Thursday, April 23, 2015
McConnell Introduces Bill to Extend Surveillance Under Patriot Act
This highly-controversial act is set to expire in June. Clearly, Republican leadership is in favor of renewing the Patriot Act. Personally, I oppose the mass surveillance of American citizens. What are your thoughts on the issue?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that surveilance SHOULD be extended because we have to make sure that terrorists will be defeated. Using the patriot act we have stopped dozens of americans from joining ISIS. Imagine if the patriot act wasnt there! Imagine how many MORE terrorist attacks there could have been done in New York. Or Boston. Or here in Philadelphia. The 4th amendment is important, but are YOU willing to die in a terrorist attack for it? I dont think so! And I know Im not.
ReplyDeleteI definitely think there should be limits on what information the NSA can receive. Invasion of privacy should only occur if necessary to prevent harm, otherwise, forget it. I doubt the Patriot Act stopped a lot of Americans from joining ISIS. Why would any American want to be part of a terrorist group?
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Emmanuel. If the Patriot Act is really keeping many Americans from joining ISIS, I'd think the more pressing problem would be figuring out what is making "dozens of Americans" think about joining it in the first place.
ReplyDeleteIs there clear evidence that the Patriot Act's controversial sections have made the nation significantly more secure? If not, the blatant disregard for privacy has no benefits and efforts to amend the bill ought to be supported.
How can mass surveillance be legal if a police officer generally needs a warrant just to go into an uncooperative person's house?
There needs to limits on what the NSA is tracking and seeing. I understand completely if they have a legitimate reason. But most of the time they do not. Is it really doing them any good to read my emails? If an American wants to join ISIS then they are not a true American at all. The Patriot Act most likely did not deter that many people. The Patriot is an invasion of privacy that has gone to far.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings on mass surveillance. With everything going on in the Middle East with ISIL and other terrorist organizations, I think it's best that we keep national security as a priority. However, I don't think that collecting data from millions of cell phones is going to help any of the current situations or increase the overall safety of our nation. Yes, there are terrorist threats in the world right now, but invading the privacy of millions of Americans has nothing to do with that. I agree with Malachi's point: Look at Mapp v. Ohio-- why is it illegal to enter somebody's house (without a warrant) to go through their personal belongings, yet it's perfectly fine to go through all their information electronically?
ReplyDeleteI agree with what many others have said in regards for the need to limit what the NSA is allowed to track and see. While stopping terrorism is important, so to is protecting people's privacy. As Malachi and Antonella have pointed out, a police officer needs a warrant to go into someone's house. If we are willing to restrict what police officers can do in the name of privacy but not what the NSA can do then doesn't that make us hypocrites? A right to privacy has been established by the Supreme Court previously and this circumstance is no different. While mass surveillance has proven useful in stopping terrorism at the same time it cannot be allowed to go on unchecked or it risks destroying any sense of privacy that anyone has electronically.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Antonella. I also have mixed feelings about this issue. Security is certainly very important and keeping tabs on possible threats (or even finding unknown threats) is a priority, but I do think there is a limit. I don't have anything to hide, but that doesn't mean I want the NSA reading through everything I have written/sent/posted electronically. That's my own personal private matters.
ReplyDeleteEven though security is a big issue in today's world, mass surveillance has its pros and cons. How far does keeping the country safe without dipping into people's personal private business? I think the whole Patriot Act is an invasion of my privacy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Antonella, too. Security is extremely important, but there is a line that can't be and shouldn't be crossed. Maybe in the idea of a serious suspicion based off of facts can that line be crossed, but it's hard to say.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am okay with surveillance implemented to protect American lives, the collection of metadata seems a little extreme, even to me. If I am not mistaken, when you search something or call someone, the metadata shows when, why, how, and where you used technology. Is there anyone with a larger tech background that could explain this? While I am okay with surveillance, is collecting metadata the best way to catch the largest number of criminals? If the government is going to collect such data, parameters need to be in place to limit the release/distribution of data. Basically, the people who have access to it should be highly controlled.
ReplyDelete