Should the Government be able to Monitor Phone Calls and Emails? Essay Sample

Currently, cell phones have become a near-ubiquitous device for seeking information and communicating with others. Today, mobile phones have become a computer in itself and are used for phone calls as well as sending and receiving emails. Due to its high efficiency in obtaining information, phone calls and emails have been extensively used even for malicious purposes that raise security concerns. For example, terrorist groups utilize the phone calls and emails to acquire the information they need to execute attacks on the populations. Similarly, robbery criminals use mobile phones to seek information about individuals they want to steal from or to organize robbery activities. It is for such reasons that the government, through National Security Agency (NSA), has indicated its intention towards monitoring citizen's phone calls and emails. However, the move has been met with sharp criticism which has led to a hot debate on the topic. Whereas a majority of the American citizens (82%) agree with the government to monitor terror suspects, most of them (57%) still believe that it is unacceptable for the state to turn phone call surveillance against the citizens (Esau, 55). To others, the encryption should revolve around a balance of law enforcement and enjoyment of civil liberties; encryption should be modified in a manner that reacts to needs of law enforcement but not entirely done at the expense of the citizen's civil liberties (Posner, 245). All said, the government should be allowed to monitor phone calls and emails because it is an effective tool in the fight against terrorism, NSA programs are legal with checks and balances, and it is better than eavesdropping.

To begin with, it is logically correct for the government to monitor the phone calls and emails for the citizens as a crucial means of fighting terrorism. Currently, it is in the knowledge of every American that terrorism is an active threat to the United States. There are numerous security threats around every citizen. It is possible that among the millions of illegal immigrants, there are potential members of the terror groups who are busy gathering information and sending to their headquarters via phone calls or emails. But here comes the government's move to tap every phone call and email as a way of fighting such security threats. In fact, online surveillance, as well as data mining, has been significant in stopping terror attacks in the United States and overseas since the deadliest terror attack of September 11, 2001, (Houston, 67). The surveillance programs are useful to the security authorities as they provide leads to arresting potential and existing terrorists within the United States (Houston, 67). This is achieved through the acquirement of "field of dots" from the phone calls and emails that may be sent by the terrorists which are used by the security experts to connect the relevant ones and pursue the culprits (Houston, 68). Therefore, by allowing the government to access the phone calls and emails exchanged among the citizens, the security agencies are empowered to be able to detect communication between existing terrorists and their headquarters and be able to track and arrest them as a way of stopping terror activities within the United States.

Furthermore, the government's decision to monitor phone calls and emails through NSA programs should not be a big deal because they are performed under a legal framework with necessary checks and balances. Arguably, every citizen should have been worried if the government was tapping their phone calls and emails illegally or through a system that lacks necessary legal checks and balances. However, according to Yoo, the NSA information gathering programs meet all the legal criteria necessary since the courts and the Congress are included in the programs (901). Moreover, to date, there has been no evidence that the privacy of any American citizen has been improperly or illegally invaded (Yoo, 901). Also, there exists no evidence of abuse of the authorities involved in gathering information on phone calls and emails. The fact that the information gathering programs cut across the three arms of the government implies a well checked and deliberative process that leaves little room for abuse of the citizens' civil liberties. The involvement of the Congress in the programs, particularly, is an assurance to the citizens that their interests will be considered. This is so because the Congress comprises of the peoples' elected representatives who act on their behalf leaving no space for speculation that surveillance programs can be used to act against the citizens. Given this position, therefore, it can be seen that the government's plan to monitor phone calls and emails is a well thought out, checked and balanced system which will not harm the citizens and should be allowed to proceed and realize the positive returns for the entire nation.

Apart from the reality that as a result of government monitoring phone calls and emails, security threats are overcome and that the programs are legal, well checked and balance, the move is also a much better one than eavesdropping. Perhaps everyone feels extremely bad to learn of being eavesdropped. NSA has been speculated to be eavesdropping on the citizens. However, the reality is that NSA is doing data mining which is much far better than eavesdropping. According to Miller, NSA could indiscriminately collect all the citizens' phone calls and emails but to take a peek at them they have to elevate through a much higher legal barrier (105). At the collection stage, no one has access to the data as it is simply captured. However, at the query stage which is perhaps where a study of one's phone call or email may be done, court approval is required (Miller, 105). This brings to one's realization that there are sensible and visible restrictions before a phone call or email is being studied even if it has been captured. According to Miller, there is a significant assurance that NSA has to build sensible and strong oversight systems that ensure information collected from the citizens via their phone calls and emails is not abused or studied anyhow (105). Given such a reality, it can be realized that the government's intention to monitor phone calls and emails is not eavesdropping as may be speculated; rather it is a data mining process aimed at a later query of data with content that is suspected to raise security or ethical concerns. Still, the said data is not studied until court approval is acquired making the government's initiative a substantive and meaningful one which should be supported.

Nonetheless, on the other side of the debate, those who oppose the government's intention to monitor phone calls and emails argue that such a program is a threat to democracy. It is argued that the government's surreptitious collection of data essentially alters its relationship with citizens (Blakely et al., 32). This is because the government's intention to build extensive and secret digital dossiers capturing individual phone calls and emails is at the crossroads with the nation's framers who came up with the Fourth Amendment that discouraged indiscriminate searches (Blakely et al., 32). Those opposing the program go ahead to state that the plan is equally an attack on the First Amendment to the Constitution on values of free speech and association (Blakely et al., 32). In their position, a democratic government should allow the people to know what techniques are being used to spy on them, for how long the records are being kept, for what length of time, who accesses it and what safeguards are in place to prevent abuse of their details they may communicate through phone calls and emails (Blakely et al., 32).

Whereas those opposing monitoring of phone calls and emails by the government have made valid reasons to justify their position, there is still room to differ with them because of some reasons. First, as discussed earlier, the NSA's programs for data collection are extensive and include the three arms of the government; the legislative, judiciary and the executive. The law usually requires that court approval is obtained before invading on an individual's privacy by way of collecting personal data through phone calls or emails. The inclusion of the judiciary in the phone call and email monitoring programs means that such a requirement is met. Also, the inclusion of the Congress implies that the monitoring program being established has the input of the citizens through their representatives in the Congress. Secondly, it appears that the worry of most citizens is that their personal information obtained through phone calls and emails may be abused. However, there has been no single evidence to indicate any victimization or abuse of an American citizen through the NSA's programs of monitoring phone calls and emails (Hacker et al., 78). Lastly, those opposing the plan appear to be more concerned about the potential harm to the civil liberties and democracy (including interference with private privacy) of the United States citizens. However, all will agree that national security and that of every citizen comes before democracy and liberty. For example, and God forbid, if another attack such as that of September 11, 2001, occurred, almost everyone would urge the Congress to do whatever they can to prevent another attack. Privacy would be sacrificed for safety. This is an example to inform those opposing the NSA program to weigh benefits of the plan against the potential dangers citizens are exposed to if phone calls and emails are not screened for detection of malicious communications between potential terrorists.

Conclusion

Overall, the government should be allowed to monitor phone calls and emails as a way of addressing security concerns and also because it is a legal, balanced and checked system which is better than eavesdropping. The government's main motivation to tap peoples' calls and emails is to stop terrorist attacks by pursuing potential terrorists through their communications and ensure the safety of its citizens. Furthermore, the program involves the Congress as well as the judiciary which gives it a deliberative, balanced and well-checked status erasing suspicions that individual's data is illegally collected and studied. The government, through online surveillance of phone calls and emails, conducts a data mining and not just eavesdropping. The data mining is guided by a legal framework guided by the judiciary, thus eliminating the possibility of the government eavesdropping on the citizens. Ideally, the government should be allowed to monitor phone calls and emails particularly as a means of addressing terrorism which is a threat to the safety of every citizen.

Work Cited

Blakely, Tamra, et al. "Apples conundrum: Liberty vs. security and modern terrorism." Editorial Board (2016): 32.

Esau, Lora A. "The Correlation between Wiretapping and Terrorism: A Comparative Analysis of American and European Societal Views on Government Surveillance." ILSA J. Int'l & Comp. L. 23 (2016): 55.

Hacker, Kenneth L., Bridget Acquah-Baidoo, and Anthony Epperson. "Reconciling the Needs for National Security and Citizen Privacy in an Age of Surveillance." Ethical Issues and Citizen Rights in the Era of Digital Government Surveillance. IGI Global, 2016. 78-102.

Houston, Tayler. "Mass Surveillance and Terrorism: Does PRISM Keep Americans Safer?." (2017).

Miller, Kevin. "Total Surveillance, Big Data, and Predictive Crime Technology: Privacy's Perfect Storm." J. Tech. L. & Pol'y 19 (2014): 105.

Posner, Richard A. "Privacy, surveillance, and law." The University of Chicago Law Review 75.1 (2008): 245-260.

Yoo, John. "The Legality of the National Security Agency's Bulk Data Surveillance Programs." Harv. JL & Pub....