How Electronic Surveillance Invade the Privacy of Citizens (Essay Sample)

Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Electronic Surveillance
According to Landau, Susan (p 63), surveillance is concerned about noting people’s actions and communications for the tenacity of shielding them. Electronic surveillance includes the use of cameras or the seizure of electronically transmitted information like phone calls and internet traffic (PREIBUSCH, SREN. p 49). Agencies are progressively urbane computer systems. In the past, the surveillance activity was a function of police unit and the intelligence unit. The process of surveillance is not a threat to the freedom of individuals. Surveillance is also evaluating risk and conveying worth (SETTY, SUDHA. p 70). The process of surveillance derives its data from biometric, video data, and genetic as this information is manipulated to make profiles and hazard categories in a schmoozed, rhizomic system (Narayanan, Hariharan L., et al p 50).
The internet is the universal system of unified mainframe, wireless computer network, and phones, and personal computers that uses the internet protocol suite to connect billions of devices the universe. The internet is used by individuals, government agencies, business people, and academicians to research on pertinent issues. The internet is a medium that carries a widespread range of resources such as mails and telephony (Tene, Omer. p 1444). In 1980, it was only used by military personnel and academicians. In the early 1990s there was a rapid development of cheap computers that led to the growth of use of the internet. Further, there was the introduction of fiber optics, HTTP and web browser (Landau, Susan. p 64).
The internet supports the probability of high electronic scrutiny. Therefore, the growth of the internet has eased the work of security personnel in avoidance of risks. However, the internet is not a safe place for communication of sensitive matters. The reason for that is that there is increased surveillance by the government security agencies through hacking of the internet to obtain personal information of the citizens. As much as the web has aided in securing the lives of the citizens, there is need to be cautious when communicating through it to avoid a breach of privacy (Harvard Law Review p 1872).
Electronic Surveillance assists the public to be aware of a potential danger. However, it is still considered as a Social Problem. The reason for this is to consider the social classes in the computer codes by which data is arranged with a view of influencing and supervising people and population (PREIBUSCH, SREN.. p 50). For example, terrorist attacks are usually associated with Arab and Muslim backgrounds. They created a bad impression about Muslims that led to them being profiled at the airport or in the border barriers. Such surveillance creates division among people. There is a relation between social changes and technology. Increase surveillance through facial recognition systems in the streets, supermarkets, police stations have resulted to discrimination that is harmful. Technology infringe on the privacy of individuals and their right for protection of data (Tene, Omer. p 1450).
According to Narayanan, Hariharan L., et al (p 43), there are a lot of rebellious voices against web service companies that infringe on the privacy of human activities. Globally, there have been agreements for countries not to spy on each other. For example, the Five Eyes members that comprise United Kingdom, Australia, United States, New Zealand and Canada had agreed that there is no spying on each other (Landau, Susan. p 62). However, research shows that some members continue to observe each other citizens and share the data to better the process of surveillance. For instance, the United States of America have surveillance programs that allow the government to secretly survey the customer’s data. They do this by forcing web agencies to give clientele information. The Britain and the USA government has been critized for engaging in mass assembly of citizen’s communiqué info. Evidence of such violation includes Lavabit a tenable email service that was produced by Ladar Levison but was discontinued. The FBI had asked the service providers to give the information of Snowden after discovering that he had used the service. Unfortunately, Lavabit did not store logs and the content of the email was encrypted. The FBI on realizing this served a gang order or a command for the SSL keys of the email service provider. The keys would permit them to access communiqué that was either encrypted or that which contained metadata content (Harvard Law Review p 1872). The keys would not only give the FBI access to Snowden but to all their customers. Levison refused to give out the keys and terminated the services that Lavabit provided. There was threat by the government on Lavabit action as it was considered a violation of the court order.
On 2001, the United States was attacked by terrorists in a ruthless and violent manner that led to almost 3,000 Americans losing their lives. That prompted Congress to pass the USA Patriotic Act and Terrorist Surveillance Program. The Act expands the meaning of terrorists, harden their sentence and make it easier for the law enforcers to acquire and share piles of info. The law legally entrusted the government agencies such as the FBI to engross in electronic reconnaissance activities (PREIBUSCH, SREN. p 49). The courts are empowered through the Act to conduct electronic surveillance so that it can aid them in the investigation of normal, non-terrorism crimes such as passport fraud, drug trafficking, and passport fraud. The social problem associated with the Act is seen to curtail the freedom of human rights and enlightening the public on the government role in combating terrorism. The Act infringes on the right of human right activists to speak and even express their opinion on issues (Tene, Omer. p 1470). Those who offer dissenting views are seen to sympathize with the terrorists and may face jail and torture. The social problem also arises when the public is enlightened that the government has a role on the terrorism quagmire.
According to Narayanan, Hariharan L., et al (p 78), the evidence of the social problem is the rise of the Electronic Frontier Movement which is a social movement. The movement opposed the Act by choosing freedom over patriotism. The USA Patriotic Act gives the law enforcers the right to use electronic surveillance. However, the social movement is against the extortions of civil liberties, democratic culture of the United State of America and privacy issues. Thus, the Patriotic Act threatens the fundamental rights of millions of American people.
According to Harvard Law Review (p 1871), Edward Snowden is a professional computer geek who was formerly attached to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He was charged due to stealing of government property and revealing of national defense information without authorization to unauthorized personnel. Snowden also revealed the intelligence information to European government. He managed to seek asylum in Moscow, Russia at unrevealed location. In 2009, Snowden worked for NSA and provided advice to military officers about the best way to defend themselves from Chinese hackers (SETTY, SUDHA. p 76). He used to download documents that outlined the electronic surveillance and spying program of the government. Snowden job is described as discovering novel ways of invading the internet and telephone traffic globally. His breakout was after he resigned from Del and took a pay cut to work at Booz Allen. His major task was to gather information and then release details of the NSA’s universal reconnaissance activities.
The Snowden event revealed presence of PRISM that exposed the government for having a hand in electronic reconnaissance. PRISM is an undercover reconnaissance program under which NSA gather internet communications for more than eight major internet companies in the US (Tene, Omer. p 1446). The program stores internet communiqué based on request made to internet companies like the Google Inc. The existence of the program was oozed by Snowden six years ago. In his leaked information, he asserted that the extent of data collection was both criminal and dangerous and its impact was greater than what was on the public domain.
The event made the public realize that there was a transgression of their personal privacy posing a gr...