Senate Narrowly Rejects New Limits on Internet Surveillance
Whether or not to protect the browsing history of internet users has arisen as a discussion. On Wednesday, May 13th, the Senate was voting on this topic. The Senate ended up short one vote of approving the proposal to keep federal law enforcement from getting internet browsing information or obtaining search history without getting a warrant. Ron Wyden, the co-author of the bipartisan amendment and democratic sen, said, “Should law-abiding Americans have to worry about their government looking over their shoulders from the moment they wake up in the morning and turn on their computers to when they go to bed at night? I believe the answer is no. But that’s exactly what the government has the power to do without our amendment.” Before congress left due to the coronavirus pandemic, the vote came as the Senate considered the renewal of three surveillance provisions. The Senator’s Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, inspired the senators to vote against Wyden and Daines amendment and their reasoning for that was already a “delicate balance”. They advised provisions wouldn’t be renewed had they change it. McConnell said before the vote, “We cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good when key authorities are currently sitting expired and unuseable,” Two months ago, the compromise legislation was passed by The House. However, McConnell couldn’t get enough support to approve the part in the Senate. As a substitute, a simple extension of the surveillance laws was passed. It is not clear if McConnell will be able to get all the votes he needs for the passage on Thursday.
- Do you think the proposal to prevent federal law enforcement from obtaining internet browsing information or searching history without seeking a warrant should be approved?
- Should Americans have to worry about the government looking into them all the time?
I think that the federal law enforcement shouldn't have access to people's internet history and browsing information without a warrant. It is an invasion of privacy and security. I don't think Americans should have to worry about the government looking into personal history searches.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100 percent! It is an invasion of privacy and should not be accessed that easy.
DeleteI don't believe that this proposal should be approved as this would most certainly be a invasion of privacy and would most likely turn every technology that is connected to the internet into eyes and ears for the government. And I'm personally thinking of worse case scenarios, or black mirror-sequel future where the government knows us more than we know ourselves and have tailored every part of our lives so they essentially have control of every action and reaction of ours. I'm also thinking from just a security standpoint as having all information in then government could be susceptible to a cyber attack that spills information of millions of Americans. As for us worrying 24/7, I would have to say somewhere in the middle of worrying constantly and not being worried. People should be aware of propositions such as this one that would make their online activity easily accessible to the government but don't be so worried that you become leave society as a whole and avoid every camera or technology in sight.
ReplyDeleteI think the proposal to prevent federal law enforcement from obtaining internet browsing information or searching history without seeking a warrant should be approved because privacy is already a human right and internet privacy is a part of that right. Americans should not have to worry about the government looking into their internet browsing information all the time. This also brings up the question where the government's invasion of privacy will go if unwarranted access to search history is granted. I think the government will continue to invade privacy if granted this access, so it is necessary to prevent it now in order to prevent problems later.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the proposal to prevent federal law enforcement from our internet information without a warrant should be approved. Privacy is an important right and should be protected. If there's no suspicion of illegal online behavior, then we should really be the only ones to have access to our browsing history and online activity. Although innocent people shouldn't have anything to worry about, it's still an invasion of privacy. If police need a warrant to search you house, it feels like it would be fair if federal law enforcement also needed a warrant to check your internet history. Each state has its own online privacy laws. Since there is a lot of personal information stored online it seems right that it should stay private because if that information gets leaked somehow, that can be very dangerous. According to a Pew Research Institute study, 74% of Americans said that protecting their personal information online was "very important". This means that that needs to stay private and I think that this proposal could have helped that.
ReplyDeleteSource: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/how-your-personal-information-is-protected-online
I believe that the proposal to prevent federal law enforcement from our internet information without a warrant should definitely be approved. Privacy is, according to gilc.org, "fundamental human right recognized in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many other international and regional treaties." If the united states denied this bill, then it would be an infringement on this human right. If this was allowed by the UN, then it could lead to more infringements, causing a worse society to live in.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the other comments that the proposal should be passed, as privacy has been outlined as a fundamental human right. Additionally, increased surveillance of internet activity could lead to increased danger that our information would be leaked to hackers, even if it is only for the government to see. While I think that some people are too paranoid about government surveillance, we should still be at least somewhat concerned about the government breaching our privacy as it could lead to some terrifying futures.
ReplyDelete