Responses should be a minimum of 250 words and include direct questions. You may challenge, support or supplement another student’s answer using the terms, concepts and theories. Also, do not be afraid to respectfully disagree where you feel appropriate; as this should be part of your analysis process at this academic level.

Forum posts are graded on timeliness, relevance, knowledge of the weekly readings, and the quality of original ideas. Sources utilized to support answers are to be cited in accordance with the APA writing style by providing a general parenthetical citation (reference the author, year and page number) within your post, as well as an adjoining reference list. Refer to grading rubric for additional details concerning grading criteria.

Grading: Forums are graded using the following rubric: SSGS Discussion Forum Grading Rubric

Respond to:

The Irish lawyer and politician John Philpot Curran said, “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” The question has become is it moral for eternal vigilance to infringe upon our civil liberties? The advancement in technology has become overwhelming in the information age. Computers and social media have created realms in which we have a reasonable expectation of privacy that make Katz V. U.S. seem archaic by comparison.

According to a 2011 study conducted by the Pew research group, “fewer Americans think it will be necessary to sacrifice civil liberties to combat terrorism”. (Doherty, 2013) However, the government’s demands regarding the San Bernardino shooter Syed Farook’s encrypted iPhone has ignited a debate on whether Apple should be required to create a device with the ability to override the iPhone’s encryption measures that in the wrong hands is a threat to American civil liberties. I understand Apple’s argument to protect civil liberties, however I also believe exigent circumstances do exist to supersede those rights. According to the Supreme Court, “the public safety exception is triggered when police officers have an objectively reasonable need to protect the police or the public from immediate danger.” (Benoit, 2011) One of the key words in that statement is “Immediate”. If there is a threat, to the public especially with the increased number of active shooter type attacks, exigent circumstances to view information stored on electronic devices should be allowed. The exceptions should be that it is only used to mitigate the immediate threat, not for a prolonged investigation or subsequent crimes. At that point other investigative techniques are available to law enforcement officers that are not as time sensitive.

“Ivan Fong, JD ’87, former general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agrees that data collection has to stay within constitutional limits, while lauding the importance of intelligence in national security investigations.” (Rigoglioso, 2014) To this point “use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, by the military has increased dramatically as part of the effort to combat terrorism overseas. But use of drones in the U.S., for a variety of purposes, may also be on the rise.” (Rigoglioso, 2014) As the power of these drones continue to increase, it is easier for criminals and terrorists to use the technology on U.S. citizens. Therefore law enforcement must also step up UAV surveillance technology to combat threats. How do U.S. citizens combat the escalating technology war, and how can law enforcement limit use of this technology without impeding their work? I believe leveraging technology even more may be part of the solution. No UAV zones should become an important public conversation along with citizen being afforded rights against unwanted surveillance. I turn transparent monitoring of devices operating and potentially violating people rights needs to be strictly enforced without surveilling people in the process. While this may seem impossible, I believe new technologies can accomplish the task. Public awareness of technology is mportant. First Citizens must understand the threats that UAV can cause from criminal activity and they also must have the awareness to the governments use of the same technology to protect them.

References:

Doherty, C. (2013). Balancing Act: National Security and Civil Liberties in Post-9/11 Era. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from:http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/balancing-act-national-security-and-civil-liberties-in-post-911-era/

Benoit, C. A. (2011). The Public Safety Exception to Miranda. FBI Legal Digest. Retrieved from: https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-the-public-safety-exception-to-miranda

Rigoglioso, M. (2014). Civil Liberties and Law in the Era of Surveillance. Stanford Lawyer, Issue 91. Retrieved from: https://law.stanford.edu/stanford-lawyer/articles/civil-liberties-and-law-in-the-era-of-surveillance/