National Security v. Civil Liberties (Raby)

National Security v. Civil Liberties

National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Jodi Ankiel -
Number of replies: 8

I believe that the Government shouldn't be able to do data mining, and violate everyones' privacy just because they think there is a suspicion of terrorism. They should find out more facts about the terrorist before they decide to search American people.

People who are innocent and have nothing to do with terrorism should be left alone and the people who give the suspicion of terrorism should be looked at. This will save peoples privacy.

 The government has to much power with privacy and it isn't fair to the people. The Patriot act can, "Allow federal agents to ask a court for an order to obtain business records in national security terrorism cases." But, the Government doesn't always have to ask the court to see records, they can just give a National Security letter to a business to see the records of the people. This lowers the threshold of the people.

In reply to Jodi Ankiel

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Michael Lang -
The only problem i see here is actually determining who looks suspicious and who doesnt. how will you know who is innocent if you dont check them first?
In reply to Jodi Ankiel

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Catherine Fowler -
I do agree with your statement mostly because there were many "innocent" citizens troubled by this but you can't trust anybody with what you say aloud, your actions, etc. and you never know who is a terrorist and who's not. With that being said, i think they were right to enforce a lot of security to keep a big eye out for anything out of the ordinary because i would rather have nobody dead than a ton of people.
In reply to Jodi Ankiel

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Cortney Brooks -
I agree with Michael, how are you supposed to know who's suspicious and who's not without data mining. Terrorists don't wear signs stating what they are, they try to blend in with the crowd. The patriot act was put in place for the greater good of the people.
In reply to Cortney Brooks

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Jodi Ankiel -
yes that is true, but we all have records of things that we have done bad. And if you aren't on those records why should you be catorgized as someone to be looked at for terrorism.
In reply to Jodi Ankiel

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Tonya Vernier -

I agree. It's not right that the government can just do as they please and get our information. Even if we are a terrorist, our right to living here is that we have those freedoms. They can figre things out by other means.

In reply to Tonya Vernier

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Christina Eiben -

if they  are a terriorist then their  probolly only in american to harm us. the government has the safety of all the people to concerned with. its part of their job to make the country safe and if a terrorist wants to harm our country then we have the right to collect data on them. why should we allow them to attack us?

In reply to Jodi Ankiel

Re: National Security v. Civil Liberties

by Christina Eiben -

If we dont give the government the power to collect data, then we are increasing the chances that we have to be attacked. id rather be safe then sorry. it not really violating our right because while they may have the data they are really using it, plus we gave them the power to protect us so how are we going to tell them how they are to do their job?