There are many factors which come in to play with whistle blowing in general. Although some people do support these acts which bring things to light that would not otherwise be known, it is in some instances, still recognized as wrong. Edward Snowden, did commit crimes against the country by indirectly releasing government secrets and if he wanted to make a point there were more official ways he could have done so. If he really did want to make a point, there are ways he could have done so without committing such a crime. However, since this has occurred, it has brought up this necessary issue even if it was under unorthodox methods.
It is clear that the issue of surveillance is necessary in order to have increased security but the more we place our lives in the hands of others, the more power they have over us. According to Business Insider 82% of people are in favor of monitoring communications of those whom are suspected terrorists. Business Insider also found that 60% find it satisfactory if leaders within America had monitored communications.
As it turns out most everyone isn’t a terrorist or a government leader and It’s always easy to say “monitor that guy over their so I know that he is a good person.” Monitoring laws are just simply not that simple. If that were the case, everyone would be monitoring everyone in this case our own system of security would defeat the purpose of its implementation. In order for the system to work effectively people need rights to a certain level of privacy.
I am of the opinion that those rights being upheld, could in fact hinder some investigations of security. That is the price of the mass use of the technological wonders which we have at our disposal. Occasionally, a misdeed occurs. Is that not why we have organizations which are designed to find evidence of misdeeds and bring them to be accused and tried for them?
The key idea is that the rights of people must be maintained. Violation of those rights will only bring about mistrust of the system. If someone has evidence against them which makes them a suspect of terrorism it is important to try them, just as has been done in the past when we did not have these technologies. If this were case, I am sure that there would be more than enough willing to state or even prove their position. In fact, Business Insider also found that 45% of people are not troubled if the government has surveillance on their email messages. This research goes to show that people are willing to say they have nothing to hide. The issue is they should be given the chance to do so if they are under suspect.
http://www.businessinsider.com/post-snowden-americans-remain-divided-on-surveillance-2015-3
I read this early on, but thought I commented. I liked your thinking through the survey from the Business Insider post. In the end, most people are not that sophisticated to know the difference between government surveillance and privacy, collecting everything and missing the bad guys, or focusing on those who are suspects (i.e., probable cause) under the 4th amendment. Having no court block the surveillance is another big problem. Hence, no stopping full surveillance of everyone. See my class blog on the FISA court.
ReplyDelete