Question

12月4日 08:48According to the website of the Los Angeles Times, "the immigration and customs enforcement agency often collects citizens' personal information across legal and moral boundaries". The Bureau has established a wide range of monitoring infrastructure, which can track anyone at almost any time. And the Bureau improved its monitoring capability almost completely secretly and unsupervised, avoiding the relevant regulations. Facts have proved that monitoring has little effect in combating terrorism. Instead, our ordinary citizens have become suspects, and citizens have no privacy at all. What is the purpose of the authorities and governments?

Answer 1

The purpose of government surveillance is often rooted in national security needs, but it has raised issues regarding civil liberties and privacy, especially with the advancement of technology. Balancing security and privacy rights is a persistent challenge, with significant implications for the rule of law and individual freedoms.

Step-by-step explanation:

Purpose of Government Surveillance

Government surveillance has often been justified on the grounds of national security, particularly in the wake of events like the September 11 attacks. Agencies such as the FBI within the U.S. have their activities somewhat restricted by the Fourth Amendment. However, implementations like the Terrorist Surveillance Program by the NSA and the USA PATRIOT Act have expanded surveillance capabilities and, many argue, infringed on civil liberties. Critics suggest that these measures have been used to prosecute ordinary crimes instead of their intended target: terrorism. Technological advancements have made tracking and monitoring more pervasive, raising concerns about the balance between security and the right to privacy.

Internationally, the challenges of illegal immigration and border security have been linked with terrorism, leading governments to employ intensive surveillance and policing measures such as those reflected in the 'show me your papers' provision upheld in Arizona v. United States. Surveillance technologies, while beneficial for purposes like traffic monitoring and crime prevention, also raise concerns regarding oppressive uses by regimes, as seen historically. One significant ruling for privacy came with Carpenter v. United States (2018), where the Supreme Court required police to have a warrant to gather phone location data.

Despite these concerns, government surveillance continues to be a tool for various purposes beyond border security, including managing traffic flow and targeting criminal networks. The essence is to find a balance that safeguards civil liberties while equipping the government to address threats effectively.