government surveillance essay

The Ethics of Surveillance

Introduction to surveillance.

Surveillance is, simply put, the observation and/or monitoring of a person. Coming from the French word for "looking upon," the term encompasses not only visual observation but also the scrutiny of all behavior, speech, and actions. Prominent examples of surveillance include surveillance cameras, wiretaps, GPS tracking, and internet surveillance.

One-way observation is in some ways an expression of control. Just as having a stranger stare at you for an extended period of time can be uncomfortable and hostile, it is no different from being under constant surveillance, except that surveillance is often done surreptitiously and at the behest of some authority.

Todays technological capabilities take surveillance to new levels; no longer are spyglasses and "dropping" from the eaves of a roof necessary to observe individuals - the government can and does utilize methods to observe all the behavior and actions of people without the need for a spy to be physically present. Clearly, these advances in technology have a profound impact with regards to the ethics of placing individual under surveillance&emdash;in our modern society, where so many of our actions are observable, recorded, searchable, and traceable, close surveillance is much more intrusive than it has been in the past.

Surveillance and Physical Searches

Particularly interesting about government surveillance is that in the United States surveillance is not held to the same standards of accountability&emdash;as the Constitution protects American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, physical searches of individuals may not be conducted without a warrant issued by a judge. However, after the passage of FISA and subsequent laws, citizens have not been given the same protection with regards to electronic surveillance. As there have been massive changes in technology and lifestyle since the 1970s, electronic surveillance could be considered much more invasive than a physical search, yet as has been made clear in the legal section of this website, it is in fact much easier for government agents to perform surveillance. Why there is such disparity between these standards to us a matter of serious concern.

"If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear."

This is a typical argument used by governments and other groups to justify their spying activities. Upon cursory inspection, it seems to make sense&emdash;as most people are law-abiding citizens, most ostensibly will not be targeted for surveillance and it will not impact their lives, while making their lives more comfortable and safer through the elimination of criminals. Thus, the government's use of closed-circuit television cameras in public spaces, warrantless wiretapping, and library record checks have the potential to save lives from criminals and terrorists with only minimal invasion of its citizens' privacy.

First, as a mental exercise, we ask that the reader consider that these arguments could easily be applied to asking all citizens to carry location tracking devices&emdash;it would make tracing criminal acts much easier, and that it could easily be argued that people refusing to carry these devices only do so because they have something to hide. It is a matter of course that most people in our society would object to this solution, not because they wish to commit any wrongdoings, but because it is invasive and prone to abuse. Now consider that, given current technology, the government already has the ability to track a known target's movements to a reasonable degree, and has easy access to information such as one's purchasing habits, online activities, phone conversations, and mail. Though implementing mandatory location tracking devices for the whole population is certainly more invasive than the above, we argue that current practices are analogous, extreme, and equally unacceptable.

Next, this argument fails to take into consideration a number of important issues when collecting personally identifiable data or recordings&emdash;first, that such practices create an archive of information that is vulnerable to abuse by trusted insiders; one example emerged in September of 2007 when Benjamin Robinson, a special agent of the Department of Commerce, was indicted for using a government database called the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) for tracking the travel patterns of an ex-girlfriend and her family. Records show that he used the system illegally at least 163 times before he was caught (Mark 2007). With the expansion of surveillance, such abuses could become more numerous and more egregious as the amount of personal data collected increases.

In addition, allowing surreptitious surveillance of one form, even limited in scope and for a particular contingency, encourages government to expand such surveillance programs in the future. It is our view that the danger of a "slippery slope" scenario cannot be dismissed as paranoia - as a prominent example, the collection of biometric has expanded immensely in the past several years. Many schools in the UK collect fingerprints of children as young as six without parental consent (Doward 2006), and fingerprinting in American schools has been widespread since the mid-eighties (NYT National Desk 1983). Now, the discussion has shifted towards DNA collection&emdash;British police are now pushing for the DNA collection of children who "exhibit behavior indicating they may become criminals in later life" (Townsend and Asthana 2008), while former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani has encouraged the collection of DNA data of newborns (Lambert 1998).

When data is collected, whether such data remains used for its stated purpose after its collection has been called into question, even by government officials: the European Data Protection Supervisor has acknowledged that even when two databases of information are created for specific, distinct purposes, in a phenomenon known as 'function creep' they could be combined with one another to form a third with a purpose for which the first two were not built (eGov Monitor Weekly 2006). This non-uniqueness and immutability of information provides great potential for abuse by individuals and institutions.

When is surveillance appropriate?

A. the means.

Harm: does the technique cause unwarranted physical or psychological harm?

Boundary: does the technique cross a personal boundary without permission (whether involving coercion or deception or a body, relational or spatial border)?

Trust: does the technique violate assumptions that are made about how personal information will be treated such as no secret recordings?

Personal relationships: is the tactic applied in a personal or impersonal setting?

Invalidity: does the technique produce invalid results?

B. The Data Collection Context

Awareness: are individuals aware that personal information is being collected, who seeks it and why?

Consent: do individuals consent to the data collection?

Golden rule: would those responsbile for the surveillance (both the decision to apply it and its actual application) agree to be its subjects under the conditions in which they apply it to others?

Minimization: does a principle of minimization apply?

Public decision-making: was the decision to use a tactic arrived at through some public discussion and decision making process?

Human review: is there human review of machine generated results?

Right of inspection: are people aware of the findings and how they were created?

Right to challenge and express a grievance: are there procedures for challenging the results, or for entering alternative data or interpretations into the record?

Redress and sanctions: if the individual has been treated unfairly and procedures violated, are there appropriate means of redress? Are there means for discovering violations and penalties to encourage responsible surveillant behavior?

Adequate data stewardship and protection: can the security of the data be adequately protected?

Equality-inequality regarding availability and application: a) is the means widely available or restricted to only the most wealthy, powerful or technologically sophisticated? b) within a setting is the tactic broadly applied to all people or only to those less powerful or unable to resist c) if there are means of resisting the provision of personal information are these equally available, or restricted to the most privileged?

The symbolic meaning of a method: what does the use of a method communicate more generally?

The creation of unwanted precedents: is it likely to create precedents that will lead to its application in undesirable ways?

Negative effects on surveillors and third parties: are there negative effects on those beyond the subject?

Beneficiary: does application of the tactic serve broad community goals, the goals of the object of surveillance or the personal goals of the data collector?

Proportionality: is there an appropriate balance between the importance of the goal and the cost of the means?

Alternative means: are other less costly means available?

Consequences of inaction: where the means are very costly, what are the consequences of taking no surveillance action?

Protections: are adequate steps taken to minimize costs and risk?

Appropriate vs. inappropriate goals: are the goals of the data collection legitimate?

The goodness of fit between the means and the goal: is there a clear link between the information collected and the goal sought?

Information used for original vs. other unrelated purposes: is the personal information used for the reasons offered for its collection and for which consent may have been given and does the data stay with the original collector, or does it migrate elsewhere?

Failure to share secondary gains from the information: is the personal data collected used for profit without permission from, or benefit to, the person who provided it?

Unfair disadvantage: is the information used in such a way as to cause unwarranted harm or disadvantage to its subject?

In general, we feel that surveillance can be ethical, but that there have to exist reasonable, publicly accessible records and accountability for those approving and performing the surveillance in question.

Government Internet Surveillance: Privacy Threat Essay

Introduction, the internet and surveillance, us government surveillance, surveillance efforts a threat to privacy and civil rights, justification for surveillance, discussion and conclusion.

The internet is the most important invention of the twentieth century and it has dramatically transformed human life. This invention has greatly increased the speed and efficiency with which communication occurs. Its unrivalled benefits in information processing have made this technology a part of most aspects of modern-daily activities.

Boghosian (2013) notes that while the internet plays a major role in improving life in our society, some sinister applications of this invention undermine privacy and civil rights. Perhaps the most troubling applications of the internet in current times are the mass surveillance efforts by the US government. This paper will argue that government internet surveillance is a threat to the privacy and civil rights of US citizens and it must therefore be mitigated.

Government surveillance has existed in various forms for centuries. Through this activity, the government has been able to obtain valuable public and secret information and act on it to aid governance. The internet age has dramatically increased the ability of government to engage in surveillance.

To begin with, the internet has become the most common medium of communication for many people. By monitoring this single communication network, the government has access to virtually all information that is communicated electronically including email habits, credit card, bank records, and phone records (Regan, 2014). The advancement in storage technology has contributed to the pervasive surveillance carried out by the US.

Today, the data that can be stored is nearly infinite due to the tremendous growth in storage capacity and the decline in storage prices. Intelligence agencies are therefore able to collect all available data since it is cheaper and easier than trying to determine what data should be stored and what should be ignored. At the same time, sophisticated computer algorithms make it possible for government agencies to analyze large amounts of data and derive meaning from it.

Scherer (2013) states that while electronic intelligence in the US historically focused on foreign governments, the events of 9/11 led to an increased focus on American citizens. Starting from that year, the NSA turned inward and shifted its focus to include private individuals. This shift was prompted by the understanding that the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks had resided in the US and made their plans while living in the country. Since then, the government has engaged in widespread surveillance of its citizens in an attempt to prevent crime.

The internet has made it possible for the government to engage in mass surveillance. Through security apparatus such as the NSA, the American government can collect and analyze vast quantities of data about its citizens. These activities often take place without the consent or knowledge of the individual.

Revelations by Snowden showed that the government engaging in surveillance at a scale that a majority of society did not even think was possible (Scherer, 2013). Through US dedicates more than $52.6 billion each year to run a massive secret national security apparatus. This apparatus includes the NSA, which has over 30,000 employees and gathers and stores not only phone records in the US but also metadata on internet traffic.

To increase its surveillance abilities, the US government has engaged in programs aimed at influencing IT companies to provide the NSA with a back door to encrypted communications. Scherer (2013) documents that through such a program, the government denies private citizens of their right to create unbreakable encryption software.

Wide scale surveillance by the government has harmed the privacy rights of US citizens. Government internet surveillance efforts result in a violation of individual privacy as the government intercepts the personal information and communication from US citizens. For privacy to exist, an individual has to have control over himself and the information he shares with others.

Boghosian (2013) notes that attempts to safeguard the privacy of American have been compromised by the government’s demand for unrestricted access to information. Under the Patriot Act, the government has access to a wide array of personal information. Through the National Security Administration (NSA), the government has engaged in large-scale data collection on US citizens.

This data is then analyzed in an effort to identify suspects. However, this data can be used to obtain more information about the private lives of Americans thus violating individual privacy.

The right to free speech and association are affected by the existence of extensive internet surveillance programs. According to the freedom of speech right, an individual is entitled to communicate his personal opinion or ideas with others without the fear of repercussions. The freedom of association guarantees an individual the right to relate with persons or groups of his choosing without any external inhibitions.

Purkayastha and Bailey (2014) observe that mass surveillance undermines free speech as individuals may face retaliation action if they are critical of the government. The government may engage in steps to silence critics who are identified through the surveillance efforts. Private Citizens concerned that their communications may be under surveillance are likely to avoid making their opinions public out of fear of government reprisal. Internet surveillance will therefore have led to the violation of the civil rights of these US citizens.

Government surveillance violates the location privacy of an individual. Boghosian (2013) defines location privacy as the right of an American to move in public without being tracked on monitored. This right is violated by unrestricted surveillance by the government. By monitoring Global Positioning System (GPS) devices, the government can record the precise movement of an individual. His/her exact location at any time can be record and stored helping to create an elaborate profile on the individual’s movement patterns.

The Fourth Amendment, which guarantees Americans protection against unreasonable searchers and seizures is violated by the undiscriminating internet surveillance. Through this mass collection and scrutinizing of personal information, the government violates the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Scherer (2013) confirms that unreasonable searches that take place with no justification characterize the internet surveillance carried out by the government. The government collects data from all citizens and then analyzes this information in the hope of finding patterns that will help identify criminals.

The US government has justified its aggressive surveillance activities as necessary efforts for the enhancement of national security. In a speech on the importance of surveillance, the US President Barack Obama asserts that these activities enable law enforcement officers to detect terrorists and prevent them from carrying out attacks against the US (Obama, 2014). Even ordinary US citizens recognize this positive role of internet monitoring.

While most Americans are opposed to government surveillance, there is a recognition that the government might need to engage in monitoring efforts in order to safeguard the homeland. Scherer (2013) notes that according to polls, a majority of Americans show continued willingness to give up some of their rights to privacy as part of efforts to combat terrorism.

Government surveillance of the internet helps to protect citizens from the dangers that an abuse of the internet can cause. The internet provides individual users with significant power due to the wide range of information contained on the network and the communication efficiency.

These attributes can be exploited for wrong purposes if the government does not police the network. Seidler (2013) confirms that the government might be forced to carry out secret activities for the benefit of its citizens. Through surveillance, the government can identify questionable activities by citizens and engage in further investigation. Such efforts might lead to the discovery and stopping of criminal elements before they carry out crime.

Under the Obama Administration, the US has continued and even expanded the electronic surveillance implemented by the Bush administration. The justification for this is that the surveillance regime is integral to protecting the US against Foreign and Homegrown terrorists. Even so, Obama (2014) admits that the prevalent internet monitoring creates a potential for abuse. Action therefore needs to be taken against government surveillance on its citizens.

According to the renowned American whistleblower, Edward Snowden, the important players in this issue include “the public, the technologist community, the U.S. courts, Congress and the Executive Branch” (Scherer, 2013, p.81). These bodies need to deliberate on the future of the country if government surveillance is allowed to go on uninhibited.

As it currently stands, Internet surveillance has given the government intrusive police power that can be used against innocent civilians. The liberties of Americans have been constricted by the deployment of the surveillance infrastructure. Action needs to be taken to address these issues and restore the privacy and civil liberties guaranteed to American citizens by the US Constitution.

Boghosian, H. (2013). The Business of Surveillance. Human Rights, 39 (3), 2-23.

Obama, B. (2014). Remarks by the President on Review of Signals Intelligence . Web.

Purkayastha, P., & Bailey, R. (2014). U.S. Control of the Internet Problems Facing the Movement to International Governance. Independent Socialist Magazine, 66 (3), 103-127.

Regan, L. (2014). Electronic Communications Surveillance. Independent Socialist Magazine, 66 (3), 32-42.

Scherer, M. (2013). Number Two Edward Snowden The Dark Prophet. Time, 182 (26), 78-89.

Seidler, N. (2013). A perspective on principles for Internet surveillance .

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 19). Government Internet Surveillance: Privacy Threat. https://ivypanda.com/essays/government-internet-surveillance-privacy-threat/

"Government Internet Surveillance: Privacy Threat." IvyPanda , 19 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/government-internet-surveillance-privacy-threat/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'Government Internet Surveillance: Privacy Threat'. 19 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "Government Internet Surveillance: Privacy Threat." February 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/government-internet-surveillance-privacy-threat/.

1. IvyPanda . "Government Internet Surveillance: Privacy Threat." February 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/government-internet-surveillance-privacy-threat/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Government Internet Surveillance: Privacy Threat." February 19, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/government-internet-surveillance-privacy-threat/.

• Civilization and Its Impact on Inequality
• Do We Need the NSA?
• The Human Right to Privacy: Microsoft and the NSA
• National Security Agency: Joint Capes Brief
• Network System Administrator Responsibilities
• The National Security Agency' Surveillance Program
• PRISM Program: Freedom v. Order
• National Security Agency and Privacy Violation
• Collecting the phone data logs of all citizens
• American National Security and Technology Evolution
• Has E-Government Failed?
• E-Government and Technological Change
• E-Government (M-Government) in Dubai
• Review and Analysis of the U.S. and UK Government Websites
• E-Government Initiatives: A Critical Discussion

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Government Surveillance

Essays on Government Surveillance

Embark on an in-depth exploration of government surveillance with our collection of essay samples. As a pivotal issue at the intersection of technology, law, and ethics, government surveillance offers a rich field of study for students across disciplines. These essays serve as exemplary models, dissecting the multifaceted arguments surrounding privacy rights, national security, and the balance of power.

Government Surveillance: A Multidimensional Perspective

Our essays on government surveillance delve into historical contexts, legal frameworks, and ethical considerations. Students can gain insights into the evolution of surveillance technologies, the legal battles over privacy rights, and the ethical dilemmas posed by state monitoring. These samples provide a comprehensive overview of the debates that define the discourse on government surveillance.

Analyzing the Impact of Surveillance on Society

The collection includes essays that evaluate the broader societal impacts of government surveillance . From the chilling effects on free speech to the implications for democratic freedoms, these essays encourage critical analysis of how surveillance shapes individuals' lives and society at large. Students are invited to engage with complex questions about the trade-offs between security and liberty.

Exploring Global Perspectives on Surveillance

Recognizing the global nature of government surveillance, our essays also feature comparative analyses of surveillance practices around the world. This global perspective enriches students' understanding of how different legal systems and cultural values influence the implementation and perception of surveillance.

A Resource for Critical Thinking and Academic Inquiry

Designed to support students in their academic endeavors, this collection of government surveillance essay samples is an invaluable resource for research, writing, and debate. By presenting well-crafted arguments and diverse viewpoints, these essays inspire deeper inquiry into one of the most pressing issues of our time.

Government and Internet

The effects on online surveillance by government, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Government Surveillance in 1984 by George Orwell: Bogus Security

Government vigilance on internet activities violating constitutional freedom in the us, the ethics and appropriate use of government surveillance, why government surveillance is overall unethical, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

The Drawbacks of Government Surveillance

Government surveillance and deceit throughout the world history, the moral dilemma around government surveillance on the internet in the united states, introducing the role of government in security of the nation, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

The Inconveniences of Government Scope Inside The Area of Transactions and Concessions

The governmantal system in haiti, georgia’s recent political history, the association of southeast asian nations, implementation of social protection programs in a bid to improve the people's standards of living, the lack of privacy in america, discussion about the role of government in economy , apple vs fbi: the ethics of accessing personal data, the purpose of government: safeguarding and serving, relevant topics.

• Foreign Policy
• Gentrification
• European Union
• International Relations
• United Nations
• Philippine Government
• Student Government
• Homeland Security
• Corporate Governance

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free