Introduction
In the recent years, governments around the world have continued to demand that commercial firms disclose their customers’ data in connection with national security, regulatory system enforcement, and criminal investigation matters. The companies, on the other hand, are compelled by a legal compulsion to cooperate, yet they feel a business need as well as a responsibility of protecting the privacy of their clients (Rubinstein, Nojeim, & Lee, 2014). As the threats to national security increase, the governments are increasing their request for systematic access. In 2011 alone, the US government agencies gave over 1.3 million demands to different mobile carriers to provide their client’s information ranging from simple call detail records to call content to call recipients as well as their location (Lichtblau, 2012). A special court compels certain providers of telecommunication services to provide the National Security Agency with the metadata for every call made to, from and within boundaries of the United States on a daily basis. Until very recently, most citizens were not aware of such government activities. In 2013, the Guardian alongside other news outlet revealed government’s surveillance activities that had lasted for a number of years. The government had used a systematic access in one of the surveillance programs. Under it, the NSA gathered bulky metadata information of calls within, from and to the US from telecommunication service providers under the backing of court orders (Greenwald, 2013). The program has been running for over ten years. The service providers are compelled by court order to renew their compliance after every 90 days. The program covers both the US citizens and the non-citizen with the citizens forming a large percentage of the metadata handed over to the NSA. Individuals outside the United States who receive calls or make calls to the US are also put under surveillance. These data are placed under the custodian of NSA for five years, and its analysts have the right to query the information without prior approval from the court (Mornin, 2014). Such revelations have raised public transparency demands that have resulted in heated debates.
Why Should the Government be Allowed to Collect Personal Data on Citizens?
Today more than ever, threats to national security can emanate from anywhere. In some cases, the least expected places such as social media and telecommunication platforms have turned out to be the planning avenues of some of the most heinous crimes. As such, the government has scaled up its surveillance activities of personal information of both the American citizens and non-citizens. In particular, the 9/11 terrorist attack served as a wakeup call for such measures to ensure that the United States does not ever undergo such an ordeal again in the future ( Donohue, 2014 ). Over fifteen years later, the issue of government’s surveillance and data collection by NSA continues to be a heated debate with strong arguments being put forward by the proponents of both sides. However, the government has been collecting information both its citizens and noncitizens a long time than anyone account for. In the last century and below, the spies were employed to snoop on people and obtain critical information that could unveil a severe threat to national security. However, as time are changing and with the twenty-first century technological advancement, the nature and procedure of planning a crime against the citizens of a given country has evolved. In more than one instance, terrorist have planned and coordinated their attacks through telephone, email and internet communications. The 9/11 Twin Tower terrorist attack which remains to be the most horrific attack on American soil is a good illustration of such (Mornin, 2014). As such, the government should be allowed to collect data on its citizens for a number of reasons. Firstly, the NSA programs are constitutional and have checks and balances. Despite the recent revelations of government surveillance, there has been no single instance that NSA information gathering has been found to be illegal ( Donohue, 2014 ). The federal courts and the Congress are part of the surveillance program. These two bodies have laid out checks and balances that ensures the authorities of NSA do not abuse their power or invade the privacy of Americans improperly or illegally (Mornin, 2014). Previously, the government eavesdropped on the conversations of Americans and non-Americans through wiretapping. Compared to data mining, eavesdropping is by far an infringement to personal privacy. NSA’s data mining has only been used and continues to be used on suspicious culprits who pose a serious threat to national security. Before NSA narrows down to a particular suspect, it has to establish specific facts that are behold reasonable doubts that the citizen or non-citizen is a threat ( Donohue, 2014 ). Terrorism and other criminal activities continue to be serious threats to civil liberties. Organized crime is more real today than it was a century ago. To deal with such cases, the government has to be one-step ahead of the criminals to ensure that they prevent catastrophes such as the 9/11 or recent mass killings within the country. This objective is very crucial to national security considering that today criminals have access to more deadly weapons of mass destruction than before. A single nuclear or biological attack has the potential of wiping out an entire state ( Donohue, 2014 ). Hence, it is extremely important that the government should be allowed to collect personal information within and outside the US.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
H ow does data collection aid in determining who is nefarious and who is innocent?
The main concerns against NSA’s data collection and storage have risen from fears of infringement of privacy rights as enshrined in the Constitution. However, as stated earlier, the government does not look into personal information collected from the telecommunication service providers unless there is a reason to. The Domestic Surveillance Directorate of the United States states that there is no reason for citizens and non-citizens to fear if they have nothing to hind. As a government agency, they have laid down procedures that enable it to connect the dots in their efforts to identify suspicious patterns ("Domestic Surveillance National Data Warehouse", 2017). Previously, the government mostly collected information about criminal or people linked to illegal activities after the suspect was identified. In most instances, the criminals were always a step ahead of the government, and most of their crimes succeeded. However, with the current program, the government gets to identify suspicious patterns of individuals who are likely to be a threat to national security. To start with, the information of a suspected person is reviewed by the NSA’s analyst to establish its threat level. Such persons are monitored for a while, and a thorough background check is done on them ("Domestic Surveillance National Data Warehouse", 2017). Through this process, the government can distinguish between who is innocent and who is evil. The government closely monitors people who have previously been involved in terrorist-related activities within the nation. It also looks into all the people that particular person has been in contact with and the nature of their engagement. The collected data is analyzed against a threat matrix that has been developed by the Domestic Surveillance Directorate. Depending on the level of threat, the data is assigned an action code. For most Americans, most of these data is not accessed or viewed by anyone in the government unless future events sparks an inquiry ( "Domestic Surveillance National Data Warehouse", 2017).
The Fear and Stigma of NSA’s data collection and its role in ensuring National Security
Since the unveiling of government’s systematic access surveillance program, there has been concerns of fear and stigma that is associated with learning every move one makes is monitored. Most Americans feel that if not checked, government surveillance will be threaten their democracy as well as violate their rights as enshrined in the Fourth Amendment (Stransky, 2015). The massive collection and storage of metadata has a potential risk of coming to haunt individuals who have never done anything wrong. In most instance, surveillance states produce many suspect individuals, and it is not impossible for someone who has a vested interest in an individual being guilty to do so, particularly if there is enough data ("Domestic Surveillance National Data Warehouse", 2017). This fear and stigma have been enhanced by lack of transparency by the government on its surveillance activities. In so doing, the government has established a certain atmosphere of caution that reminds everyone that someone somewhere is watching their activities. The government created fear has in many ways deterred planning and execution of heinous crimes that would otherwise leave scores injured or dead (Stransky, 2015). As such, its surveillance activities have enhanced national security and protected the citizens from threats within and outside the US.
Conclusion
The US government has been running surveillance programs on both domestic and international levels for many years. This is part of its effort to ensure the continuity of government and national security. Some of the methods such as collection of personal data contradict the people’s privacy rights as enshrined in the Amendment ( Mornin, 2014) . However, the collection of personal information in the United States is legal and has been suctioned by both the Congress and the federal court. Moreover, it is done to protect the citizens from internal and external threats. Many critics argue that government is meant to be a reactionary force and hence data collection is not necessary. However, with this information, the government can react in advance before an attack or a crime happens. The Citizens should not be worried as the government has vested interest in the individuals who pose a threat to national security.
References
Domestic Surveillance National Data Warehouse . (2017). Nsa.gov1.info . Retrieved 9 December 2017, from https://nsa.gov1.info/data/
Donohue, L. (2014). Bulk metadata collection: Statutory and constitutional considerations.
Greenwald, G. (2013). NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily: The Guardian , 6 (5), 13.
Lichtblau, E. (2012). More Demands on Cell Carriers in Surveillance: The New York Times, July , 8 .
Mornin, J. D. (2014). NSA Metadata Collection and the Fourth Amendment: Berkeley Tech. LJ , 29 , 985.
Rubinstein, I. S., Nojeim, G. T., & Lee, R. D. (2014). Systematic government access to personal data: a comparative analysis. International Data Privacy Law , 4 (2), 96-119.
Stransky, S. G. (2015). The Fourth Amendment and Bulk Telephone Metadata: An Overview of Recent Case Law. . Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. , 35 , 3.
