In class, we have discussed domestic spying and other controversies surrounding the 4th Amendment and the war on terror. As Americans we are in the unique position of having to weigh our "reasonable expectation of privacy" with the governments responsibility to protect it's citizens.
With that being said, do you think that the federal government should be able to listen to US citizens' phone conversations without a warrant in an attempt to prevent another 9/11 attack? Read the following article and respond to this important and difficult question.
52 comments:
The patriot act is a clear violation of our 4th amendment rights. The government should not be able to tap our "private" phones and listen to our "private" conversations. Invading private anything is a clear breach of our 4th amendment rights. Who is to say that the someone is a suspected terrorist. Nobody should have that authority therefore nobody from the government should be allowed to listen in on private phone calls.
I do believe that the government should be able to monitor someone who has clearly broken the law and there is sufficient evidence to prove so. However, simply having ties to a terrorist organization is not illegal. Things that arouse suspicion such as buying every-day available bomb-making materials is not illegal. Because these people are doing "suspicion actions" does not forfeit their 4th amendment right to privacy. Therefore it is a clear violation of the 4th amendment to tap any suspected terrorist's private line no matter how suspicious they may seem.
Nobody should be exempt from their 4th amendment rights for doing suspicious activities that are 100 percent legal.
Domestic spying is a very back and forth issue in the US that has many pros and cons to it. There is a definite need to find terrorists, but when you consider what liberties the government could take when they have free reins to the phone lines of America, it requires more consideration of the issue. The confidentiality and secrecey of the NSA seems shady in way that they are hiding something. Although a warrent is a hassel, they should come up with a special wire tapping "quick and simple" warrent that ensures that the wire being tapped could legitimently be a terriost call. That way, the country doesn't go down the "slippery slope" of taking away the peoples' rights.
While some people would say the patriot act is a violation of our fourth amendment rights this is one of those situations where public safety trumps our right to privacy. The government doesn't listen to random phone calls; they only to those where terrorist activity is suspected. Having some people's phones wire-tapped could possibly save our country from the devastation of another attack like 9/11.
If someone has ties to a terrorist organization in Saudi Arabia sure they haven't broken the law yet, but another attack could be on the horizon for America. Some cell phone records can be obtained by the police without a warrant and the records show the person is calling Saudi Arabia every day. This is probabale cause for ties to a terrorist organization and that's where public safety comes in. The government should be allowed to tap that person's conversation because the public safety may at some point become threatened.
Yes, the fourth amendment is a very imporant amendment to our constitution. It protects the everyday citizen's privacy. However someone's fourth amendment right should defiantely be waved if what they are doing could harm anyone. Safety outweighs privacy in every instance. Why should phone-tapping be an exception?
Meaghan James
The government should not be able to listen to private phones calls without a warrant. They need to have sufficient evidence before they can decide if anyone's safety is at risk. They can not just decide to monitor anyone's calls they want to. They need to think about the person they want to monitor and figure out why and review the case and get a warrant before they can just tap into any phone lines they want to. Even if there is suspicion of someone being a terrorist they haven't committed any crimes yet and may never, therefor they shouldn't have to be involved with the law because their 4th amendment rights are being violated.
Many people in the U.S. believe that wire tapping is wrong, and goes against our first amendment rights. But, the Constitution also says that we have the right to life. If the government beleives that wire tapping without a warrant will save American lives,then they are protecting their right to life, a much more important right than to privacy.
Many people are, of course opposed to this, but why should they be, if they have nothing to hide? Yeah, maybe you could be having a private conversation, but most likely the people who wire tap have honor codes or something to keep from saying anything unless the person is doing something illegal, and if you aren't, then you should be fine.
Although the need to protect lives is great, people need to realize that phone tapping like this affect the roots of what government is in America. THe whole point is that people have rights that PROTECT them.
Although the terrorist attacks were important, they had provided a reason for limiting people's rights. Couldn't this reason pave the way for countless other reasons that would allow the government to ignore the rest of the power that people had, as long as there was justification?
The rights granted to people provide a different form of protection to citizens. Even if the government could prevent another 911, tapping without a warrant is wrong because our rights are too important to be ignored.
As US citizens, we have a right to privacy. Although listening to phone conversations may be a violation of the 4th amendment, it's for a good reason. It's not just regular phone calls like from a child to his parents or from a teen to another teen. They will need a warrant to listen to a conversation. But before asking for the warrant they must have sufficient evidence that someone is involved with an attack that will hurt people These wiretapping are used with reasonable suspicion or cause.
For instance, if someone was frequently making calls to Saudi Arabia or other terrorist-y countries, I feel like our government can listen on some conversations. But they need to have enough evidence to prove that these oversea phone calls aren't just to relatives or something. If there was enough evidence, a warrant is not necessary, otherwise a warrant is necessary.
The Patriot Act and wiretapping of citizens is certainly a controversial issue (No one wants their own phones tapped), but I think that the safety of the citizens overrides personal privacy. I think wiretapping without a warrant is OK, when the calls are international, and the people who are being listened in on are suspected of some terrorism, not just some random citizens talking on the phone. Michael Hayden said "This is targeted and focused. This is not about intercepting conversations between people in the United States. This is hot pursuit of communications entering or leaving America involving someone we believe is associated with al Qaeda."
The government doesn't really care about our every day lives; it has no importance to them they wouldn't just listen in on any phone call. The government is just trying to stop terrorist attacks from happening. Also, I don't see the problem with them tapping our phones, if they've got suspicion. Innocent people of the U.S. have nothing to hide from the authorities. To add, warrants take too long to obtain; the government should be able to tap phones if they have some suspicion of wrong doing. Wiretapping without a warrant is a good thing, because it is protecting us.
I think that the patriot act does clearly violate out 4th amendment rights. The government will be able to basically tap out private phones and cell phones without telling any other agencies which would make it so that they could tap a phone without consulting another entity making their power basically unchecked. With this power there is almost no limit to what they could do. With this they could do so much as just listen to our private calls without us knowing and with such abilities there is bound to be someone that will abuse this power.
This argument does not even consider the implications of what tapping a phone means and doesn't even take into consideration how they would classify a suspected terrorist. First of all i believe it is morally wrong to tap a persons phone unless their is hard evidence that indicates they are in some way nearly directly associated with terrorism. Also I think that when tapping one of these phones, of a suspected terrorist or in other word whoever they can say has a very indirect link to terrorism, one could just go on and listen to a girlfriend or boyfriends conversations. Also without the belief that your conversations over the phone are private there is no telling what people will do to actually have completely private conversations. This could reach as far as hurting the phone companies. That is why i think the government should not be able to tap phones without a warrant.
The patriot act is and isn't a violation of the 4th amendment. It isn't because the wire tapping the government does is only on people that give them a suspicion. They don't listen to phone conversation of normal everyday conversations because they don't care about break ups or anything. Listening to conversations also protects the citizens of they U.S. from future terroists attacks. If they catch people planning on bombing the U.S. we can be spared of more 9/11 occations. Anyways, who cares if they are listening to your conversations because they aren't going to tell anyone.
It is a violation because they are violating privacy rights. You should be able to talk to who ever you want and not have to worry about the government listening to you conversations. If the government starts to listen to everyone conversation and breeching the 4th amandment, they will start breaking other amendments. Then we would start to be under their control more and more.
I think that the need to protect the United States as a whole overrides the 4th amendment. The terrorists that planned 9/11 may have been calling the United States for years before. If the government could have listened into those calls. They could have possibly prevented 9/11 or at least the all the deaths it caused.
The government isn't interested in people's everyday lives. They won't be listening in on Joe plumber's conversations. Hopefully we can all trust the government to not abuse their Patriot Act's rights, and just use it to protect the United States. We already give up our 4th amendment rights when we enter schools and airports and talk to police, all for the good of all. Safety of all over weighs your individual right to privacy.
We have to be able to trust our government not to violate our privacy. If we cant trust them then they should not be governing us. The patriot act is important and helps stop terrorism. The government does not listen to everyone's calls and many of us don't even know its happening and yet we make a big fuss over it as soon as we find out.
The government should be someone we can trust to only tap calls that need to be tapped an if they aren't then we need to have some one else govern us. Our safety as a country should come before your rights to privacy.
Unfortunately, performing warrantless wiretaps seems to have become a nessecary part of our war on terror. However, this fact does not excuse the illegal nature of this domestic spying program. Our 4th Amendment rights have in all other cases protected us from this sort of privacy violation, and any sort of surveillance needs to accord with those rights.
It's been shown through history that violations of privacy like this are often a first step to the beginning of a police state where everyone is constantly being watched and no one has any freedom. Even in the name of national security, we should not have to take this first step. Therefore our illegal wiretapping program must be stopped as soon as the concept is feasible and replaced with a legal way to eavesdrop on terrorists.
I can see both sides of the patriot act, on one hand the US government needs some way to find terrorists to prevent another attack and they don't have any other way of finding out what the people the suspect of being terrorists are doing. But also the people they are listening to, are not 100 percent sure of being a terrorist, which is why the government is wire tapping them, to gain evidence. The people the government are wire tapping probably don't want to be listened to and they cant use a different phone because they don't know it is happening.
Although i can see both sides of the argument i think the patriot act is a violation of the 4th amendment and although it is not necessarily a bad thing it is still breaking our rights.
although it is wrong for the government to listen on citizens' conversations in this case national security is more important than privacy. If the government stops the next 9/11 but they know what you are doing this weekend then that cost is worth it. I think that the government has to find a balance. I think they should be allowed to tap phones, but only with a warrant. However the warrant process should be easier and shorter. Also the laws about what qualifies for a warrant should be more lax in order to help the government quickly and efficiently get permission to listen in on phones. With the compromise they will stay within the limits of the constitution, but also protect the citizens of the US.
I think that the patriot act is a good move for American security, up to a point. On one hand, there is no denying that phone conversations would, in an ideal world, be private. Unfortunately, however, our world is not ideal. 9/11 proved this. I think that, in the interest of saving lives, the government should, in an emergency situation, be able to tap phones. The tricky part to this is defining emergencies. I think that the government should be able to wire-tap phones if they either have evidence/reasonable suspicion that someone has/is/is going to break a law.
I don't think the government should need a warrant to do this. This is mostly out of necessity. If someone is planning to commit a crime, the time it takes to get a warrant could be to long to prevent the crime. For example, warrants are not required for vehicles because it's very easy to move your car and hide evidence. The same should apply to phone conversations: all it takes is for someone to hang up or change the subject to avoid giving evidence of a potential crime. Therefore, it is essential to the safety and security of Americans for the government to be able to listen to phone conversations without a warrant if an emergency circumstance exists.
I think wire tapping U.S. citizen's phone calls is a clear violation of the 4th amendment. American citizens have their right to privacy violated when the government spies on conversations. The government has no power to do so. However, the government claims they preform these wire taps for our safety, so now the question of whether the privacy of Americans is more important to them than their safety. I say that safety comes first but the government shouldn't be able to protect citizens while violating our 4th amendment rights. They have to find another way.
If only the government had clear probable cause of terrorist or criminal relations for every phonecall they wire tap. If only there was a way to protect our country without violating our right to privacy. As much as I want the U.S to be safe, I believe the government shouldnt be allowed to preform wire taps because they interfere with our constitutional rights.
In this very controversial privacy issue, it is important for the police or investigators performing the wiretap to respect the rights of U.S. citizens as well as to keep in mind the safety of this country. I believe that wiretapping should be allowed without a warrant, but not without reasonable suspicion and probable cause. Therefore, wiretapping would be similar to searching vehicles - if enough probable, provable cause is gathered, then the wiretap should be legal.
One reason for wiretapping to be legal with enough probable cause and without a warrant is because getting a warrant takes a while. At the least, getting a warrant from a local judge takes 4-7 hours. Often, that is way too big a time frame during which the suspected terrorist could make/receive the call. Another reason is because the safety of our country and our citizens is always of utmost importance, and if a wiretap needs to be performed (with enough probable cause, of course) to protect our citizens, then it should be done quickly and efficiently. Often wiretapping with a warrant is not quick or efficient. We should consider 9/11 and what threats have been made to the U.S. and take responsible, safe and informative action to try to prevent another terrorist attack.
Although I agree that people should not have their 4th amendment rights violated and I agree that private phones should be part of that amendment, wire tapping should be legal if reasonable suspicion is presented. Currently someone must have a warrant to preform a wire tap, this is not necessary and people's right to be safe and secure (right to life) is more important. The government and the police should protect citizens and they may be able to prevent terrorist attacks through wire tapping. Many people may say that this is an invasion of privacy but the people who would be wire tapping must keep what they hear confidential unless it is life threatening information.
The right to life is a very important right, one that comes first before any right to privacy. However, this doesn't mean that Americans' right to privacy should not be protected. If there is reasonable enough suspicion to result in a wiretap (e.g. many calls to foreign countries), then the government should be able to do so without a warrant. They need to be able to make sure the lives of American citizens are secure. Although some are worried about the government listening in on "private" phone calls, that's not what the government wants to spend all of its time and money doing.
They are looking out for the country's well-being first and foremost, not when and where Suzy Somebody is going to dinner Friday night. Besides, the loss of just a little bit of privacy seems a small sacrifice if another attack like 9/11 is prevented because of it. And this doesn't mean that the rest of our rights will go down the drain as an afterward; afterall, this is America, and the people have the power....the power to sacrifice just a smidge to stop the terroists?
I think that it is important to keep people safe over all else. Personal safety is so much more important that your right to privacy. I understand that the government shouldn't get too much power, but wiretapping international phone calls to try and keep american citizens safe seems like something the government needs to do without any laws forbidding it. Tom said it was a clear violation of the 4th amendment, and i completely agree. But would you rather have your 4th amendment violated or would you like to be killed in another 9/11 because the government couldn't listen in on a conversation.
The right to saftey should always come first. Also, we have to remeber that the government isn't going to be listening to our conversations. They really don't care about the latest gossip or what prank call to teenagers are going to do. The government is trying to stop criminals. I think when it is a matter of possible death or right to privacy, death always comes first. You will always have a right to privacy from the government, but once you die, there aren't anymore second chances. The governments main job is to take care of the people and keep the people safe. The people working for al Queda are geniuses, they aren't good people, but they are smart. The government needs every way to stop them possible. If this violating the 4th amendment, then lets do it. Safety before privacy.
Allowing the government to tap in on our phone calls should be allowed in the US. We elected our government, so we should be able to trust them. Taping in our calls is not an act of nosyness, it is an act of protection of our country and we should respect that. The government is not interested in the average American citizens phone calls and will not go overboard with listening to every phone call they can. People who are suspicious of bringing harm to America are the kind of phone calls the government would listen to.
Even though this might be unconstitutional to the 4th Amendment, i believe that in some cases safety overrides privacy. The government only would do this to protect us. Wire taping should be allowed.
Allowing the government to tap in on our phone calls should be allowed in the US. We elected our government, so we should be able to trust them. Taping in our calls is not an act of nosyness, it is an act of protection of our country and we should respect that. The government is not interested in the average American citizens phone calls and will not go overboard with listening to every phone call they can. People who are suspicious of bringing harm to America are the kind of phone calls the government would listen to.
Even though this might be unconstitutional to the 4th Amendment, i believe that in some cases safety overrides privacy. The government only would do this to protect us. Wire taping should be allowed.
Wiretapping and other virtual spying without a doubt will save lives and will prevent any major attacks on this nation. It is the governments job to protect the citizens and that is what they are doing. lets say if a terrorist group commited another attack on some major city and it was set up mostly via phone. Then thee people would say that its the governments fault for not monitoring international calls. The government can't please everyone.
People should shop being so silly about the government listening in to your calls. why would they have to care, its not like they are going to post you phone call on the front page of the NY times. it is just a safety caution that protects their lives and people should just let it go and let the government do their job
Governmental wire tapping is a very debatable issue, but when you take into consideration why the government does this, it seems somewhat acceptable. First of all the only reason the government is wire tapping people's phones is in an attempt to help prevent an event like 9/11. Although former president George Bush was not straight forward with what he was actually doing with this program, his intentions were pretty clear. Besides this, the government does not go around wire tapping just any random person's phone. The government obtains at least some amount of reasonable suspicion before they decide to wire tap a phone.
Another issue is the process for obtaining a warrant. Like the police officer said, obtaining a warrant can be as quick as four hours if there is a dire need, but most of the time it will take days. This takes into account if the government is even able to get together enough probable cause to get a warrant. The process takes time, time that some people might not have. If the government was allowed to wire tap without a warrant, they are still responsible for gathering a reasonable amount of probable cause and evidence.
Although the wire tapping may violate the 4th amendment, when taking into consideration the kinds of things it could help prevent, and the actual damage it results in, wire tapping should be allowed. Most people won't be involved in being wire tapped, and at the worst a person may hear a "private" conversation. That conversation will most likely not be released to the media or anywhere else. The consequence isn't all that bad comparative to the good wire tapping may result in.
More than 2,750 people died on September 11 from the attack on the World Trade Center. Imagine sitting at school on a normal day, and hearing an announcement on the intercom that your parents had died. As you listen to the long list of names, you realize that at least half of the students in your class have just become orphans. These children would have done anything for the government to have been able to stop the attack.
What is more important; saving thousands of lives, or knowing for sure that your phone-call to your boyfriend/ girlfriend is completely private? Terrorism may feel like it only happens to other people all the way across the country, but how would you feel if one of your loved ones was killed? Terrorism is a terrible reality that we have to face. It is the job of our government to stop it, and we must do all that we can to help. Wire-tapping saves lives, and it really doesn't hurt us. The violation of our privacy is nothing compared the the murder of those we love.
Allowing the government to listen to private calls without a warrant should be allowed. It is a violation of our 4th amendment rights but the overall point is that they are doing for a good reason-our safety. It's not like they want to know what we're doing with our friends or anything...they just want to protect us against another attack like 9/11. Getting a warrant to listen in on a possible call where terrorist activity might be discussed is just too much hassle for the govt. If they think we are in even the tiniest bit of danger for another attack then they should be able to do anything they can to prevent it, even if it means listening in to calls. They probably aren't just going to listen in to random calls anyways...only if the have "reasonable suspicion" to. Overall, our right to life is much more important then our privacy in phone calls.
The Federal Government should absolutely be able to tap into our phones. I believe that phone lines are not private from the ears of the government. Just in the same way that choosing to use the internet on a public server subjects you to searches, so should such searches apply to phone conversations. Our necessity for safety and security has driven us to take all means necessary to protect our citizens. I can see no valid reason why this shouldn't stop at the door to people's personal lives. It is our government's responsibility and obligation to protect us!
Phones are a major and extremely imperative route of communication and dangerous information can be passed at the speed of sound. If there was something that needed addressing or investigating that threatened our safety, Law Enforcement needs to know about is so they can prevent another catastrophe. If you aren't hiding anything, then why does it matter if the government hears your benign conversation? What do you favor more: your country's safety and well-being, or your precious conversation with your aunt about the weather being heard by someone else? In fact, The Police don't just go through your phone conversations all day, trust me, they have better things to do than listen to you talk to your aunt. They only listen to calls that they believe hold suspicion. The vast majority of America isn't making terrorist calls to The Taliban and the percentage that are need to be stopped and don't have a big enough voice to protest listening to their diabolical plans!
I believe that if you are a suspicious character, or someone who seems as if they could be a terrorist, then I believe that their 4th Amendment rights should be stretched a little. On the one hand, if you start to stretch someone's 4th Amendment rights, then what's next? Their 1st Amendment rights? Where should we draw the line? Of course, with the 1st Amendment rights, if you are gathering and harming someone at the same time, then you lose your right to assemble. And in the same way, if you are harming someone through your privacy, if that even makes sense, then you should lose at least enough of your 4th Amendment rights to keep other people safe.
The issue of whether the government should be allowed to listen in on our phone calls is going to be debated for a long time. I think it would be a clear violation of our 4th amendment rights but when does the safety of our country override the citizens rights to privacy. I think that wiretapping should be allowed only if the government and police have probable cause or enough reasonable suspicion.
The government needs to have some sort of control over the fight against terrorism but U.S citizens should not have to suffer. This way, if we have a very good idea that someone is a terrorist we can do something about it right away. If the government had to get warrants to wiretap, it may be too late.v
Although I don't want to have 9/11 again, I have to say NO to the patriot act. Our conversation over the phone should be a private discussion between two people, and shouldn't be tabbed by the government for information. The espionage by listening to what we say is clearly a violation of the 4th amendment. Our rights should be never violated, NEVER.
However, if there should be an exception, I think that the government should tab into the phones of the ex-criminals or the people who are potentially dangerous to the society. They could be planning to bomb, kill, steal, or assault people again. So they should be watched just in case.
The patriot act is a necessary precaution to ensure public safety. Because of the patriot act, the government can stop a terrorist attack but listen in on phone conversations throughout the U.S. in the process of trying to find the criminal-to-be. It is well worth the invasion of telephone calls if lives can be saved. Only international calls would be listened in on, and only calls that have been deemed suspicious, so calls from you to your friend won't be tapped. The benefits of the patriot act outweigh the violation of privacy.
Just because the government thinks that terrorists in the US are plotting an attack over the phone is no reason to let them wiretap ordinary citizens' phones to try to find this conversation. That would be like the police force breaking into every house in a community because they think one person is hiding something. It seems pointless because there are so many telephone lines to tap that they are unlikely to find a terrorist, even if they only look at people with ties to Al Qaeda or similar. There have been many incidents of the government suspecting a person of terrorism because they know or are a family member of a believed Al Qaeda member, but once they monitor that person, they find there is nothing wrong. Has the government actually found Al Qaeda by wiretapping phones in the US?
However, I do think safety should come first. Nobody wants another 9/11 and the government definitely should take steps to prevent one. The government should be able to wiretap citizens' calls, within reason, if there is something suspicious about their calling patterns, such as frequent calls to the Middle East, but once they monitor the person enough to find the calls harmless, they should stop. They could be calling family there.
I don't think monitoring of every citizen with a remote tie to a terrorist makes sense, but it seems reasonable to me for the government to be able to wiretap suspicious phone lines in the interest of the public's safety.
It should not be legal to wiretap people's phones. The fourth amendment clearly outlaws unreasonable searches and seizures, and what is wiretapping if not a search of a conversation and a seizure of information? Also, wiretapping without a warrant is the same concept as searching through documents inside the house. It is illegal. Everyone should be secure in their information.
However, I do believe that if there is reasonable suspicion the police should be able to get a warrant to wiretap--not just probable cause. This is a time of terrorism, and there is nothing more important to our country than preventing another 9/11.
The fourth amendment should be protected; however, that doesn't mean that our lives should be compromised. I believe that the government should be able to place wiretaps without warrants, but with reasonable suspicion. That means that there is still limitations on who is wiretapped, but still enough safety for the people.
Reasonable suspicion would cut the time needed to wiretap exponentially compared to needing a warrant. Without a warrant the person to get tapped wouldn't know about it because the authorities wouldn't be showing the person their warrant and they wouldn't have to go to a judge: just more delays. This would help to make sure that the "criminal" couldn't hide their evidence.
The reasonable suspicion also means that not just random people would be wiretapped. Why would authorities care about a common citizen who never contacts foreign countries? That wouldn't be very suspicious. On the other hand, if there was someone buying supplies that could be used to make bombs, calling foreign entities multiple times, and was avoiding authorities...that would be fairly suspicious. It isn't like the government likes the fact that they could wiretap... it means that some of the federal employees could have their private homes wiretapped.
I say go ahead and wiretap with reasonable suspicion and hopefully save the lives of more civilians.
The tapping of phone calls by the government without a warrant is a clear violation of our 4th amendment rights. I think that the government should be able to listen to the telephone calls of potential terrorists, like people who are obviously up to something or who have known connections with terrorist groups. I also believe that the government should be allowed to listen to phone calls when it obtains the proper warrants. The problem that I have with the patriot act is that there are no procedures in place to protect the public from unreasonable wiretaps. Yes, the government can say that it is only tapping the lines of suspected terrorists, but lots of other important information has been shoved under the table until it’s too late before. Wiretaps without warrants are against the 4th amendment and should be made illegal and be stopped immediately.
The government should not be able to tap our private phones and listen in on our private conversations even if it is to try and prevent another 911 attack. Invading our private phone conversations is a clear violation of our 4th amendment rights. If someone is suspected to be a terrorist the government should be required to provide enough evidence to tap their private phones. What even makes someone a suspected terrorist? Getting a warrant is a hassle, but it protects our 4th amendment rights. If it's legal to tap someones phone and listen in on private conversations, clearly ignoring our 4th amendment rights, where does it stop?
In order to protect the US, the government should be able to tap our conversations, but I think they need reasonable suspicion (not necessarily a "warrant" because there's a difference). A lot of conversations are said on the phone, for the purpose of being private, BUT when its for the safety of the country, then I think they should be able to listen. Plus, it's not like the government wants to or can listen to every single phone call in the nation. They don't care about the gossip between two girls hating another one. They don't want to hear a woman and a man having a juicy gushy romantic phone call. They don't want to hear the everyday safe conversation. The only reason why they would need
to listen to any phone conversation is for the safety of the country. When it comes to that, would you rather have your country in deep trouble, possibly being bombed? the people in our country getting murdered? or would you rather keep it safe and just be aware that the government is tapping phone calls and they could, by an extremely slim chance, listen to one of yours?
-havlick
The Patriot Act is an issue we need to be careful about. I think that unfortunately, its existence is necessary in our post-9/11 era. Because of this it should be kept. I do think that in some cases they violate the 4th amendment because the system of suspicion can’t be perfect. Although it may very well violate the 4th amendment, safety outweighs privacy and therefore the Patriot Act must remain.
I do think that the system should be fixed though. It is broken because it can tap into anyone’s phone calls. They shouldn’t have to get a warrant but they should have to go through a system of checks and balances within their own department to make sure that the people who they are listening in to have reasonable suspicion to be doing so. Without this and some form of accountability, Big Brother will take over the United States.
Tim Driscoll
The patriot act violates our 4th amendment rights. Listening into private phone calls for evidence of probable cause to search and seize is nearly the same as searching someone’s belongings and reading documents kept in a locked drawer. In order to search and seize you must have a warrant therefore the government should make it illegal to wiretap phones without a warrant signed by a judge. Of course they will need probable cause and even if they are sure they must find that evidence without violating our 4th amendment rights.
Those rights were made to keep the government from taking control. By the government wiretapping phone calls just shows that they are in control because they are choosing what is a violation of our rights and what isn’t when clearly, listening in on private phone calls violates the constitution completely. Coming from an outsiders perspective, that would be my first conclusion of the issue.
In the case of foregin syping on possible terrorist for information on future attacks, the government should be able to listen to their phone conversations, but only if they have high probable cause to do so, and also, depending on the sevarity of the circumstance, a warrent should be issued before hand. The 4th Amendment talks about personal privacy, by search and seizures, but if keeping personal privacy means a higher chance of us being killed in a terrorist attack we may have been able to stop, then wiretaping should be legalized on foregin "spying", but only with high probable cause and a warrent.
With domestic spying, the 4th Amendment protects American citizens from being spyed on by their government in day to day life. The government should not be allowed to wiretap ordinary citizens and ordinary phone converstations without a very high probable cause, and most definitly a warrent. If I knew the government were listening to my personal telephone calls then I'd definitly get all up and ippity and probably start yelling a bit. The government has absolutely no right to poke and sniff in the citizens of their country's personal property, whether it be house, trash, telephone calls, accounts, anything, without probable cause, but a warrent should only be issued when the need to search is absolutely necessary.
I think that the whole "spying on us and tapping our phone lines" thing all depends on the circumstances. If it was just a small crime, then it would not be as big a deal as drug dealing or violent crimes. If someones life is at stake or their is a major drug deal going down, then the police have the right to tap their phone lines to get information. They should get a warrant though for them or else in court, all the evidence that they have will be thrown out.
The patriot act, I belive is resonable. I don't beleive it violates the 4th amendment for, they are tapping into our conversatinos for our own saftey. The government isn't/ doesn't want to listen to our conversations with our mom or boyfriend or anyone, they don't care about that; they are trying to tap into phone calls that go across the seas to another country that sounds liek a sort of threat to the US. I belive this is a right that the government should have, for it is protecting us, not truly spying on us.
I believe that the patriot act is a violation of our 4th Amendment. I understand that post 911 security has heightened and increased such as in airports, but literally tapping our phone calls is taking it to the extreme. Our rights are still our rights regardless of who we are. Tapping ex cons may not be very fruitful because terrorists create great camouflage to hide their true identities, so some might not even have been to jail. Only if their is probable cause then the government should be able to listen and monitor your conversations if their is evidence that peoples safety is being endangered. Our consent to be governed is being misjudged, so this administration should not be governing us.
Although the patriot act can be seen as an invasion of US Citizens' privacy, the need to protect our country from terrorists trumps our right to privacy. We can not risk another devastating attack like 9/11. The government is not going to be listening to random people's phone calls. Just because they don't need a warrant to listen to the phone calls doesn't mean that they won't be putting a lot of thought into the calls they listen to. The government is listening to these calls for the sole purpose of protecting the country, and everyone needs to understand that.
In order to prevent another terrorist attack similar to 9/11, the government does not need to wiretap people without a warrant. The mere fact that we allow this invasion of our privacy is sickening. The government was able to get warrants before to catch people, why can't they do this now? This is a clear violation of our rights. Law abiding people may have very personal phone calls that the government does not need to hear about. We should not let the government do this to us.
This is a slippery slope. In fact, any right limitation is. People keep trying to limit our rights to serve their agendas. I see no reason why we, the people of the united states, should allow this to happen.
~Joe Roessler P1
The right to privacy is a big deal for many people. There are many issues that could be considered violating the 4th amendment but when it comes to privacy or the safety of the entire nation against a terrorist attack, the invasion of privacy should be allowed. It shouldn't be ok for government officials to just listen in on any call they feel like but with probable cause and a warrant it should be legal. America should be working hard to prevent another 9/11 happening, and if that means the government listening in on a few call then it should be allowed
I somewhat agree and disagree with this argument. While the war on terror is a very important issue, it does violate our fourth amendment rights. The idea that in order for a wiretap to happen it has to go through a screening system first is a good step forward. Wiretapping can be very useful, but only in truly necessary situations. if there is serious threat of a terrorist attack than wiretapping should be fine throughout the entire country but not when everything seems calm. If the NSA is going to be used of a regular basis then it needs to be just and fair about what it allows, and follow the exact needs it was created for. Even though national security is incredibly important,the government can not totally take away an americans fourth amendment rights.
No i do not believe they should be aloud too. If it is a public phone it is alright because unless they want to hear something specific, they can't know who it is. If it is a privet line it invades your intellectual property by them listing to your conversations. I believe that my brain is one of my personal effects so it is defectively protected under my fourth amendment. IF the government listens to my conversational i defenestrate don't feel secure. IF they have reasonable suspicion, like if it is a known child molester or rapest, then it should be aloud. but random listening tapping should not be.
Post a Comment