2nd Point

As my second point, I believe it is important to discuss the privacy that is being invaded by the government while wiretapping. While the government is trying to wiretap into an alleged terrorists, they also intercept 1,000 phone calls that they don't need. This is a violation of American's privacy. In 1994, one million calls were inadvertantly wiretapped into.

The government is using this method to find alleged terrorists, however how does the government know if they are terrorists? How do they know if they are tapping into the right calls? The phone companies were invading people's privacy by giving the list of phone numbers called by a specific phone.

The government is getting too much of a privledge to invade people's privacy and the thought is that the government is going to take advantage of this privledge. In the matter of ten years, the percent of people being wiretapped into doubled. The usage of wiretaps is increasing tremendously.

1st Point

Originally I was going to use privacy as my first point to argue as my strongest point. However, after much review of my articles, I have found that there is a lot more information on the unconstitutional part of this arguement. Also, the amendements, includying four and five, play a big role in this arguement.

The first idea is that the government will be receiving too much power and may ultimately abuse this privledge they have. Many laws regarding wiretapping are very vague and can easily be twisted to fit the necessities of the person. The idea of a warrant is not a strict law for wiretapping based on the fact that telephone/internet tapping was not a issue when the constitution was written. Therefore, there was no part about telephone/internet tapping. The general public is afraid that the government will be become the "Big Brother" and abuse their privledge.

The fourth amendment is based on warrants being needed to question a person. A specific place is needed to grant a warrant. Also, it needs to be given by a judge. With the wiretapping no specific location is needed and it does not have to be administered by a judge. It is a secretive process that is not constitutional.

Also, it is arguable that the fifth amendment is being violated, by not giving people the right of due process of law. Also they are not receiving a case in an open court.

Pros and Cons

There are many pros and cons that go along with the arguement of the governments ability to eavesdrop on telephone conversations. With the attacks on the United States in 2001, an immediate passing of the Patriot Act made complete sense. With the fear arising in many people due to this horrific attack, the act was justified. However, now there should be some altercations made because of the unjustices in the act.

A main arguement against the governments ability to freely intercept phone conversations is the lack of personal freedom that each U.S. citizen or permanent visitor has. Civil libertarians believe that the governments ability to tap in without a warrant. Also the idea that innocent phone conversations will be inadvertantly tapped into is a fear. There was also an arguement made that Congress did not really look into this act fully before passing it. It is argued that this act violates the Fourth Amendment.

Arguements made in favor of this act is that the protection of U.S. citizens is most important and that is the purpose of this act. It is said that the benefits overpower the risks involved with this act. Human's protection is more important than their privacy.

Overview -- The Government Tapping in on People's Phone Conversations

Since the recent terrorist attacks on the United States, the government has the capability to evesdrop on people's phone conversations. It is said that this is a method of protecting our country. However, the debate is whether or not this is a just way of protecting our country or if it is a major invasion of personal privacy.

Based on the Patriot Act, signed by George W. Bush, in October of 2001, the government does not need a reason or "warrant" to tap into a phone conversation or internet conversation. Although the idea here is very relevent and important, the method of action may be infringing on people's privacy rights.

In my research paper, I will research the government's methods and requirements on tapping in on these people's phone and internet conversations. Ultimately, I will come to a conclusion on whether this method of public protection is morally just and correct.