It's happening once again, the government has plans to look into our private lives in order to try and stop possible future crimes from occurring.DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, is looking into providing funding for scientists to create methods to scour billions of emails in order to catch criminals before they can carry out their heinous crimes.
Think about the shootings this previous year, including the terrible Fort Hood shooting where a Army Major took up arms against his own country, killing 13 before being subdued. Think about how it was only after this horrendous event that email correspondence between him and an important Islamic extremist were discovered which could have been used to help 13 people survive.
This time, let's not make the mistake of trying to block this move.
Of course, we are giving up some liberties in order to live safer, but at what point must the safety of our country as a whole come before our individual liberties? During the passage of the patriot act, which carried provisions in the same vein as this proposed email-searching method, the country responded in outrage, claiming that we could still fight terrorism without violating people's rights. But look at where we are now and what has happened since then.
In these shaky times, we need this upped level of control. Let us not be reactionary to catastrophes any longer, let us take a proactive stance and stop them before they even see the glimmer of light.
4 comments:
I agree. The government MUST take the initiative. Individual liberties don't mean anything if the individuals don't exist in the first place. That is, the first step is to PROTECT the lives of our citizens. If our citizens' lives aren't fully protected, then individual liberties don't mean squat. We need to get ahead of these criminals before they get ahead of us. Now is the time.
I agree to a certain extent. The government should protect the people even if it is at the expense of personal liberties, however this power should be limited. For instance they should have substantial evidence that the person who they want to search is indeed a threat to public safety, and that invading their privacy will help prevent acts of danger. Whereas if someone is committing illegal acts yet not threatening the lives of others, the government should find other means of catching the felon.
Well in my opinion, I have to disagree. I think this definitely violates one's privacy as stated in the 4th Amendment, which states that "...unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." If the government is able to browse through all of our emails, they can find personal information--information that may not pertain to certain crimes. For example, if the person searching through the emails has a grudge on someone, they can search through that person's email and find ways to arrest or blackmail or in some way harm that person only because the searcher has a grudge on the victim.
Moreover, I have to disagree with Angie in saying that "if someone is committing illegal acts yet not threatening the lives of others, the government should find other means of catching the felon." Illegal acts are illegal for a reason--because they harm people or society in some way. I think if the government is given the right to search through our emails, they should be able to arrest anyone for doing anything illegal because they can prevent the crime from happening in the first place. If the government used other means of catching the culprit(s), then they'd be at a disadvantage. If the police had no other evidence but the emails as an indication that the crime is going to occur, then that would hinder them from successfully stopping the crime. Moreover, other ways may be more time consuming, giving criminals more time to plot and carry out their crimes.
There are also different solutions to preventing crimes. For example, now I'm not saying this is advisable or by any means I agree with this, but take a look at Switzerland. In class, we learned that everyone there has or can own a gun. Although there is no direct correlation between the lack of fighting between Switzerland and other countries due to the fact that most people have guns, the country proves to be threatening because if some terrorism were to occur, people can defend and protect their country in a quick fashion. Although I'm not advocating for the fact that everyone should have guns, I'm just saying that I'm sure there are other solutions in preventing future crimes.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/
I too agree, but only to a certain extent. Yes, the government should be doing everything in its power to protect the people, but isn't individual liberty worth at least something? In my opinion, our country prides itself on the excessive amount of freedom we (as citizens) have, so if we throw privacy out the window, where do we stand? But I do agree with Ryan's statement, that if our citizens' lives aren't protected, our individual liberties are useless. I believe a compromise needs to be reached between these two extremes.
Post a Comment