Since September 11, the government has captured a large number of terrorists who were planning attacks on American soil, such as Jose Padilla and the renegades planning to bomb American bridges near the 10th anniversary of September 11. The government does not have the right to arbitrarily arrest people without cause, but it should have the right to observe people it believes may deem a threat and take action if the individuals commit an act that makes the government believe they will attack civilians.
The monitoring of suspicious individuals has provided our government with valuable intelligent information. It has also likely helped to divert some terrorist attacks on our shores and overseas. I think that strict guidelines should be put in place as to who can be monitored and under what circumstances. But, if an individual meets those guidelines, then monitoring them may prove to serve the greater good.
The government should be able to secretly monitor individuals that they deem suspicious, but there must be clear parameters on what "suspicious" means and how the government must verify and certify that the individual is indeed suspicious. This is the way the government has been able to shut down organized crime, in particular, and to try to prevent terrorist actions in recent years. However, this is still the United States, and this is still a free land. Any infringement on inalienable rights needs to be clearly justified by an independent party. If the government has determined that someone needs to be monitored, the government's case should be reviewed by an independent and uninterested court or committee in an expedited manner, before they can move forward with their monitoring.
Governments must be able to monitor suspicious individuals in order to effectively protect citizens against terror attacks. Homeland Security must have the ability to monitor suspicious individuals in order to react in a proactive manner to threats of terror against United States citizens. Without the ability to monitor suspicious individuals, the government is unable to protect the citizens effectively.
With all of the extremists in our society, we need to be proactive in avoiding disasters, versus waiting for an act to be committed, and then punishing for it. If we can stop the act before it is committed, we can use the same manpower for monitoring, versus punishment, and have a safer society to live in.
The government should be able to secretly monitor suspicious individuals, but in a legal way. That is, with a court order. If the authorities suspect that an individual is engaged in illegal activity, there is no reason to announce their surveillance either. Announcing their intention will cause the suspect to alter their behavior, and render surveillance useless.
People don't act suspicious for no reason. If a person is partaking in suspicious activities, then they likely are hiding something. It just seems that it's in our best interests to have suspicious people monitored. If a few people have to have their privacy invaded to keep the rest of the people safe, so be it.
Monitoring suspicious individuals has resulted in averting many attacks on America, as well as other parts of the world. It has also helped in fighting the drug trade, the sex trade, and many other illegal activities. If you are not doing anything illegal then you shouldn't be affected by these actions.
People are so gung-ho about the Constitution. It is a great document, but it is pushed so far. When people can get away with murder because of a piece of paper, it's gone too far. I believe the right of privacy does not apply here. If the person is suspected of harming others, then it is the right of the government to monitor them.. for the greater good.
As it get to know what all is happening over its country and what kind of economic difficulties its people are facing so that it can resolve their problems and improve their economy rate . What if more than 59% of its people are below poverty line then it can resolve their problem.
What’s the reason you don’t want to be watched? If the information is made public that is one thing, but as far as your privacy, what do you care if the government knows that you went to a strip club? If it isn’t public it’s okay, they already have the web trawlers that see if you went to sites on how to make bombs, and probably red flag you for sex crimes based on how messed up the porn you watch is. People would be less likely to do all those small yet illegal things they do if they knew they could be tracked down to it immediately, let’s face it that’s what most of you are concerned with, getting away with growing your weed in a field or running your illegal moonshine still. There is no legitimate argument; you don’t want them tracking you because you know you’ll get caught doing something illegal.
Are you sincerely worried about our government invading your personal life? If so, what is it that you are hiding? I know that I live a normal lifestyle, just like most of you live. Why should I be concerned about the government monitoring me? What I am concerned about is those of us who do not live normal lifestyles. Those citizens who live secretively and distant from normal people. These are the type of people that we should worry about. By government monitoring these citizens, thousands upon thousands of attacks on our soil have been averted. Yet we never hear about these. That Is because government is here for our safety. They do not want to cause panic.
The only people that do not want the government to see their stuff are people have something to hide. As long as the government isn't selling your personal information and they just use the information to secure public safety, there isn't a problem. The government doesn't care about your secret affairs.
What if the government didn't listen in on us every now and then, that shirt bomber would have bombed the New York subway tunnel and would have killed hundreds if not thousands of people. If you say no then you are not only risking your safety but the lives of others so. If you say no are you so selfish that you would rather have privacy then protection for your fellow country men.
By the government being able to monitor suspicious individuals it will help to get the crime rate down. As long as the government is doing it for a reasonable and probable cause then I totally agree with it. They helped to stop thousands of innocent people from dying from a guy with a bomb in his shirt, didn't they? Yes, they did.
People are so fed up about what they hear on government "spying". The Government is doing this for our SAFETY. You know there are stories all the time of the government catching people planning terrorism attacks. There was one story where there was a guy planning on taping a bomb under his shirt and going into a New York subway. With government SURVEILLANCE (not spying) they found and caught the guy before he could blow up the subway. It's really foolish to believe that this should not be active. You're practically asking for CRIME.
Nowadays, many crimes occur by terrorists. Many terrorists are still not caught by the american government. This is the cause of more crimes. These people who commit crimes think that the government cannot catch them because they have already got away. But, if the government monitors on citizens, terrorists, and suspects can be easily caught.
I think a lot of people who are against government monitoring of citizens are confused or disillusioned as to how the monitoring takes place. There is no country in the world not even the US that has the capability or man power to monitor the movements of every person every second of every day. The systems in use are computerized in order to manage large amounts of data. These systems monitor suspicious activity like what sites we visit what kind of sentences / words we use in emails, for example if I send an email including words like "bomb" or "assassinate" this is quite rightly a suspicious email... The systems then flags such persons for further inspection. Once this person is deemed a threat or the contrary then these people are either investigated or left alone for the system to continue its probing. The same for cellular calls and landline calls etc. If you don't want to be a part of the technological era, don't partake in the technology. People jump from one thing to the other, from monitoring (which is in general unobtrusive till the point that you are suspected of something) to things like mind control and the power to choose life and death and what you think and believe... This is the sign of an ignorant society that is not educated enough to understand the world they are living in or the technology they use.
Either you want privacy or you want security, you cannot have both. Monitoring of citizens is put in place to attempt to catch suspicious behaviour before it turns into something more. Maybe someone is researching how to make bombs, maybe someone is chatting to children online and extracting indecent pictures from them, the list goes on and on. Without monitoring these acts will have to take place and the governments response will only stay reactive. We have to realise that this is the digital age and with that comes new threats and ways of preventing old and new types of crimes. People who say "I want to be free" are being ignorant. They are free but so are the people who would harm them. If the government could prevent your child being raped or your family being murdered or your country being bombed by monitoring a small slice of your life in an unobtrusive manner would you rather let these things happen and then react after blood has been shed or lives have been broken? Ignorance is bliss until it happens to you.
You've seen 9/11, you've seen sandy hook, you've seen Boston. All of these things were horrible tragedies, and to see another one would be horrible. So you ask yourself: "What do we do to stop this?" Well, I'll tell ya: we simply monitor the people of interests, and be on the lookout for any threats, gestures, comments, or possibly even preparation for certain terrorists attacks, shootings, or homicides. What would you rather have: A blown up building were hundreds of people die or get seriously injured, or stop the opposing threat ensuring our safety? Seems like a pretty easy choice.
Because some people might go crazy and not know what there doing and they might actually hurt someone but if the government spies on them then know one gets hurt and so i carry on this but if they do spy then there not giving citizens the right to be free and do what ever they want because this is a free country
Looking at all those terrors that are occurring all around the globe, such as the recent Boston Marathon terror, I believe that there is need for a better solution; and that is government monitoring of phone calls and the social media. It might seem like the government is violating the 4th Amendment of rights on privacy, but I would say that this does not apply here, as a fellow debater also mentioned below; for the 'greater good'. I'm not saying that this country is turning into another form of a country like the one in the novel 1984; the government is just trying to 'monitor', not 'stalk' information about people. Besides, does privacy even matter when people's lives are sake?
There are legitimate reasons for the government to do this. That's why we have processes to deal with this. To prevent abuse these processes must be honored. When the government ignores these processes it invariably goes after people for what when examined are clearly political reasons. Look up "COINTELPRO" and see what I mean.
It deeply saddens me the amount of people who voted yes on this. What the hell is suspicious? I find it suspicious that so many people who live in the "land of the free" are quite happy to throw that freedom in the trash. I find it suspicious that people are willing to trust those who created the beast, to now protect us from it. Without Probable Cause and the necessary Warrants, governments should not be permitted to monitor the activities of any individual, accused of a crime or not.
"You're planning on blowing up the mall," I've just accused you of a crime... Enjoy the government watching you do everything in case you're part of a bigger plot.
See... This is how home robbery and identity thieves start because other people are looking through our own personal stuff. Now other people that we don't even know who or what they are, are looking and knowing what we do, how we do things. What's our business... Is our business, no one else's. What if the stupid government hears a conversation and misunderstood it? Than what's going to happened next? They THINK they know what their doing is right but really it's not. I'm 16 years old and I know this crap, it's F***n' creepy
Where will they draw the line? Just because they are the government, it doesn't give them the rights to spy on us. It's creepy and kind of stalkerish. It's a violation of privacy. "Oh yeah, they're spying on me. That's cool. Would you like to look through my diary while you're at it?".... No, just no.
Why should the government be able to? I mean, what if that person is innocent? What if he/ she didn't even do anything? Isn't it a saying, "Innocent until proven guilty"?
There is a thing called trust and privacy. There is also something called racial profiling, or in other words, judging a book by it's cover. Although there are some weirdos out there in the world, it doesn't mean that everyone is one.
I say no because the only reason why the government should have the need to gain access of citizen's texts, emails, or hear phone calls is if the citizen is showing key signs of a crime. BUT, I think that the only way for them to find out they are showing the signs is by the websites they visit or the books they check out at a public library. But, others citizens should not have to suffer by getting their texts read people some people want to send out things they know is illegal.
According to the constitution, citizens deserve the rights of their privacy. However, if this is abled, our basic rights would be ignored. Also, it is common sense that basic laws are the pivot of other laws. So to make a law, it must keep the constitution seecure and thought of.
Who is a suspicious individual? Who defines the limits? If we allow the government to define "suspicious individuals" who do you think will be the target of the Government's "suspicious individuals" profile? When you walk out of your home, you are a suspicious individual because who ever is monitoring you that day doesn't know you or enough about you so you become a suspicious individual at the whim and caprice of anyone who is authorized to stop suspicious individuals. If you don't come out of your house, then you are a suspicious individual. If you own property, you are a suspicious individual. If you own nothing, then you are a suspicious individual. When does it stop? If we are attacked, we fight back. Or do we? Let the government take care of it, right? Cowards? If you are willing to forfeit your rights to privacy in lieu of Government protection, then you are willing to trample on my rights to privacy and invade my sphere of personal autonomy. If you allow government officials to lie to your face, e.G., I swear to protect, preserve and defend the Constitution; then you are a liar in conspiracy with the frauds who want to take my life, liberty and property my ancestors gave their lives to preserve. Generations were promised freedom. We have been entrusted and It is our responsibility to expand and preserve those freedoms for future generations. If we forfeit our rights we preserve nothing for those who entrusted us with what they so heroically gave so that we would have more to give. And you would repay them with forfeiture? I don't trust the government. They kill innocent people. They start wars. They lie to us. They make plans behind closed doors. We the People were suppose to be the Government and now you would give to the Government our right to be free? I don't trust you who would do so. Cowards.
Allowing the government to define and promulgate who is or is not suspicious allows the Govt to intrude into everyone's lives. Take for instance the general public at large, unless you are wearing a uniform or stand in the position of some official authority or public office, you are under suspicion of doing something or anything that any of these government forces decide to create or have already created. Everyone who steps out of their home is being monitored except those who have an exemption and even they are under suspicion by someone in the Government. We have no privacy interests any longer because the general public takes the position that if you're doing nothing suspicious then what have you got to hide. Personally, I don't think anyone I don't know personally, unless vitally necessary, has any right to know my business and if the government can intrude upon our privacy then they have the authority to remove any right to privacy we may have and then control our thoughts, ideas, our families, our children, who lives and who dies and when and where and how we are to live, think, etc etc etc Orwellian/Kafka. Give up your right to privacy you give up your right to have any right. Our constitution was designed to limit the powers of government. If you give up your rights you give the government the power to control. The soldiers who died to preserve our rights and to save us from the indignity of lawless government are now disavowed by those who dishonor the American tradition to resist government control. They all swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Whenever they fail to do so - including the violation of anyone's rights [whether consensual or not] they become liars and frauds and those who would act with them the conspirators of the crime itself. Would you die for a bunch of cheats and liars who connived or stole your freedom and liberty from you? Who is your neighbor now?
We can't have security without liberty. Under guise of protecting people, Governments impose laws that are undemocratic, unjust, unnecessary and are breach of our fundamental right to free speech and privacy. It's not Governments' business to control people, but to serve public interests. When such draconian laws are being proposed, question is whom Government is serving: people who elected them, or its own sinister, hidden agenda. It's the Government, not the People, who should be always watched on, controlled and under public scrutiny.
Personal details cannot be stolen just for monitoring the suspicious because even suspects and possible criminals have the basic human and constitutional rights of not having their privacy invaded.
Also when people argue that monitoring us has saved many countries from terrorist attacks they make a point of saying that only certain individuals are monitored if they are suspected of hatching criminal plots. How does the government know whom to suspect - from sources like criminal records or just from sweeping unsuspecting citizens' personal data in search of threatening plans?
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
Once, you allow the US government to monitor what you do and to have SECRET COURT, you transform the United States of America into Soviet Union, China, North Korea or any other country where the government tells you what to think and what to say. I WANT TO BE FREE!
Where will they draw the line? Search my house ? Cavity searches? Did this stop the marathon bombers? They used the social media Facebook. How are they keeping me safe? It saddens me to think about all the people who have died to protect our freedom, civil liberties, and the constitution. Were those lives wasted?
Anyone heard of the 4th Amendment??? It was put there for a reason---to protect Americans from tyranny and government overreaching it's authority. Go back and do some reading about the general warrants issued by the King. Our founding fathers fought and died to give us this protection. Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them!!!
First off, isn't it kind of a stalker move? I mean, who says that the person or persons who do the monitoring aren't whack-jobs or psychos. Also, it is a violation of a person's privacy. If the person is known FOR SURE to be conspiring against the government, it makes sense, but otherwise it doesn't.
The people monitoring computers overreact and are causing the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater. Our young people are being monitored, teens, elders, and there is overreaction-at a word. For example, shut up means something different nowadays. The monitors react at language cognates. There are people projecting their views; they do not posess the ability to rate medical conditions, and there is no need to monitor people as if they are under house arrest. We should be ashamed of this conversation; but unless you have cherished the founding fathers wise instruction you can see what you have not known. Our run of the mill bureaucrats should never monitor any one at any time. They drink, have high case loads, work under pressure, may be jealous of someone playing solitaire, etc. Look at Casey Anthony--would you like to have her mother or father professionally monitoring you?
Who will monitor the people monitoring us? A people who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for temporal security, will receive neither and deserve neither as well. Also we risk becoming a military police state devoid of freedom and democracy will be a farce after which no action of the government can be trusted. Who is to determine what is suspicious?
All citizens should be guaranteed the right to privacy. This is the first world. The right to privacy is only negated when probable cause has been established. That is, the government should only have the right to secretly monitor someone AFTER they have been given reason enough to arrest and detain them BEFORE having started monitoring.
If the individual in question has proven themselves to be a possible threat, the government should have to obtain a warrant, just like if the police wanted to search a home. But 9/10 times, I would say this is invading our privacy and the system could be easily corrupted. (after all, "suspicious" is a pretty vague criteria.)
If the government knows about an impending threat, with probable cause, then government authorities can monitor individuals involved in those kinds of things. But merely being suspicious is not enough. What constitutes suspicious? Looking different? While it is important that our government keep us safe, we have to respect the rights given to us in the Constitution, and that includes privacy.
Monitoring "suspicious" people is too vague and broad of a subject for the government to pull off effectively. And, to a degree, non-offending citizens will be effected. If the government is allowed to simply say who will be monitored, the odds of them using the system corruptly goes up.
To monitor an individual on suspicions would be an abuse of human rights and could lead to people being terrorized by the government. Not all suspicious people go on to commit crimes, and people should only be targeted for monitoring by the government after they do something wrong. To monitor individuals is an encroachment on their privacy, and it is essential to have privacy to maintain a small amount of human dignity.
Trading liberty for security is not justified in the modern era. While many people willingly give up their rights for a false sense of security, they are actually losing both. The government gains so much power it then becomes the enemy the people gave their rights up to be protected from in the first place.
The government does not need to know every move that anyone makes. We are each individuals, and even criminals have moments when they are not planning criminal behavior! Monitoring someone on suspicion alone is one of the worst violations of individual rights I can imagine. Sometimes, people are simply different. There are many who would consider the odd behavior suspicious, but there is no reason for them to. It's just the way some people are.
Who is to say that the government isn't suspicious? They are taking our privacy away from us. Think of the countless times people were sent to jail when they were innocent. Think of the countless times we've captured the wrong guy. There IS human error. There ARE corrupt people. People will bend our suspicions and use them for their will, and I'm not okay with it.
I would rather that monitoring be done without surreptitiousness and I think that would be more effective. For instance, if we had security cameras in all public places then there would be no selective monitoring of 'suspicious' behavior which is very subjective and prone to discrimination. At the same time, people would gain greater security and illegal activity would be curtailed.
In some extreme cases it may be necessary, but time and time again there have been cases where the procedure is abused, and innocent students who are, say, the head of the Muslim society at a university are being targeted and arrested on camera, humiliated and then sent home with no apology. If governments were allowed to spy on people they thought were suspicious (and it's probably already happening, anyway), then it would foster a large amount of distrust between the people and their government, and could even result in anarchy.
If someone is accused of a crime, that should be dealt with through the legal system. But who decides that someone is "suspicious" and what makes a person suspicious? This could be abused in so many ways by law enforcement officers who are racist, have a grudge against someone, or make up their own reasons to label someone as "suspicious".