Security vs. Privacy

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by ~Milady Kaoru~, Mar 5, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Security vs. Privacy

    George W. Bush is going to allow the government to put video cameras in American Citizen's homes if they are a suspicious suspect of any crime or even planning on a terrorist attack.

    Do you think that the President should allow such a rule for the fate of our security?

    If so, what if they were spying on the wrong person? That would be a crime of viewing the citizen's personal life.

    Our school had a debate about this. We were all pretty heated up on the debate and wanted to ring the other team's necks. So I'm asking people other than from my school...

    Security or Privacy?
     

  2. Sephiroth_Masamune

    Sephiroth_Masamune l 7SIN Sasori l

    It's not like it isn't happening already anyway. It's just being made public now for a actually outcome of what people think. It's always like that.

    I mean, people's personal lives are watched VERY easily. Ever watch the show "Cheaters"?

    As for a personal view; I am against it. I still think we all have a right to privacy. I mean, some of the things I do in my home are sacred. I so choose to do it there, they should respect that. If I wanted people watching me having sex, or talking about serious matters...I would do that kind of stuff outside.
     
  3. lavoidgaskins

    lavoidgaskins Registered Member

    To be honest wiht you and every one else I don't think any thing that man has done is a good thing. I thik he is just nosie and want to know every thing. To me every thing is a game to him to give him laughs. But, on topic I really don't know if that should be allowed or not.
     
  4. Italiano

    Italiano Film Elitist

    Well, first of all, he's not putting video cameras, its wire-taps.

    And second, he's only tapping international phone calls outside of the U.S.

    I can agree that procedures like this are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks against the U.S. And if people have nothing to hide, why do they resist it?

    What I DONT agree with, is Bush trying to bypass the warrant law that comes with the Patriot Act. He's trying to bypass a law that comes with the Patriot Act that says that the Agency needs a warrant to search and tap people's houses.

    Now, how hard is it for the PRESIDENT to get a damned warrant? That's the only thing that puzzles me, that Bush wants to bypass that part of the Act.

    However I still think procedures like this are necessary to prevent further terrorist activity in the U.S.
     
  5. Bush has been, and will continue to limit the freedoms that we have in this country.
     
  6. Italiano

    Italiano Film Elitist

    Bush hasn't done anything to limit our freedoms in the U.S. aside from the phone taps, if you really consider those to be a "limit to freedom". And the phone taps are only for international phone calls and for our security.

    Would you rather have ultimate freedom or proper security to ensure our safety?
     
  7. You do not consider Homeland secruity, and the Patirot Act as intrustions into the privacy of US citizens? There is a simple and easy solution that does not require any of that...it is called we need to pull out of the Middle Easy, especially Iraq, then we would not have near as much to worry about, except people bitching about our alliance with Israel.
     
  8. Italiano

    Italiano Film Elitist

    Like I said aside from the phone taps, Neither Bush nor Homeland Security has made invasions of privacy. It is taking proper measures of security. What would someone have to hide about an international phone call if there was nothing illegal mentioned in the conversation?

    And pulling out of the Middle East wouldn't make a difference. We would most likely have even more to worry about if we hadn't entered Iraq and taken Hussein out of power.
     
  9. The Patriot Act can allow them to invade certain people's privacy, just for being suspected, and I believe it may be without a warrant, though Bush may be pushing for that so it may not be up. Yet they have no right to monitor famlies caling each other, etc.

    That is why we shouldnt have entereted Iraq, etc.
     
  10. Italiano

    Italiano Film Elitist

    First of all, as I stated earlier, I still agree that Bush should not ignore the warrant law. I do believe that if there is sufficient evidence to support probable cause and a warrant is issued, then proper safety precautions should be taken.

    And second, the U.S. entering Iraq wouldn't have any effect on the safety precautions taken here at home.

    Before we had even entered Iraq we had begun to tighten up security in the U.S. The Patriot Act would still exist even if we hadn't entered the Middle East.

    9/11 was what led to the Patriot Act and the tightening of security.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page