https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
John Oliver is a comedian and political satirist. If you look past the humor, Oliver brings up important aspects of government surveillance. This episode he takes on the NSA and government surveillance. The Patriot Act and the controversial provisions need to be reauthorized or they will expire on June 1, 2015. Previously the Patriot act has been extended easily, Oliver mocks how easily it passed in 2011 and the media barely cared to give it attention. But now that Edward Snowden has leaked information about the NSA and surveillance. People are now paying more attention to Patriot Act and the NSA's actions. He also discusses the nature of section 215 which gives the government the right to collect "any tangible things for an investigation to protect against international terrorism. The government says there is security laws effecting what they're allowed to do. They have to answer to the FISA court. But the FISA court has approved 35,434 applications for survelliance orders and only rejected 12. Despite of these facts around 46% of American's say they are not very or not all concerned about the government surveillance programs. Oliver interviews Snowden and discusses the difficulties in understanding this program and the invisible actors. The people need to decide what the balance between privacy and security.
The increasing presence of the internet in daily life has created a challenge for the state. As we discussed in class there are no real political boundaries in cyberspace. Even though the NSA claims they are subject to an approval by FISA it has been shown that it is not too hard to get approval. Therefore there are no real borders or checkpoints for the government and surveillance at this point. The development and growth of cyberspace is furthering globalization and can cause good effects (like deterrence and perception) but there still needs to be a system of restrictions. Even though most American's do not seem to be concerned it doesn't mean they aren't. People may not know to the full extent the programs of the NSA. People may also have a hard time drawing the line between what is needed for safety and what is considered too much. States need to adopt laws that protect people in cyber space. For example, it is against federal law to read someone else's mail if we extended this to emails as well then we are offering more cyber security. I'm not sure exactly what system needs to be put into place but the qualifications for something being a "threat to national security" need to more narrow and well defined to ensure governments aren't infringing on people's rights. It is natural for the state to expand into cyberspace but if left unchecked this could be a dangerous power.
I saw this and it is hilarious...everyone should watch it.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you mention that surveillance is also borderless in response to a the borderless reaches of cyberspace. I have to ask though, how would you narrow government surveillance?
I see what you mean by there having to be some sort of federal law offering more cyber security to citizens but I'm curious would this be extended to like an international law. Technically hackers in another nation could tap into your email and read the e-mails, steal credit card information, and so on. How do we protect citizens against that? Does this type of crime also fall under the jurisdiction of the state and it's authority in cyber space?
ReplyDeleteI think that cybersecurity and government surveillance is a very slippery slope because, as you said, cyber space is fairly borderless. Hackers from around the world have the ability to gain access into information fairly easily, and their governments may not have as strong of cybersecurity measures as do the US (and dealing with these hackers as well). Along the lines of what Val said with the fact that there are no explicit borders to cyberspace at what point should our government stop with surveillance, while also maintaining the strong security measures for its citizen?
ReplyDeleteCyber security is an interesting topic because, as has been mentioned, how do you erect borders and protections on something that is inherently borderless? US citizens want protections from foreign governments so that something like the Sony hack does not happen again, yet how is this accomplished without giving our government more control? Is it possible for governments to regulate and defend the cyberspace that is within their physical borders? Can cyberspace even be defined as existing in a specific territory? I think that cybersecurity is difficult because states do not want to abuse the rights of their citizens (well most anyway), yet they want to protect them from security threats that could reveal themselves in cyberspace and thus the need for surveillance. I completely agree with Tim and would second his question about where the line is between safety and privacy for government surveillance because that is very difficult to answer and varies for each individual.
ReplyDeleteI think the people of this nation would have to kind of decided what qualifies as safety and what is the government overstepping its boundaries and infringing on people's rights.The people and corporations could work together to call for governmental change. I think in order to narrow government surveillance one thing that needs to be reformed is the FISA court. They need stricter definitions and regulations to ensure not just anything can be approved. Additionally, they could try to hold the NSA more accountable and call for more oversight over the agency. Perhaps, creating a legal framework the organization has to operate within.
ReplyDeleteTo solve international threats of hackers and for governments who do not want to be spied on by one another, they would have to come together. Through the UN or other international governmental organizations, countries could establish laws that would help protect cyber security and target cyber crimes. While these agreement wouldn't be binding it might allow countries to voice concerns and offer potential solutions.
I strongly believe that the government collection of data should continue. I know many believe their privacy is being invaded, but what I don't get is once another attack happens what will the people say? The FBI in conjuction with other federal agencies such as the CIA, DEA, and The Department of Homeland Security have done a damn decent job of stopping further attacks. Many of these attacks were never even disclosed to the public or media, some were so scary close to happening. My thinking is the US lives in our own little world, people too often forget that their are simply people that would kill you in a heartbeat and take everything and make it their own. I don't want to sound extreme, I am only saying that too often people speak as if the United States is doing the citizens harm. Are we always right? No. Has the government messed up? Yes. We need to continue to adapt and change to face an ever-adapting and changing enemy.
ReplyDeleteI do believe some privacy is necessary, but if you want to email your cousin about plans to kill or maim U.S. citizens, yes your email should be flagged. Your personally conversation with your girlfriend or best friend however should not be collected.