Essay Sample on Intelligence World: Surveillance & Information Processing Post-9/11

Introduction

In this age of digital technology and the increase in the cases of terrorism, governments around the world have invested heavily in surveillance and intelligence. The increase in intelligence has led to government processing too much information about individuals, subsectors, and government daily. The intelligence world believes that the primary goal of intelligence is to gather as much information to have a comprehensive picture of the world. After 9/11, the US government passed the Patriotic Act in 2001 that expanded the government's rights to conduct massive surveillance on citizens. However, over the years, the public's view on the amount and level of surveillance has often shifted. There has always been a division between activists and citizens the issue. Still, Americans made a choice to trade their primary concern for security and given up their personal data to strengthen national security.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Supporting Spying

The supporters of government spying on the citizens often present the argument that if one has not done anything wrong, then they do not have anything to fear. Upon a curious inspection of this view, it seems to make sense since most people are law-abiding and such surveillance might not affect their lives. Such a move would make their lives more comfortable and safer by eliminating crime. Therefore, the government's idea of having closed-circuit television cameras in public places, library recording, and warrantless wiretappings has the potential to save lives and give minimal chances for terrorists to have their way into their country (Gilman and Rebecca 253). The argument presents, in this case, makes much more sense, although I think that there are still loopholes that these individuals fail to explore.

Besides, the idea that the proponent of surveillance tends to offers is that personal data collection ensures that the government understands the views of citizens in terms of policies. With such information, the government can amend to serve society better. The government and law enforcement agencies need to have information on where crime is likely to happen. For instance, in Las Vegas, the police use historical crime data to predict the streets and blocks that are likely to experience crime (Doyle, 3). Such a move is only possible in cases where the government can collect personal data on the citizens. As much as they present some quality argument, I do not think that they realize the risk involved with managing such a considerable amount of data about its citizens.

However, there are some groups that they are providing that might provide a ground to agree to their arguments. The idea of national security is a critical aspect of any countries progress. In recent years there have been many threats to our national security, and we expect the government to protect us. Therefore, from the basis that as citizens, we hope the governed to protect us, I would agree to the idea that it should carry out surveillance.

The Defense Department

The US government and the Defense Department authorize US citizens' monitoring by gathering massive amounts of data without warrants (Martínez et al.,100). The public lacks the information on why the government collects the data secretly because this has been taking place under the radar. The Human Rights Watch believes that the procedure may cause severe problems on people's rights since they have been kept in the dark on the occurrence. The reason is that the monitoring is believed to use potentially biased and discriminative criteria, which may negatively impact US citizens' lives. Many individuals may be wrongfully accused of engaging in questionable activities, which may be unnecessary for the matter at hand.

Moreover, this kind of surveillance violates the federal laws of the state, prohibiting warrantless monitoring of individuals. This is because an individual's privacy is violated, and they have a right to sue whoever is undertaking such actions. For instance, if criminals lay their hands on the information, many people may be targeted since they have been exposed. Due to this, the involved organizations have kept it from the public; many people will disapprove of their ways of acquiring intelligence (Rollins,pp.200). Besides, the type of surveillance does not precisely mention or identify individuals suspected of a crime in the state. Therefore, if the Defense Department thinks that they have suspects in the region, they should focus on them rather than involving every citizen. This is because obtaining a warrant is much more credible in dealing with criminals instead of putting all citizens in danger for the sake of intelligence.

The US government has a responsibility to safeguard and protect its citizens and permanent residents. It, therefore, cannot put them in intentional danger since their lives matter. First, my position and the opposing viewpoint have a common ground on the security issue (Rollins,pp.88). The reason is that insecurity can be eradicated from the state by using the Intelligence Department's information. Although it may collect a lot more than the required, it is beneficial to society in the long run. This is because it exposes suspicious individuals who may be involved with terrorist groups targeting national security. Besides, it facilitates the fight against terrorism and crime. This, therefore, promotes the safety of all citizens and residents of the US.

Furthermore, there is a common ground that involves the government controlling people and dealing with social unrest. This is common during campaigns and election periods where the candidates influence people. Here, they may be paid to cause social unrest that will enable the candidates to rig votes to win the elections. The intelligence gathered may be useful in controlling people to avoid the influence of such individuals on the public. This way, people can be contained to prevent the impact from such corrupt individuals.

Although the US government means well for its citizens, it should limit the surveillance of the citizens. First, it requires intelligence to determine the activities conducted within its jurisdiction (Martínez et al.,90) This enables it to formulate policies that will safeguard these individuals in terms of crisis. Also, it should collect the appropriate amount of data that will effectively run the state without endangering their lives. Therefore, it should compromise its operations by limiting the amount of data collected about its citizens. This will enable it to focus on the credible and appropriate information useful to the state.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I do think that that the proponent fails to look at is the risk of such data being used for the wrong reason. There is a risk that such surveillance creates an archive of information that is vulnerable to abuse by trusted insisted. There are several cases where individuals have used government databases for their selfish gains. Besides, governments have also explored surveillance regulation to collect too much data that is not necessary. Therefore, as much as there is a need for security that necessitates the collection of personal data, there should be limitations to how much surveillance the government can engage in.

Works Cited

Doyle, Tony. "Kevin Macnish: The ethics of surveillance: an introduction." (2020): 1-4.

Gilman, Michele, and Rebecca Green. "The surveillance gap: The harms of extreme privacy and data marginalization." NYU Rev. L. & Soc. Change 42 (2018): 253.

Martínez, Michael T., et al. "Press narratives of NSA domestic surveillance." Atlantic Journal of Communication 28.2 (2020): 85-102.

Rollins, Tyler Russell. Domestic Surveillance in the United States: World War II to Vietnam. Diss. University of Colorado at Boulder, (2016):1-234.