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.
1 comment:
Hey Jen. I think you have really good points on both sides that will make it easier for you to find information on whichever side you are on. I was just a little unclear on which stance you took. Otherwise, all of your information is significantly relevant. Just make sure to elaborate further on each of your points, such as, for instance, how it violates the 4th amendment, etc.
Post a Comment