cause”, that way we can balance national and individual safety AND privacy.

    • I agree with you that it is very important to keep the interest of the people in mind and keep their privacy secure. Though it is hard to say what keeps people safe versus what is too much information to collect.

    • I strongly agree with that there needs to be a balance between prioritizing national safety and individual safety.

  19. I think that the government needs to look over the the citizens to see any national security threats but I don’t think they should completely know everything about the people because some information is private for a reason. If the government has substantial reason to look into a person then they should be able to do so but to do it for no reason seems excessive

    • True the goverment can have the right watch its citizens as its the job of a goverment , but this heavily discussed with cuation and care as anyone could report peeping at any time but dosent mean I’m not against it but very concerned

  20. The terrorist threat can be anywhere and I agree that increased surveillance is necessary for ensuring our safety. I disagree, however, that this surveillance should be in our homes and invade our private lives. Since anyone can be a terrorist in disguise, it makes sense in theory that we should keep an eye on everybody. In practice though, for every terrorist being monitered there are thousands being robbed of their privacy. There should be a line in the sand as to what is necessary for the government to observe and what is off limits. National safety is important, but so is individual safety and privacy.

    • The question is to what level do you increase that surveillance. Where is the line? When is it crossed? Of course we assume the invasion will not be present in our homes but what about the grey in between? These are all just questions but lead one to the conclusion that eventually we just have to say, “Stop!”. To some extent until we do encroachment of privacy will only continue

      • We will never know the line because we really will ever know if it stops if they say “we aren’t doing it no more”. We need to stop it were it starts and need proof or find a happy median to agree upon

    • This is very true and i think everyone should have the right to privacy although it is very important to monitor it. They must monitor the activity that can constitute as dangerous and get a clue on certain trends to help them improve their security. While our privacy is extremely important and each person has their rights secured it is also important to make sure we are protected in the other sense of physical safety.

      • They should have proof that the person is preparing to cause harm in order to search them or they are just fishing around people until they get a bite and who knows all the stuff they look through before they finally find the one thing they are looking for because we should have to right to privacy and don’t deserve to be monitored or have all our info being looked at

  21. There should always be limitations to what the government should be able to know about someone’s personal life. The plan is to keep people safe from terrorism, not invading everyone’s personal lives to where there is zero privacy. I wouldn’t want to have to worry about the government spying on my every move because they’re looking for terrorist activity. Most American citizens don’t spend there time looking for ways to terrorize people. There is a difference between safety and going overboard. Watching everyone’s lives to try to keep an eye on “terrorism” is overboard.

  22. The government should have as little information about people’s personal lives as possible. A reality anywhere close to Orwell’s 1984 is simply unacceptable. While we are not in that reality we as a people should not even begin to approach it. Terrorism is of course a threat but should not take precedence over the very freedoms that we seek to protect. The people should not be tempted by fear. In most regards, freedom should come before safety. Assume innocence before guilt. Before any surveillance takes place there should be a reason. Probable cause stands as the necessary wall between maintaining freedom and still remaining reasonable. It must never be forgotten and preemptive measures of surveillance of citizens should not be taken.

  23. While national security is very important, the priorities of the government are flipped. It is important to defend against terrorism however it is possible to do this without invading the private lives of citizens. Many are unaware of their rights within this and tend to be taken advantage of by the government. The government should not be able to invade ones privacy unless based on the 4th amendment of probable cause or a warrant. The people should be secured against searches or seizures from the government or police unless based on probable cause. Often people don’t understand their 4th amendment rights. Invasion of privacy is a big and hot debate among the general public.

    • I agree with your point that the government must follow the 4th anendment and only search people with a warrant or probable cause.

  24. Yes, the government combating terrorism and accessing more information to ensure the safety of others sounds like a great idea. the government may have the intentions of using the surveillance for securing the area and whatnot; but giving up your privacy leaves citizens vulnerable to possible hacking or inappropriate recording. In the long run the surveillance for terrorism may have some bias and focus on a particular group rather than the entirety of the nation.

  25. The government should only have the information necessary to be able to either rule a person out as a threat to the public or confirm them as a threat. This keeps the public safe from possible threats that can be stopped with ease. However this is a very hard line to draw of what is too much or too little but overall I would rather have a government that knows a bit too much about people than have large scale threats go unwatched.

    • I believe it is ok for the government to see what we do online, as most terrorists threats are online (though usually false). Even if they have cameras in public, that is kind of ok to me, as long as they stay away from your home and other private property, as public property usually belong to the government anyway.

    • I completely agree. There needs to be a line drawn between public and private things to be recorded. And the American public should give consent to be monitored unless it is dire national security.

  26. The government shouldn’t have full servalianve over the people to get the information they need unless there is an obvious threat or motives to harm. It should only should be used if it is really necessary todo so. Terrorism will always be around no matter what and yes monitoring people does have its advantages in stopping it full blown servalianve is to much and invasive.

    • I agree with your statement on how the government should have survalence on minor things, especially to prevent terrorism. Threats can be determined before they even happen, that’s why I believe they should be able to watch all the time.

    • I agree, the government should not have people under constant surveillance because not everyone is a criminal.

  27. I believe the government should only have private information of a citizen’s life to an extent. In which, this information should only be collected in circumstances to where it is actually needed, and valuable in sorting situations of threat. But I would assume that internet history, and surveillance tapes should be mostly the information collected. As we already know everything on camera, and the internet is not private.

  28. While I do believe high threat people should be monitored for the safety of American citizens, I do think there is a level of privicy that needs to remain. The survallence of citizens should start at a low level become more intence if someone has a history of crime or has demonstrated that they could be harmful to others.

  29. I believe that the government should only have a limited amount of surveillance on citizens unless needed otherwise. I think it is unfair for citizens to have their right to privacy invaded for no reason. The 4th amendment states that one can be searched only with probable cause so why would innocent citizens need to be searched without a cause? But I do also believe it is important for the government to track down any terrorists or signs of terrorism but there should be a method that doesn’t involve invading people’s privacy.

  30. “ Historically, privacy was almost implicit, because it was hard to find and gather information. But in the digital world, whether it’s digital cameras or satellites or just what you click on, we need to have more explicit rules – not just for governments but for private companies.”— Bill Gates. There has never been a more relevant quote for today’s society. With the rise of technology, cell phones have become more and more prevalent in our society. With cellphones, social media has also grown in use. Because of this, there is always a camera watching, whether it be a government security camera or a cellphone taping something to be put on Snapchat. We live in a society where someone is always watching you. But how much of that should the government have access to? In my opinion, if it isn’t in public or on the internet, the government has no reason to violate citizen’s privacy. If they suspect anything illegal, they should have to have a warrant to have access to it. However, until we as a society decide to pass legislature that protects our privacy in the digital age, not much will change.

  31. Citizens deserve a right to their own personal privacy. The government doesn’t need to infringe on citizens rights to privacy in order to defend against terrorists, and there is evidence to support this. In 2013, the President’s Review group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies determined that the NSA’s bulk collection of phone records “was not essential to preventing attacks.” Of course, this doesn’t mean to cease ALL surveillance, but there definitely isn’t any immediate need for any more surveillance.

    • I completely agree. The government does not need to know all the small details going on in my life unless they concern national security.

  32. The government should limit the accessibility of information of the private lives of citizens, we should limit accessible information to what is needed in court prosecutions and what can be accessed using warrants

    • I agree, because sometimes the information that citizens are allowed to keep private can be dangerous and/or promote criminal deviousness. But, I do believe that regardless of the circumstances there should be reasonable cause to search or violate privacy.

  33. The federal government should have access to some aspects of the lives of citizens but not full access. These citizens are protected under the 4th Amendment with the right to privacy. Although the government may believe that there is suspicious activity going on without reasonable cause, warrant, and notification they are not allowed to search through an individual’s home, car, possessions, or technology. However, the government should be allowed access to information on social media because it is considered public if it is on the internet. Citizens deserve to live free without the suspected “big brother” disregarding their rights and their privacy overall.

  34. In my opinion, I believe that anything on the internet should be accessed by the federal government. Why should you worry about them looking at your stuff if you’re not doing anything wrong? It will help out nation become more secure. Criminal rates would also drop because of predictions on interactions online. I do not believe prevalence cameras should be placed everywhere mostly because of how uncomfortable it would be.

    • I agree that anything you have on the internet should be accessed by the federal government, however, cameras in public are already present as security cameras, so I dont think federal cameras would be different

  35. I agree with your statement on how the government should have survalence on minor things, especially to prevent terrorism. Threats can be determined before they even happen, that’s why I believe they should be able to watch all the time.

  36. The federal government should be able to have access to our lives only if there is reason to. The government should be there to protect us so in times of crisis or they could prevent a situation from happening then they should be granted access to all of our records. We are protected under the 4th Amendment which gives us the right to privacy but when someone is on a watch list or could possibly be a danger should have these rights stripped. Any potential danger internally should be monitored at all costs. Social media posts shouldn’t be considered private info because they are social and made to the public.

    • I do agree to an extinct but then again i don’t agree with you private is private. No matter what it is they shouldnt have access to those things.

  37. I think that the right to privacy is a very important aspect of our life and it should not be violated but I do also think a sense of safety and security is vital, so a solid national security would help with that. However I believe the government should not have total power over everything we do so I think there should be a balance between national security and the right to privacy.

  38. The federal government only needs to know what applies to them.Not all their private information. I feel like they only need what it is important or relates to the case.

    • I agree with you that the government definitely should not have free access to all of the personal information of every American citizen and that there should be more restrictions on what information of private citizens that the government can legally access.

  39. The government’s invasion of the right to privacy of completely ordinary Americans under a veil of secrecy, a violation of explicit constitutional rights, is not something we should all just accept and ignore, because even if we do not directly feel or care about the effects of surveillance in particular, that does not change the fact that we are casually dismissing our rights that are a part of what empowers us as citizens of the United States, when our empowerment is something that we should cling on to.

    • I agree with the point you made about accepting the violation of our rights because we may not feel or care. I believe that mindset just gives the government more opportunity to further violate our rights in the future.

  40. The federal government does not need to know anything other than a persons name, unless the person has created enough reasonable suspicion for a background check.

  41. There is certain circumstances in which surveillance under the American people is appropriate. Surveillance in public areas is completely rational; however, surveying a private area is an invasion of privacy. The government could potentially use footage from public areas to use against and convict someone of a crime. Depending on the severity of a crime or act of terrorism, then the government should be allowed to use any sources and extensively search people.

  42. I think that when it comes to surveillance over American People it is 100 % appropriate. Although i do think that the government wanting to know more about anything private lives of citizens are a bit to much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.