Government Surveillance Essay

A common argument in American politics involves citizens' right to privacy. More specifically, does the government have the right to do surveillance to keep its citizens safe? Surveillance is, according to dictionary.com, "a watch kept over a person, group, etc., especially over a suspect..." Government surveillance in its current state is both effective and constitutional because it has been proven to stop attempted terrorist attacks, it is strictly overseen by federal courts, and it does not violate the fourth amendment. However, some argue that government surveillance is a breach of citizen privacy.
One example of the effectiveness of government surveillance is that it has been proven to stop attempted terrorist attacks. The ultimate purpose
The fourth amendment states, “"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." As stated earlier, the government cannot surveil someone without a warrant, or without probable cause. The surveillance programs are clearly not in violation of the fourth amendment. This is proven by Mike Rogers' statement in the article mentioned earlier. "When the NSA wants to query the records, it must establish through a court-approved process that there is a reasonable suspicion a specific number is connected to a foreign terrorist."
Despite this evidence, some argue that government surveillance is a breach on citizen privacy. In some cases, this is true. Despite the fact that the government got a warrant, they are still invading someone's private conversation. However, most of the time it is the conversation of a criminal. The surveillance of criminals may prevent crimes before they happen, making this breach of citizen privacy