Wednesday, April 23, 2014
2014 - Surveillance
Do you think that the current level of secrecy regarding government surveillance programs is appropriate? To what degree do you agree/disagree with specific government surveillance programs and why? (Consider the collection of metadata and wiretapping as well as the PRISM program, Boundless Informant, and Bull Run.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that the government should have access to phone records, emails, texts, etc. but they should not abuse that access. I believe the government should be a little more open to what they’re doing because if we are giving up our privacy, they should give up something to. I think most of the government security programs are necessary because the access to basically invade our privacy is worth gaining more security and protecting our country. I do agree Americans have the right to privacy, hence the Fourth Amendment and the government should respect that and with my little knowledge, I think the government does respect our right to privacy. That being said, I think some people are blowing it way out of proportion when they say that the NSA is violating their privacy. The government’s collection of metadata is just that. They snoop when they feel they have a just cause. On the other hand, this is all being said from my miniscule knowledge of the matter which traces back to how secretive the NSA is. If the NSA gave out a little more information, there would be less opinions that are very extreme and more factual information on what they are actually doing with all our information.
ReplyDeleteNo, because I believe that they should have fewer secrets and be a little more open. I understand that they have a to have a few secrets to stop terrorism, but with some of their surveillance programs like “Boundless Informant” where they could just read random peoples information to see if they are a threat to our country. Also with the Metadata where the NSA is picking up information on everyone like where they are going, what they were looking up, or even who they called. I just think that the NSA should stop being so secretive and be a little more open on some programs. So I believe that the NSA should be a little more open about their operations and stop being so secretive.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are some levels of secrecy regarding government surveillance programs that are very appropriate, but I do think the programs are being used in a wrong way. Some of the programs are Bull Run, Boundless Informant, PRISM. For example, Bull Run and Boundless Informant are very similar. They both collect data everywhere, but Bull Run is where the government can see how much information and data they are getting from everywhere and boundless Informant is where the government gives a code on the information a give the companies (like Google) a code of all the data so that the government cannot see what the information is, but the government kept the code so they could unlock the information a see what they want to see. Both of these programs are a good thing because they are seeing what threats or plans are being made. But, I do think that Boundless Informant is the worse one out of the two because they gave a code to the companies and said that they are not going to be able to see that information, but the government can actually see that information because they kept the code. This is lying and I do not believe that a government should lie like that because now the question comes what else is the government lying about, plus the trust of the government will go down and that is not a good thing. Plus, there is another program called PRISM. This is program that makes these big internet companies to give the government information about their customers. But they are looking at everybody. I think that they should actually only require the information and make the company give the information only if the government has a good reason to have the information and give proof why they need the information. And with all of this, I agree with Kate, because she says that the programs are good programs but the programs should not be used wrongly. What her and I believe that it is o.k. that we give up some of our privacy for security, but the government should give something. And we both believe that the programs are being abused.
ReplyDeleteBecause the surveillance program is already known by tons of people, I do not find this program very “secret”. I find this program helpful. Even though they have to go through the people’s privacy, they do it to protect us. As Kate said, I find it appropriate for the government to be able to go through the citizens’ texts, e-mails, records, etc. The government does this because they want to make sure that terrorists are not planning anything against our country. Even though as citizens we know what this program is about, we do not exactly know every single detail. As citizens we should be the ones first informed of what goes on around us. It has been proven that at least 54 terrorist attacks have been stopped since this program started. As stated in the “TED talk”, the government does not go through people’s information so they can steal identity; no they do totally the opposite, which is to protect us. Even though I agree that this program is helpful and good for our country and citizens, I do understand why some specific websites want to deny on giving out personal information of users to the government. These companies have agreed to keep our personal information safe when we give it to them to make a social page. They feel like they are not keeping their word and lying to the people. In conclusion, not everyone will agree that this program can help us; but we need to work as a team, government can have our information, but as citizens, we deserve the right to know what they exactly need it for. Besides, if we have nothing to hide, then we should not be worried about the government going through our information.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Kate and Nate on the subject of the NSA letting us know how much information they have on us.I feel like the NSA should keep the amount of data they have on people secret. If it is a publicly known fact where and how the NSA keeps tabs on you, it is much easier for terrorists to avoid these protective measures and get away with their different forms of terrorism.All of the information collected by the NSA is only revealed to NSA officials if a "red flag" is raised. If you do nothing that could be seen as a threat none of your information will be revealed to anyone except those you choose to include in your life. As far as programs like Bull Run and Prism go, i feel like they are completely necessary to the well being and health of our country. If you do nothing to raise violence you will be fine and your life will remain private but, if you do something threatening it is necessary for all your info to be released. The concern over keeping massive amounts of meta data i also think it is necessary to keep records on people to see who they have been in contact with. However, from a financial perspective i think it is necessary to erase all the data after a period of 75 years or so to erase the need for facilities dedicated to storing data. To sum it up i think the NSA has to keep secrets from us in order to catch terrorists and other criminal activities and the measures they have put in place such as PRISM, wire taps, and collection of meta data are very necessary to our safety.
ReplyDeleteI think that the NSA should keep the way it is now. I feel like if they put it out there in the open then it would give out to much information to the public and they could take advantage of that. Like other countries could steal the information of people and use that. The NSA keeps adding on more data of every person and store it. The boundless informant is when they keep track of everyone's data and store it and do not put to the public. If they do have a suspicion of someone being a terrorist they could use that data they have and wiretapping on them. It is easy for the NSA to wiretap someone if they suspect they are a part of terrorism and they need a warrant but if you have a reason you can do it. i agree with kate on "They snoop when they feel they have a just cause". I agree with her because they do just snoop if they have suspicions. So i believe that the NSA should keep the secrecy the same but, they should be more cautious about the information they let out to the public to see.
ReplyDeleteThe current level of secrecy in the government regarding surveillance is a very popular subject to debate. One side believes the government is too invasive of the citizens’ personal lives and too secretive about what is it doing. The other side believes those invasions are necessary to protect national security and secrecy keeps the programs safe. I agree more with the second side, stating that a higher level of secrecy for the NSA than other branches of government is appropriate.
ReplyDeleteI believe this because the threat of terrorists and other extremists using disclosed information to avoid U.S. surveillance. Kate said in her comment, “If the NSA gave out a little more information, there would be less opinions that are very extreme and more factual information on what they are actually doing with all our information.” I disagree with this because the release of information is what starts these big debates. The debates about those issues are then made public and those who do not like the U.S. will be able to see those programs being talked about and avoid them. The programs run by the NSA, such as Bull Run, are only too invasive if what Edward Snowden said about the program being a threat to security is true. It seems to me that these programs are only being used to protect us and should not be so widely debated.
I agree with Nate. The level of our secrecy regarding government is not fully appropriate. As an American citizen, it is our right to be informed on what is occurring in our country once in a while, or just how dangerous things are getting. If we are getting informed every once in a while by government than there is possible ways to take a stand and either help out. It is invading human privacy and getting information that they received by force. I believe the government is supposed to protect us, and all our important data and information is being shared and used all over internet and be used in judgment. In the month of March, 2014 the Ted talk show interviewed Edward Snowden, a formal NSA contractor who put confidential data and information from NSA over the internet and shared with publishers who would make sure it would get out. This problem became viral to all and to many he became a hero, whereas to others he became a threat and a problem. To a certain degree, I cannot agree with this because I can see what NSA is talking about. The only data they should be able to check is if it can lead to any serious death or damage, or involve terrorism. Leaking information that should not be leaked can lead to terrorism and other countries knowing our weakness and our strengths. Although we should receive information to what is occurring once in a while, I believe some things that can involve us and our privacy, should be shared.
ReplyDeleteLately, the issue of government surveillance has been highly debated. People debate whether or not the current level of secrecy regarding government surveillance programs is appropriate. I believe that the levels of secrecy regarding government surveillance programs are appropriate and that most of their programs are necessary. If everyone knew about secret things that are going on in the government, there would be a problem. Other countries and terrorists could find out about what we do in our government and they could use that information against us. Also it is not relevant for anyone and everyone to know about certain things that are going on in our government. I believe that the government can have that power but they shouldn’t abuse it. People have the right to privacy and those rights have been given to us in the Constitution. Those rights shouldn’t be abused. Wiretapping and having access to phone calls and such can help the government stop bad people. I agree with Kate how she says that most of the different government surveillance programs are necessary. PRISM, Bull Run, and Boundless Informant are all government programs that can be useful. PRISM requires internet companies to give information about their users to the government. Boundless Informant is the U.S. government’s ability to track how much metadata it has on Americans. Bull Run is where the government backs up companies with encryptions but they have access to those websites through those encryptions. The only problem that I have with any of these programs is with Bull Run. Joel mentioned how with Bull Run the government is basically lying to those companies. That’s not right because what else are they lying about or what will they lie to us about. Otherwise, I think that this stuff is necessary. If we have to give up a little bit of our privacy in order to be safer then that’s okay with me. If you don’t do anything bad you have nothing to worry about. So I believe that our level of secrecy is appropriate and that a lot of our programs are necessary in order to protect us.
ReplyDeleteI think there is nothing wrong with the NSA surveillance because they are helping to keep our country safe. 9/11 was the first major terrorist attack on the United States in our own country. The government already knew that there was a major terrorist threat against us, but the public was mostly unaware, and there had been virtually no successful attacks on US soil. I think it is wise for the government to monitor what we do electronically so that we can prevent another catastrophe like 9/11. Who knows, maybe 9/11 could have been prevented if we had had the ability to monitor electronic communications like we do now. I also agree with Darren, that the NSA shouldn't reveal anything about how much information they have on us, or how they get it because any little secret they reveal could potentially help a terrorist organization slip through the cracks in the system.It's secure programs like Prism and Bullrun that help to keep our country safe from domestic threats and we shouldn't jeopardize that safety just because we are feeling self-conscience about the things we do on the internet. And if you're not doing anything wrong or trying to hide anything, why worry about who's watching?
ReplyDeleteI think that the level of secrecy and the level of spying are not appropriate at all. Sure the government is trying to keep the U.S. safe but why do they need to spy on her U.S. citizens. They have all these programs that stop terrorist attacks but they could at least let us, the U.S. citizens, know that these programs are happening; well I guess we know now thanks to Edward Snowden. However, I think they have stepped over the line of privacy. The PRISM program allows the government to access info about everyone by via of Google, Facebook, Yahoo, and other Internet cites. The Boundless Informant allows the government to access metadata. This metadata contains phone info and lots of internet information. The phone info is the person you talked to, when you talked to them, and how long the conversation lasted. All that info is in the metadata and the government can access it like that. The person I disagree with is Shaylon. The level of security is not appropriate despite the government trying to keep us “safe”. It doesn’t matter if you didn’t do anything wrong, it’s your life they are looking into and you have a right to privacy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kate that government should have access to our phone records and etc. but shouldn’t abuse that power and No I don’t think the level of secrecy regarding government surveillance programs is appropriate. I agree that the NSA needs to keep most of their programs a secret but they should tell the public what they are doing just not how they are doing surveillance. Programs such as wiretapping don’t seem so bad because they don’t wiretap everybody just people they have a reason to wiretap, which is a good thing. The PRISM program kind of went a little too far because it made the companies give up the information unwillingly however most of the information that they collect you give up willingly through social sites such as Facebook and twitter. One thing I think the NSA should do is reviewing the information they collect and if its pertinent to some case their working then they could use it but if it’s just random information that’s harmless the governments should erase it. There is no point keeping and it just makes the NSA seem like their up to something and maybe they are but they shouldn’t keep storing all this data.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the current level of secrecy in government surveillance is appropriate. I think that our current volatile world requires the kind of surveillance that the U.S. has implemented and that it should be kept a secret. What’s the point of having surveillance if everyone who’s a target knows about it and can thus avoid it? Also the surveillance programs the government has in place are not designed to infiltrate our privacy and read the details of what we put out on the internet or over the phone. There intent is to filter out possible “red flags” in order to narrow down the information to specify what information terrorists and other criminals are consistently using. Also I believe that when a person such as a criminal or terrorist violates someone else’s first amendment, all the criminal’s rights are permanently suspended. When you violate someone else’s rights, you immediately subject yourself to possible, intense surveillance. And as the old phrase goes, “If you don’t have something to hide, then why are you worried?”. I don’t think we should be so worried about the government reading our information if we don’t have anything to hide. I agree with Kate when she says, “I think some people are blowing it way out of proportion when they say that the NSA is violating their privacy.” I think people need to re-evaluate how important their safety is opposed to their privacy. We live in one of the safest nations in the world and I believe that is because the systems we have in place are working to protect us.
ReplyDeleteThe debate over the appropriate level of secrecy of the NSA and the public’s rights to privacy and knowledge has been casually going on for many decades, boiling at various points because of different issues arising. One boiling point is going on right now, beginning last summer when Edward Snowden revealed classified information about NSA activities.
ReplyDeleteI think that the government is too secret about their activities and that the public should know more. The government is collecting metadata through their programs PRISM and Bull Run. Although they may not be looking at everyone’s information in depth, they have the capability to, which is very scary in my opinion. They don’t have to reveal everything they are doing because that would give information to terrorists, but they should give general information out to the public about the programs they are running. In response to PRISM, I think that companies such as Facebook or Google should not be forced into giving the NSA information. They should have the choice and a fair, unbiased trial if necessary.
In response to Mirella’s statement “Besides, if we have nothing to hide, then we should not be worried about the government going through our information.” I think that we should be worried. If the government has access to all of our information and data without us knowing, what else will the government do without telling us? Where is the limit or boundary? Overall, I think the government should tell the public more.
I agree with Nathan that the governments level of secrecy and spying is not appropriate at all. I believe that the government should only use the methods of spying like the programs prism or bull run or use wire tabs or listen to their phone calls and text messages, only on people who seem like real threats to the U.S. I believe that the government doesn't have any right to invade our personal privacy like phone calls, texts, emails and etc… and using safety as an excuse to go through all our private information. I believe that the government has smart enough people or geeks to distinguish between a terrorist or somebody who s trying to do harm and between a normal citizen so really they shouldn't go around looking through people's privacy and focus more on the people who are trying to do harm.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Kailyn and Nate because we people in America should know about some issues that are going on in the United States, so we may be able to help and make our country better. If we know of issues that are happening, we could help protect ourselves and each other from danger or from terrorists. We can’t expect to have them tell us everything, but they could at least tell us things that is either going to affect us or have something to do with the people of America. We give up our privacy so why can’t they? I do understand why they don’t share issues with us because they are trying to have as much protection and surveillance as they can, but it just isn’t fair to us. The people of the United States need to make it where there is a point on what they can share and what they can’t. We give our privacy up so they are able to protect themselves and the United States so why can’t they?
ReplyDeleteI definitely feel the debate over whether the NSA should hold information about everyone they can acceptable or not be able to is a current world problem. The side I lean on more in this debate is the idea that the NSA should be capable of accessing information over the internet to search for possible threats and many other issues they try to solve. I sided more on the fact that Edward Snowden let know the public of what was going on in the government, but after I pondered it some more, I decided if people were not doing anything that violates any laws, why should they be preoccupied with the governments safety measures? Darren had a very interesting point when he felt that the NSA should have the ability to access peoples information. Darren felt if they not pose a threat to society, they should not worry about the government searching anything of their information. They should feel safe knowing that the NSA is working toward keeping attacks from happening. Such systems like Prism and Bull Run I feel should be allowed for the reason that the government will have access to information they need to solve threats. In conclusion, I feel what Edward Snowden did by releasing information on the NSA was over the top and very well may have brought more risk to the american people than what was feared before.
ReplyDeleteWithin the last year, Edward Snowden started releasing documents that detail some of the new ways that the NSA has been secretly conducting surveillance on the American public. His documents have created a large controversy of how much privacy the people should have versus how the NSA should collect data to try to stop terrorism. I think that their should be secrecy towards the programs that are highly effective and don't directly harm anyone. Other programs exist that should be known to the public. These are programs that use invasive and questionable means of collecting data.
ReplyDeleteThe NSA has many legit, beneficial, and effective programs. I think that these should stay secret and hidden due to the usefulness. If the terrorist and other people engaging in questionable activities found out about these, it would result in the loss of a lot information on terrorists. I believe that these should stay secret, but their are many other programs like Bull Run and Boundless Informant that really push the limits of our rights. I do not know the true effectiveness of these but I think that it was good that they were revealed. In short, I think that there are good programs from the NSA that should be kept secret and others that should be known about.
There are certain things that I am fine with, like wiretapping suspected terrorists and a certain extent of collecting metadata. Controversial programs like PRISM, Boundless Informant, and Bull Run that were kept secret and hurt the public need to be known. I like what Joel said and I agree with him when he talked about lying. I think that that was the worst thing about the programs was the lying to cover them up. By lying, the government further hurt the peoples trust in it.
Overall, I think that the levels of security around our programs is good, but there are certain programs that should be revealed to the public and not lied about.
Our National Security Agency(NSA) has come under intense scrutiny lately due to several leaks of their information and programs. The most notable leak is Edward Snowden who released only a fraction of the documents that he has. These documents detailed how they deal with and collect metadata and revealed several other programs including Bull Run, Boundless Informant, and PRISM. Snowden’s leaks have brought up the issue of security and secrecy in the agencies that protect our nation. I think that the levels of security are adequate because they need to protect their resources if they want to catch anyone, but i do think that they should respect our rights as people by adjusting certain programs.
ReplyDeleteThe security agencies do need to have strict levels of security so that people will be able to find the terrorists without the terrorist getting word that we are on to them. We also don't want them to know the methods that we use to find them. If the programs do work as well as the NSA says they do, then I am fine with them wiretapping criminals and metadata as long as they use it correctly.
I liked what Joel said about the government ruining our trust in them by hiding the programs that abuse our rights. That is the biggest problem that I have with the topic of surveillance, that they lied to hide the programs that abuse our rights. They proved that they can't be trusted with our rights by doing this.
I think that the levels of security around agencies like the NSA is fine otherwise they would not be able to get anything done due to the people they are trying to catch knowing too much.