User Tools

Site Tools


domestic_surveillance-_hiding_behind_the_patriot_act

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
domestic_surveillance-_hiding_behind_the_patriot_act [2015/04/06 11:42]
jmcgivern01_mail.roosevelt.edu
domestic_surveillance-_hiding_behind_the_patriot_act [2015/04/06 12:06] (current)
jmcgivern01_mail.roosevelt.edu JVDEY
Line 29: Line 29:
  
  
-NSA and PRISM go hand in hand when it comes to surveillance,​ but they are not always ​used in a way that is beneficial ​to citizens. Two NSA surveillance programs were exposed in press reports in June 2013. +NSA and PRISM go hand in hand when it comes to surveillance,​ but they do not always ​care how intrusive they are to our privacy. Two NSA surveillance programs were exposed in press reports in June 2013. 
-Basically what happened was that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) ordered Verizon Wireless Phone Company to disclose phone records of millions of US citizens to the NSA. Many of us don’t know exactly how they had the authority to do this. Phone records can be a private personal thing depending on where you are making a call to. If suspicious activity is going on then they didn’t need to take millions of peoples phone records. They just need the few of the individuals ​who the government deems as a threat ​or potential threat.[(:​DomesticSurveillanceControversyUnderObama>>​+What happened was that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) ordered Verizon Wireless Phone Company to disclose phone records of millions of US citizens to the NSA. They did this to find out who was a threat ​to the US and what they were plotting.[(:​DomesticSurveillanceControversyUnderObama>>​
  
 [(DomesticSurveillanceControversyUnderObama>>​ [(DomesticSurveillanceControversyUnderObama>>​
Line 37: Line 37:
 publisher ​ : Council on Foreign Relations publisher ​ : Council on Foreign Relations
 url        : http://​www.cfr.org/​intelligence/​us-domestic-surveillance/​p9763 url        : http://​www.cfr.org/​intelligence/​us-domestic-surveillance/​p9763
-)] Another operation called PRISM was when the government surveillance many different types of media, and not just phone records. The government monitors our audio/video chats, emails, photos, and other media. ​ Subsequent leaks revealed details on additional programs that gave the NSA extensive electronic surveillance tools, both domestic and international,​ allowing the government to track and tap into conversations of suspected terrorists, civilians, and even friendly foreign heads of state.+)] Another operation called PRISM was when the government surveillance many different types of media, and not just phone records. The government monitors our audio/video chats, emails, photos, and other media. ​ Subsequent leaks revealed details on additional programs that gave the NSA extensive electronic surveillance tools, both domestic and international,​ allowing the government to track and tap into conversations of suspected terrorists, civilians, and even friendly foreign heads of state.[(:​DomesticSurveillanceControversyUnderObama>>​ 
 + 
 +[(DomesticSurveillanceControversyUnderObama>>​ 
 +title      : What is the Domestic Surveillance Controversy Under Obama? 
 +published ​ : December 18, 2013 
 +publisher ​ : Council on Foreign Relations 
 +url        : http://​www.cfr.org/​intelligence/​us-domestic-surveillance/​p9763 
 +)]
 The Obama administration initially defended the surveillance program, saying it is legal, limited, and effective in preventing terrorist attacks. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said the program does not monitor phone calls, but acquires telephony metadata to be queried only when there is a “reasonable suspicion” of links to a foreign terrorist organization. Experts say the White House is likely relying on Section 215 of the Patriot Act, a provision that says government can mandate the turnover of “any tangible things” from any entity as long as the items are for an investigation to defend against international terrorism or spying. [(:​DomesticSurveillanceControversyUnderObama>>​ The Obama administration initially defended the surveillance program, saying it is legal, limited, and effective in preventing terrorist attacks. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said the program does not monitor phone calls, but acquires telephony metadata to be queried only when there is a “reasonable suspicion” of links to a foreign terrorist organization. Experts say the White House is likely relying on Section 215 of the Patriot Act, a provision that says government can mandate the turnover of “any tangible things” from any entity as long as the items are for an investigation to defend against international terrorism or spying. [(:​DomesticSurveillanceControversyUnderObama>>​
  
domestic_surveillance-_hiding_behind_the_patriot_act.txt · Last modified: 2015/04/06 12:06 by jmcgivern01_mail.roosevelt.edu