Access to information is crucial to any organization that hopes to work effectively and achieve its objectives. The question of whether the government should know everything is controversial and depending on where one stands, their points of view will be different. Some of the reasons why the government should know everything are for security and surveillance reasons. Government institutions providing security such as the federal bureau of investigations need information to intercept and prevent crimes and terrorist attacks among others. The reasons why the government should not know everything is because it is a breach of privacy for the technology users. The breach of privacy has seen government institutions and service providers such as apple heading to court to fight for access and protection of users’ data respectively. Access of users’ data and electronic evidence has created challenges as well as opportunities for all the involved parties and it is important that the judicial system and other players give the subject the importance it deserves.
The question of whether the government should know everything is one with no direct answer. The issue of privacy and security has over the years resulted in controversy. Parties from different ends of the conversation, such as law enforcers and service providers and users have different reasons on why they feel they are right. The conversation has gone ahead to include not only the road users, but also the major technology companies acquiring data from their users through backdoors. The justice department has found itself at the center stage of the discussion because they have had to decide cases related to the issue and ensure justice for all the parties involved. The development of precedents is a major thing as decisions made on privacy and security will have future implications as the future cases will refer to the former decisions made. There are reasons to have the government know everything and also there are justifications on to what limit. Clear lines need to be drawn on the case and ensure fairness to all involved parties.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
One of the major reasons behind the government knowing everything is for security reasons. Security agencies such as the federal bureau of investigation and central intelligent agency need information if they are going to stop for instance terrorist attacks before they happen. For agencies to be pro-active information needs to be available. Investigations being conducted will require access to information to piece together what happened during attacks and work to prevent future attacks. Most of the time information required by the law enforcement officers are not readily available to them and as such, they have to seek the intervention of the justice department. The intervention of the department of justice will require justification of why the infringing of the users right is valid and if it will be beneficial. During the September 11, 2001attacks in the United States telephone and internet providers were willing to provide information to the investigators to ensure that the culprits were captured and a repeat of the events did not occur (Weinstein, 2015).
The government should know everything for surveillance reasons. Information is crucial for the government and as such surveillance on its citizens. The United States national security agency was in 2013 reported having been on its citizens by spying on them through collecting their telephone records. The national security agency is a unit of the Defense Department conducts surveillance on the American citizens. In 2008, President George Bush signed into law the FISA Amendment Act, which the national security agency may have exploited as the intentions of the act was to allow surveillance of foreign nationals not residing in the United States (ACLU Conference, n.d). The justification for the surveillance is to intercept any plans or activities that will be a threat to the security of the United States of America. Prevention of attacks has proven to be more effective as opposed to waiting for a crime to occur and later looking for the culprits to bring them to book and get justice for the victims.
Another reason the government should know everything would be the government officials interpret the FISA Amendment Act to mean that the surveillance should be conducted to the citizens of the United States of America. The security agencies such as the federal Bureau of investigations feel that they are supposed to have access to any information they feel will be helpful to their investigations against crime in the United States of America and abroad and in some situations they will need the help of the courts for instance their case with apple on access to users data (Conway & Eckersley, 2017 ).). The access to information helps them convict criminals and capture their accomplices. The interpretation of the law on surveillance has different interpretations. In some situations, a court order will be required for access to data regarding people and due to the sensitivity and advancement made in technology, controversy is unavoidable. Court orders and warrants have been declined in some situations citing infringement of the users’ rights. Access to information has also caught the attention of the judges with some raising their concerns when it comes to acquiring digital information (Weinstein, 2015).
One of the reasons why the government should not know everything is because it is a breach of the users’ privacy. The kind of information stored in people’s gadget is very sensitive and should be protected at whatever cost. Confidentiality of the users’ information should be ensured by the service providers. Revealing the information should be the duty of the owner as opposed to the service provider. The issue of privacy has sparked different remarks from various players on the issues. The service providers such as Yahoo, Google, IBM and social media’ such as Facebook and Twitter among others have often found themselves in situations where they have to defend their users and defend them in courts because of giving third parties access to user’s data (Craig, 2016). Defence lawyers and prosecutors have had to deal with these emerging issues when in court. Presentation of evidence in courts of law has had to change with time. Information illegally in court is not admissible in court and prosecutors in most situations have had to acquire warrants to acquire some types of information.
The government shouldn't know everything because the process of acquiring all the information is illegal. The FISA Amendment Act signed into law in 2008 was meant to be implemented on non-American nationals living abroad. When Snowden leaked how the national security agency was surveilling the American citizens, there was an outcry (Greenberg, 2017). International leaders also feared and claimed they thought the same was being done to them. The locals thought it was not right and required that the data companies protect them. Major companies in technology have been in court to defend the confidentiality of their users’ data. Some companies measures to ensure that the customers’ data is protected. Some of the measures include ensuring only the customer can provide their access codes in order for data to be accessed and not the service provider as is the case with most technology gadgets and companies. This development has faced challenges from the law enforcer, but the officials implementing the invention feel that it is the right of the user to provide his personal information when he wants.
The government should not know everything about its citizens. People should be allowed some level of privacy. Infringing on the privacy rights of the users has repercussions when it comes to the acquisition of new clients. Clients will choose service providers that will ensure their confidentiality irrespective of the situation. American based technology companies have had it rough when it came to defending their capability to ensure that users’ data was safe. The incident with national security agency spying on the people had the American companies struggling to prove that users’ data was safe and unauthorized people would not access it through backdoors. These situations have led to companies such as apple developing gadgets which only the user could give permission to access their data and ensuring encryption of data (Kartit, & Marraki, 2015). The company basically shifted the responsibility of being responsible for users’ data, this way any institution that wanted information about someone would have to get authorization from the user (Levy, 2015).
Access to information by the government will always be an issue that will cause controversy depending on where one stands. Government agencies will always justify the acquisition by bringing up security and technology companies will always stand for confidentiality of their users' data. However, this issue of electronic evidence creates challenges as well as an opportunity through which the justice system can utilize and create a better future in users' data access. Precedents are sources of law, and the judges should handle cases and requests for users' data with the utmost priority realizing they are also in a way solving future cases. A build-up of cases supporting access to users’ data through back doors will result in access and denial of access by denying warrants will mean privacy is being endorsed. The issue of access to digital evidence is a unique situation for the defence lawyers and the prosecutors. Depending on how the evidence was acquired will determine if it will be accepted in a court of law. The argument on security and privacy will depend on the aim of the person who needs the data and as such the judicial system should ensure that a balance is established in order to protect all parties (Bambauer, 2013).
In conclusion, the issue of whether the government should know everything is not black and white. Different parties have different views on the issue. Government agencies dealing with security feel that they need information and as such there is nothing like privacy at the expense of security. The technology companies and the users’ feel they deserve their privacy and confidentiality should not be violated whatever the reason. The issue is controversial because each party has their reasons to justify themselves. The controversy leads to the parties seeking the intervention of the judicial system to ensure justice is delivered to all parties. The matter is delicate and the judicial system should be careful not to set precedents that will create loopholes that can cause exploitation of whichever party in the situation.
References
ACLU Conference. (n.d). Documents confirm how the NSA's surveillance procedures threaten Americans' privacy . Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/fact-sheet/documents-confirm-how-nsas-surveillance-procedures-threaten-americans-privacy
Bambauer, D. E. (2013). Privacy versus security. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 103(3): 667-683.
Conway, A., & Eckersley, P. ( 2017 ). When Does Law Enforcement’s Demand to Read Your Data Become a Demand to Read Your Mind? Communications Of The ACM. 60 (9), 38-40. DOI:10.1145/3012006
Craig, C. (2016). Apple takes on the FBI: What really at stake. InfoWorld Media Group, Inc. http://www.infoworld.com/
Greenberg, A. (2017, April). A big change in NSA spying marks a win for American privacy. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2017/04/big-change-nsa-spying-marks-win-american-privacy/
Kartit, Z., & Marraki, M. E. L. (2015). Applying Encryption Algorithm to Enhance Data Security in Cloud Storage. Engineering Letters, 23 (4), 277-282.
Levy, M. (2015). Protecting Consumer Date. Internal Auditor, August 2015. 33-37
Weinstein, J. M., Drake, W. L., & Silverman, N. P. (2015). Privacy Vs. Public Safety: Prosecuting and defending criminal cases in the post-Snowden era. American Criminal Review 52 , 729-52.
