thesis statement on surveillance

Most Popular

English and social studies teachers pioneer ai usage in schools, study finds, best summarising strategies for students.

13 days ago

TeachMeforFree Review

How to cite page numbers in apa, what is accidental plagiarism, security cameras as a factor of disturbance essay sample, example.

Though crime cameras have proved themselves to be an effective tool for fighting street and organized crime, concerns about their wide use still remain. Nancy La Vigne, the director of Chicago’s Justice Policy Center, says camera systems are often believed to be violating citizens’ constitutionally-protected right to privacy when they are used to identify non-lawbreakers (SmartPlanet). Though there are rules limiting cameras’ possibilities (for example, they should not be able to pan, tilt, and zoom in order not to look into the windows of the apartment buildings or backyards), how can one be sure they are not watched and these rules are observed? Surveys show about 23% of U.S. citizens tend to believe security cameras violate their privacy (Rasmussen Reports).

Opponents of surveillance also stress the fact that security cameras can evoke negative emotions in citizens, and make them feel like they are being constantly watched and controlled. This refers both to adults, who already have an established system of views on the state, the government, and the society—and children, who are in the process of developing such a system. A senior policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union, Jay C. Stanley, thinks “Constant surveillance, from the time children enter school to the time they leave, teaches the wrong thing about the relationship between the citizen and the government in a democratic society.” Stated succinctly, children may believe the State has a right to interfere in the private lives of its citizens, and being under control and surveillance is a norm (Association of American Educators).

Citizens sensitive to civil liberties can find surveillance through cameras extremely uncomfortable and stressing. Usually, these are people who are extremely passionate about the privacy of their lives, or about their personal security; the proponents of left-wing political and conspiracy theories also tend to treat surveillance cameras negatively, as a tool of the State oppressing its citizens. Also, people with psychological disorders—for example those with paranoid tendencies—can display severe disturbance about the fact of being watched.

Though surveillance cameras are meant to help protect citizens from street and organized crime, and are an effective tool of monitoring, there exist several issues concerning privacy and ethics. Thus, about 23% of people in the U.S. believe surveillance cameras violate their rights in regard to privacy. Children under constant surveillance (at schools, for example) are believed to adopt a wrong understanding of the relationship between the citizens and the government. In addition, the fact of observance can cause severe stress in individuals sensitive to civil liberties. References “23% Think Surveillance Cameras have Violated Their Privacy – Rasmussen Reports™.” Rasmussen Reports. N.p., 26 Apr. 2013. Web. 10 July 2013. <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2013/23_think_surveillance_cameras_have_violated_their_privacy>

Sherwood, Christina Hernandez. “Surveillance Cameras: An Eye for an Eye?” SmartPlanet. N.p., 05 June 2012. Web. 10 July 2013. <http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/pure-genius/surveillance-cameras-an-eye-for-an-eye/8134>

“Cameras in Schools: Extra Safety Measure or Violation of Privacy?” Association of American Educators. N.p., 04 June 2013. Web. 10 July 2013. <http://www.aaeteachers.org/index.php/blog/1050-cameras-in-schools-extra-safety-measure-or-violation-of-privacy->

Follow us on Reddit for more insights and updates.

Comments (0)

Welcome to A*Help comments!

We’re all about debate and discussion at A*Help.

We value the diverse opinions of users, so you may find points of view that you don’t agree with. And that’s cool. However, there are certain things we’re not OK with: attempts to manipulate our data in any way, for example, or the posting of discriminative, offensive, hateful, or disparaging material.

Comments are closed.

More from Best Persuasive Essay Examples

May 28 2023

How does outdoor exercises impact our health and well-being? Essay Sample, Example

Should Screen Time Be Limited? Essay Sample, Example

Why Video Games are Good for the Brain. Essay Sample, Example

Remember Me

What is your profession ? Student Teacher Writer Other

Forgotten Password?

Username or Email

The Dangers of Surveillance

• Neil M. Richards
• Addressing the Harm of Total Surveillance: A Reply to Professor Neil Richards  by  Danielle Keats Citron , David Gray
• See full issue

From the Fourth Amendment to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four , and from the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to films like Minority Report and The Lives of Others , our law and culture are full of warnings about state scrutiny of our lives. These warnings are commonplace, but they are rarely very specific. Other than the vague threat of an Orwellian dystopia, as a society we don’t really know why surveillance is bad and why we should be wary of it. To the extent that the answer has something to do with “privacy,” we lack an understanding of what “privacy” means in this context and why it matters. We’ve been able to live with this state of affairs largely because the threat of constant surveillance has been relegated to the realms of science fiction and failed totalitarian states.

But these warnings are no longer science fiction. The digital technologies that have revolutionized our daily lives have also created minutely detailed records of those lives. In an age of terror, our government has shown a keen willingness to acquire this data and use it for unknown purposes. We know that governments have been buying and borrowing private-sector databases, and we recently learned that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been building a massive data and supercomputing center in Utah, apparently with the goal of intercepting and storing much of the world’s Internet communications for decryption and analysis.

Although we have laws that protect us against government surveillance, secret government programs cannot be challenged until they are discovered. And even when they are, our law of surveillance provides only minimal protections. Courts frequently dismiss challenges to such programs for lack of standing, under the theory that mere surveillance creates no harms. The Supreme Court recently reversed the only major case to hold to the contrary, in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA , finding that the respondents’ claim that their communications were likely being monitored was “too speculative.”

But the important point is that our society lacks an understanding of why (and when) government surveillance is harmful. Existing attempts to identify the dangers of surveillance are often unconvincing, and they generally fail to speak in terms that are likely to influence the law. In this Article, I try to explain the harms of government surveillance. Drawing on law, history, literature, and the work of scholars in the emerging interdisciplinary field of “surveillance studies,” I offer an account of what those harms are and why they matter. I will move beyond the vagueness of current theories of surveillance to articulate a more coherent understanding and a more workable approach.

At the level of theory, I will explain why and when surveillance is particularly dangerous and when it is not. First, surveillance is harmful because it can chill the exercise of our civil liberties. With respect to civil liberties, consider surveillance of people when they are thinking, reading, and communicating with others in order to make up their minds about political and social issues. Such intellectual surveillance is especially dangerous because it can cause people not to experiment with new, controversial, or deviant ideas. To protect our intellectual freedom to think without state over-sight or interference, we need what I have elsewhere called “intellectual privacy.” A second special harm that surveillance poses is its effect on the power dynamic between the watcher and the watched. This disparity creates the risk of a variety of harms, such as discrimination, coercion, and the threat of selective enforcement, where critics of the government can be prosecuted or blackmailed for wrongdoing unrelated to the purpose of the surveillance.

At a practical level, I propose a set of four principles that should guide the future development of surveillance law, allowing for a more appropriate balance between the costs and benefits of government surveillance. First, we must recognize that surveillance transcends the public/private divide . Public and private surveillance are simply related parts of the same problem, rather than wholly discrete. Even if we are ultimately more concerned with government surveillance, any solution must grapple with the complex relationships between government and corporate watchers. Second, we must recognize that secret surveillance is illegitimate and prohibit the creation of any domestic-surveillance programs whose existence is secret. Third, we should recognize that total surveillance is illegitimate and reject the idea that it is acceptable for the government to record all Internet activity without authorization. Government surveillance of the Internet is a power with the potential for massive abuse. Like its precursor of telephone wiretapping, it must be subjected to meaningful judicial process before it is authorized. We should carefully scrutinize any surveillance that threatens our intellectual privacy. Fourth, we must recognize that surveillance is harmful . Surveillance menaces intellectual privacy and increases the risk of blackmail, coercion, and discrimination; accordingly, we must recognize surveillance as a harm in constitutional standing doctrine. Explaining the harms of surveillance in a doctrinally sensitive way is essential if we want to avoid sacrificing our vital civil liberties.

I develop this argument in four steps. In Part I, I show the scope of the problem of modern “surveillance societies,” in which individuals are increasingly monitored by an overlapping and entangled assemblage of government and corporate watchers. I then develop an account of why this kind of watching is problematic. Part II shows how surveillance menaces our intellectual privacy and threatens the development of individual beliefs in ways that are inconsistent with the basic commitments of democratic societies. Part III explores how surveillance distorts the power relationships between the watcher and the watched, enhancing the watcher’s ability to blackmail, coerce, and discriminate against the people under its scrutiny. Part IV explores the four principles that I argue should guide the development of surveillance law, to protect us from the substantial harms of surveillance.

May 20, 2013

More from this Issue

The eu-u.s. privacy collision: a turn to institutions and procedures.

• Paul M. Schwartz

Toward a Positive Theory of Privacy Law

• Lior Jacob Strahilevitz

Does the Past Matter? On the Origins of Human Rights

An analysis of competing histories of the origins of international human rights law

• Philip Alston

• Oxford Thesis Collection
• CC0 version of this metadata

Towards a psychology of surveillance: do ‘watching eyes’ affect behaviour?

Surveillance matters. Chapter 1 shows we are today watched more closely than at any time in modernity. Philosophers have long speculated that just feeling watched might change our behaviour, but empirical evidence for this is limited. This thesis extends the evidence by exploring ‘the watching eyes effect’ – a phenomenon identified by psychologists which suggests that the presence of pictures of eyes can trigger us to feel more watched and act more prosocially. The research presented al...

Email this record

Please enter the email address that the record information will be sent to.

Please add any additional information to be included within the email.

Cite this record

Chicago style, access document.

• 20190118_KPD_Thesis_Towards_a_Psychology_of Surveillance-Final... (pdf, 15.7MB)

Why is the content I wish to access not available via ORA?

Content may be unavailable for the following four reasons.

• Version unsuitable We have not obtained a suitable full-text for a given research output. See the versions advice for more information.
• Recently completed Sometimes content is held in ORA but is unavailable for a fixed period of time to comply with the policies and wishes of rights holders.
• Permissions All content made available in ORA should comply with relevant rights, such as copyright. See the copyright guide for more information.
• Clearance Some thesis volumes scanned as part of the digitisation scheme funded by Dr Leonard Polonsky are currently unavailable due to sensitive material or uncleared third-party copyright content. We are attempting to contact authors whose theses are affected.

Alternative access to the full-text

Request a copy.

We require your email address in order to let you know the outcome of your request.

Provide a statement outlining the basis of your request for the information of the author.

Please note any files released to you as part of your request are subject to the terms and conditions of use for the Oxford University Research Archive unless explicitly stated otherwise by the author.

Contributors

Bibliographic details, item description, terms of use, views and downloads.

If you are the owner of this record, you can report an update to it here: Report update to this record

Report an update

We require your email address in order to let you know the outcome of your enquiry.

The Ethics of Surveillance

Introduction to surveillance.

Surveillance is, simply put, the observation and/or monitoring of a person. Coming from the French word for "looking upon," the term encompasses not only visual observation but also the scrutiny of all behavior, speech, and actions. Prominent examples of surveillance include surveillance cameras, wiretaps, GPS tracking, and internet surveillance.

One-way observation is in some ways an expression of control. Just as having a stranger stare at you for an extended period of time can be uncomfortable and hostile, it is no different from being under constant surveillance, except that surveillance is often done surreptitiously and at the behest of some authority.

Todays technological capabilities take surveillance to new levels; no longer are spyglasses and "dropping" from the eaves of a roof necessary to observe individuals - the government can and does utilize methods to observe all the behavior and actions of people without the need for a spy to be physically present. Clearly, these advances in technology have a profound impact with regards to the ethics of placing individual under surveillance&emdash;in our modern society, where so many of our actions are observable, recorded, searchable, and traceable, close surveillance is much more intrusive than it has been in the past.

Surveillance and Physical Searches

Particularly interesting about government surveillance is that in the United States surveillance is not held to the same standards of accountability&emdash;as the Constitution protects American citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, physical searches of individuals may not be conducted without a warrant issued by a judge. However, after the passage of FISA and subsequent laws, citizens have not been given the same protection with regards to electronic surveillance. As there have been massive changes in technology and lifestyle since the 1970s, electronic surveillance could be considered much more invasive than a physical search, yet as has been made clear in the legal section of this website, it is in fact much easier for government agents to perform surveillance. Why there is such disparity between these standards to us a matter of serious concern.

"If you haven't done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear."

This is a typical argument used by governments and other groups to justify their spying activities. Upon cursory inspection, it seems to make sense&emdash;as most people are law-abiding citizens, most ostensibly will not be targeted for surveillance and it will not impact their lives, while making their lives more comfortable and safer through the elimination of criminals. Thus, the government's use of closed-circuit television cameras in public spaces, warrantless wiretapping, and library record checks have the potential to save lives from criminals and terrorists with only minimal invasion of its citizens' privacy.

First, as a mental exercise, we ask that the reader consider that these arguments could easily be applied to asking all citizens to carry location tracking devices&emdash;it would make tracing criminal acts much easier, and that it could easily be argued that people refusing to carry these devices only do so because they have something to hide. It is a matter of course that most people in our society would object to this solution, not because they wish to commit any wrongdoings, but because it is invasive and prone to abuse. Now consider that, given current technology, the government already has the ability to track a known target's movements to a reasonable degree, and has easy access to information such as one's purchasing habits, online activities, phone conversations, and mail. Though implementing mandatory location tracking devices for the whole population is certainly more invasive than the above, we argue that current practices are analogous, extreme, and equally unacceptable.

Next, this argument fails to take into consideration a number of important issues when collecting personally identifiable data or recordings&emdash;first, that such practices create an archive of information that is vulnerable to abuse by trusted insiders; one example emerged in September of 2007 when Benjamin Robinson, a special agent of the Department of Commerce, was indicted for using a government database called the Treasury Enforcement Communications System (TECS) for tracking the travel patterns of an ex-girlfriend and her family. Records show that he used the system illegally at least 163 times before he was caught (Mark 2007). With the expansion of surveillance, such abuses could become more numerous and more egregious as the amount of personal data collected increases.

In addition, allowing surreptitious surveillance of one form, even limited in scope and for a particular contingency, encourages government to expand such surveillance programs in the future. It is our view that the danger of a "slippery slope" scenario cannot be dismissed as paranoia - as a prominent example, the collection of biometric has expanded immensely in the past several years. Many schools in the UK collect fingerprints of children as young as six without parental consent (Doward 2006), and fingerprinting in American schools has been widespread since the mid-eighties (NYT National Desk 1983). Now, the discussion has shifted towards DNA collection&emdash;British police are now pushing for the DNA collection of children who "exhibit behavior indicating they may become criminals in later life" (Townsend and Asthana 2008), while former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani has encouraged the collection of DNA data of newborns (Lambert 1998).

When data is collected, whether such data remains used for its stated purpose after its collection has been called into question, even by government officials: the European Data Protection Supervisor has acknowledged that even when two databases of information are created for specific, distinct purposes, in a phenomenon known as 'function creep' they could be combined with one another to form a third with a purpose for which the first two were not built (eGov Monitor Weekly 2006). This non-uniqueness and immutability of information provides great potential for abuse by individuals and institutions.

When is surveillance appropriate?

A. the means.

Harm: does the technique cause unwarranted physical or psychological harm?

Boundary: does the technique cross a personal boundary without permission (whether involving coercion or deception or a body, relational or spatial border)?

Trust: does the technique violate assumptions that are made about how personal information will be treated such as no secret recordings?

Personal relationships: is the tactic applied in a personal or impersonal setting?

Invalidity: does the technique produce invalid results?

B. The Data Collection Context

Awareness: are individuals aware that personal information is being collected, who seeks it and why?

Consent: do individuals consent to the data collection?

Golden rule: would those responsbile for the surveillance (both the decision to apply it and its actual application) agree to be its subjects under the conditions in which they apply it to others?

Minimization: does a principle of minimization apply?

Public decision-making: was the decision to use a tactic arrived at through some public discussion and decision making process?

Human review: is there human review of machine generated results?

Right of inspection: are people aware of the findings and how they were created?

Right to challenge and express a grievance: are there procedures for challenging the results, or for entering alternative data or interpretations into the record?

Redress and sanctions: if the individual has been treated unfairly and procedures violated, are there appropriate means of redress? Are there means for discovering violations and penalties to encourage responsible surveillant behavior?

Adequate data stewardship and protection: can the security of the data be adequately protected?

Equality-inequality regarding availability and application: a) is the means widely available or restricted to only the most wealthy, powerful or technologically sophisticated? b) within a setting is the tactic broadly applied to all people or only to those less powerful or unable to resist c) if there are means of resisting the provision of personal information are these equally available, or restricted to the most privileged?

The symbolic meaning of a method: what does the use of a method communicate more generally?

The creation of unwanted precedents: is it likely to create precedents that will lead to its application in undesirable ways?

Negative effects on surveillors and third parties: are there negative effects on those beyond the subject?

Beneficiary: does application of the tactic serve broad community goals, the goals of the object of surveillance or the personal goals of the data collector?

Proportionality: is there an appropriate balance between the importance of the goal and the cost of the means?

Alternative means: are other less costly means available?

Consequences of inaction: where the means are very costly, what are the consequences of taking no surveillance action?

Protections: are adequate steps taken to minimize costs and risk?

Appropriate vs. inappropriate goals: are the goals of the data collection legitimate?

The goodness of fit between the means and the goal: is there a clear link between the information collected and the goal sought?

Information used for original vs. other unrelated purposes: is the personal information used for the reasons offered for its collection and for which consent may have been given and does the data stay with the original collector, or does it migrate elsewhere?

Failure to share secondary gains from the information: is the personal data collected used for profit without permission from, or benefit to, the person who provided it?

Unfair disadvantage: is the information used in such a way as to cause unwarranted harm or disadvantage to its subject?

In general, we feel that surveillance can be ethical, but that there have to exist reasonable, publicly accessible records and accountability for those approving and performing the surveillance in question.

• Homework Help
• Essay Examples
• Citation Generator
• Writing Guides
• Essay Title Generator
• Essay Topic Generator
• Essay Outline Generator
• Flashcard Generator
• Plagiarism Checker
• Paraphrasing Tool
• Conclusion Generator
• Thesis Statement Generator
• Introduction Generator
• Literature Review Generator
• Hypothesis Generator
• Surveillance Essays

Surveillance Essays (Examples)

1000+ documents containing “surveillance” .

Filter by Keywords:(add comma between each)

Surveillance software privacy legislation and.

Also, employees should be mindful of what they post on social networking sites, even if done from their home computer. Employers should always be aware of what is considered a reasonable expectation of privacy. In certain industries, workplace monitoring may be necessary so that the company can protect itself. In the case of an organization that deals with the well being of children, even with thorough background checks performed it may still be necessary to monitor the employee's website usage or set up surveillance cameras in designated areas. Hillside, Inc. is a company that assists abused and neglected children and has a policy that any Web site an employee visits could be monitored. The company found that pornographic websites were access on its computers during off hours and set up surveillance cameras in a shared office in hopes of catching the perpetrator. The employees sharing the monitored office filed a….

Bibliography

Dillenberger, Cassandra, "Workplace Privacy: A Changing Landscape," Contractor's

Business Management Report 10, (October 2009): 1, 10-12.

Friedman, Barry A. And Lisa J. Reed, "Workplace Privacy: Employee Relations and Legal Implications of Monitoring Employee E-mail Use," Employee

Responsibilities and Rights Journal 19, no. 2, (2007): 75-83.

Surveillance Systems Two Quantitative Methods

Then, the patient can receive free care or referrals to specialists from the doctor. GPs thus can provide comprehensive data regarding patients with a variety of conditions, from a wide range of demographic groups. Currently, 3,500 GP practices, encompassing a population of 23 million patients, contribute to the national QSurveillance database. The system is the largest and most regularly updated health tracking system in the world (National disease surveillance, 2009, BJCIM). The system can respond effectively to health alerts. For example, given concerns over the swine flu epidemic upon the horizon, "the QSurveillance primary care tracking database has increased the level of detail" in its regular weekly and daily reports to government and health authorities. Daily reporting now includes: "patients reporting flu-like symptoms in the last day, patients with flu who have been prescribed antivirals, patients prescribed antivirals without a confirmed flu diagnosis, hospital admissions related to flu, the uptake….

Works cited

National disease surveillance system launches more detailed swine flu reports (2009 17 July).

BJCIM News. Retrieved October 6, 2009 at  http://www.bjhcim.co.uk/news/2009/n907042.htm

Surveillance and the Advantages and or

This has the advantage of showing the suspect in different profiles. But there have also been accusations that in-person lineups may be biased, if they present the suspect with persons who are not sufficiently 'like' the accused. Also, the use of double-blind presentations, where the officers conducting the lineup do no know who the suspect is, might be advisable to dilute the potential for biased or swayed eyewitness identification. Although in-person lineups are likely to be more accurate because they will not contain the possibility of 'bad' photographs swaying the witness, which is especially problematic if the photo line-up is of 'mug shots,' 'live' lineups also have more of a potential for bias by the body language of the officer conducting the investigation, thus this must be guarded against. Question Discuss the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment and give an example of how investigators may constitutionally gather evidence and not….

Works Cited

Gelbspan, Ross. (26 Nov 1988). "Undercover Work: A Necessary Evil?" Boston Globe. Retrieved 15 May 2007 at  http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/reviews.html 

Valid Searches and Seizures without Warrants." Annotations p. 3. (2007).

Findlaw.com. Retrieved 15 May 2007 at  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/03.html

Surveillance in Public Areas

Cameras in Public PlacesQ1. List all the places you traveled this past week where you likely appeared on a closed-circuit television. Do you believe your environment was safer with CCTV? Explain?Over the course of the past week, I have been in stores had CCTV. Overall, I did not feel that these stores were high-risk environments to begin with. Arguably, this may have made the environments safer for the cashiers who worked there as the presence of cameras can act as a deterrent to theft, especially if the cashiers are dealing with expensive merchandise or cash transactions.From my own personal perspective, however, while it may have discouraged shoplifting (and therefore ensured that the price of goods did not go up due to stealing), I did not necessarily feel safer because of the CCTV. The time I spent engaging in my transactions in these stores was very brief. I may have felt….

Arirang Culture. (2015, August 23). Shooters-surveillance: Protection from crime or an invasion

of privacy? [Video]. YouTube.  https://youtu.be/90_9s6vm8uc 

Surveillance cameras: Where is it legal to place them? (2022). HG.

Law Enforcement and Surveillance

Surveillance - Types, Methods, When to Conduct on Terrorist Surveillance can simply be defined as the observations undertaken to obtain information. This simple description contains a wealth of methods and techniques that can be seen as forms of surveillance. Law enforcement officials can use a "roving" monitor to "follow" an individual and legally intercept that individual's communications with one court instruction. All UAV's function as midair surveillance podiums and have potent video cameras armed with thermal and night-vision. UAV's can be best utilized when carrying out operations in an enemy territory. Intelligence agencies use satellites for a range of purposes, comprising of communications, navigation, etc. The application of distinctive personal physiological traits, for example iris scanning, facial recognition, fingerprints, walk and posture, voice recognition, full body imaging, etc. and lastly, employing of digital cameras and 35mm camera remains a vital instrument in surveillance. It is particularly suitable for identifying and documenting….

Bjelopera, J.P. (2013). The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Terrorism Investigations, Congressional Research Service.

Davis, F., Mcgarrity, N., & Williams, G. (2014). Surveillance, counter-terrorism and comparative constitutionalism. Routledge.

Gardeazabal, J., & Sandler, T. (2015). INTERPOL's surveillance network in curbing transnational terrorism. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,34(4), 761-780.

SPENCER, S. B. (2015). When targeting becomes secondary: a framework for regulating predictive surveillance in antiterrorism investigations. Denver University Law Review, 92(3), 493-537.

Improving Disease Surveillance in Developing

Currently, the limitations of the current system include the fact that "they do not capture all cases in most countries. Cases may be missed by & #8230;systems because people…are diagnosed by public and private providers that do not report cases to local or national authorities" (WHO, 2012, p. 29) Therefore, the key to assisting the surveillance system in India is to encourage more widespread participation from non-NTPs. One of the key ways in which this surveillance system could truly become national is to subsidize organizations that do report their cases to the national system. By providing incentives to these providers (WHO, 2012, p. 33), the system could be used more and more accurately reflect the rate of incidence. The other special feature that should be added to the national surveillance system in India is that is should reflect an equal prioritization of facilities in which diagnosis occurs -- which does….

No author. (2012). "New Heroes Ep4 01 Inderjit Khurana Train Platform Schools India." Youtube. Retrieved from  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIwIJ0GkBoI 

World Health Organization. (2012). "Global tuberculosis report 2012." World Health Organization. Retrieved from  http://www.who.int/tb/publications/global_report/gtbr12_main.pdf 

World Health Organization. (2006). "Communicable disease surveillance and response systems: guide to monitoring and evaluating." World Health Organization. Retrieved from  http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/surveillance/WHO_CDS_EPR_LYO_2006_2.pdf

Computer Surveillance Qualitative Attempt to

Studies suggest that even "moe "omniscient" technology is likely to be developed" in the nea futue (Lyon, 2002). Cookies wee pehaps the fist fom of intenet suveillance, developed in 1994 as a means fo websites to tack visitos logging in so they could povide moe optimal sevice (Lyon, 2002). Now cookies have tansfomed the shape of communication and have futhe advanced the ability of ciminals to suvey individual use functions on the web. The web is many things, an envionment fo "leaning, convesing, coodinating and tading" but also "a means of tapping the unway, of constaining the choices of the unsuspecting" (Lyon, 2002). Fom cookies web bugs developed, and inceasingly othe suveillance methods pop up daily. Accoding to Lyons (2002) the web might be consideed the "Wold Wide Web of Suveillance" (p. 345). Lyons (2002) futhe defines suveillance as "pocessing pesonal data fo the puposes of management and influence" and suggests that….

references and deter computer crime." Yale Law Journal, Vol. 112, Issue 6, p. 1577

Computer Surveillance

Video Surveillance Cameras Greater Value

These changes were accompanied by publicity in the treatment areas. No significant changes in robberies were found. The National Association of Convenience Stores (1991) reported on two other interventions evaluated by obert Figlio. The use of interactive CCTV (allowing communication between the clerk and the personnel in a remote location) reduced robberies in 189 stores by a statistically significant 31% in the first year following the installations. By the second year, the reduction had shrunk to 15%, which was not statistically significant. No control stores were used in the analysis. One chain of 81 stores installed color video monitors that were visible to patrons and staff. obbery rates were reported to have declined by 53% a year after installation. Again, no control stores were used. (Eck, 2002, p. 256) The statistics of this review show clearly that robbery reduction only occurred in certain conditions and that the reduction of such….

Armitage, R. (May 2002) to CCTV or not to CCTV -- a review of current research into the effectiveness of CCTV systems in reducing crime. NACRO Community Safety Practice Briefing.

Brennan-Galvin, E. (2002). Crime and Violence in an Urbanizing World. Journal of International Affairs, 56(1), 123.

Brown, B (1995) CCTV in Town Centers: Three Case Studies. Police Research Group Crime Detection and Prevention Series Paper 68.

Coles, C. (2005, May/June). Fighting Crime with Closed-Circuit Cameras. The Futurist, 39, 10.

Saudi Arabia Surveillance Intro the

To help limit the potential bias in a study as this, and to help support the validity of the results, the researcher will cross compare the results of the study with information gathered from other recent studies monitoring surveillance programs within the primary regions and throughout other areas of the country. It is important to note that to further validate this study, additional research in the future involving a much wider population base would help prove or disprove the theories and results presented in this study. Results The results of this study will contribute to the body of literature available and provided by the MMWR (2000; 1998) on disease prevention and surveillance of disease in various regions of the world. The researcher will provide additional guidelines for professionals working in the surveillance field that will enable them to centralize surveillance systems and provide faster response times. Additionally the research provided will enable….

Surveillance of communicable diseases a training manual. Alexandria: 1998

WHO-EM/CDS/52/E/L/06.98/2000.

Wuhib, T., Chorba, TL, Davidiants, V, Kenzie, WR, McNabb, S. Assessment of the infectious diseases surveillance system of the Republic of Armenia: An example of surveillance in the Republics of the former Soviet Union. BMC. Public Health; vol. 2:2002

Wiretaps and Electronic Surveillance in

1). The blimp, known as "Integrated Sensor Is the Structure" or ISIS has a demonstration ship scheduled for launch by 2014 (Wheeland). This latest addition to the electronic surveillance repertoire of the U.S. government should alarm everyone in the country because of its potential for abuse (remember Nixon?). Conclusion The research showed that electronic surveillance and wiretapping are legitimately used by law enforcement officials in the United States when they have secured the permission from the proper authorities. The research also showed that these technologies have been used as counterintelligence weapons during the Cold War and thereafter, and there use has expanded to unprecedented levels today in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the passage of the U.S. PATIOT Act. The research also showed that there are some unexpected ways that electronic surveillance can help unauthorized users gain access to digital information by simply captured images….

Black's law dictionary. (1991). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.

Gibbs, W.W. (2009, May). How to steal secrets without a network. Scientific American, 300(5),

Henderson, N.C. (2002). The Patriot Act's impact on the government's ability to conduct electronic surveillance of ongoing domestic communications. Duke Law Journal, 52(1),

Syndromic Surveillance Which Is Also

This leads to the downsides of syndromic surveillance. First, it can give indications of problems but it cannot replace the one-on-one doctor to patient examination process and its associated discourse which is the only way to verify whether conclusions drawn during syndromic surveillance are even accurate in the first place. Second, and as noted above, privacy concerns and consent to be monitored in such a way is rarely given and the clarion calls for the greater good are not always enough to satiate people that are concerned about privacy invasion (Chang, Zeng & Yan, 2008). Lastly, syndromic surveillance is really only something that can or should be used in extreme situations such as epidemic/pandemic warnings or actual outbreaks or when biological weaponry or other agents are used to hurt or harm the public. Just about any other method other than government proactivity (and even that can go too far) is probably….

Chen, H., Zeng, D., & Yan, P. (2008). Infectious disease informatics syndromic surveillance for public health and biodefense. New York: Springer.

Terrorism and Surveillance

Terrorist Surveillance Critical overview of the reading Just as national governments possess information-gathering capacities, so do terrorists and members of other types of criminal organizations. The United States has the CIA and similarly every terrorist organization has a branch of its operations solely devoted to gathering information (Nance 2008:188). However, unlike governments, any member of the terrorist or criminal organization can be a potential observer, even children. This is why it is especially vital that suspicious actions of potential terrorists are monitored because it may not be immediately obvious who is amassing intelligence that could be used in a potential attack against the U.S. The fact that surveillance of renegade groups is so potentially far-reaching in its implications and character, yet so amorphous in nature, means that detecting it is both necessary and extremely difficult. Intelligence operatives in the U.S. must be mindful of the risk that they may be watched. They should….

Nance. M. (2008). Terrorist recognition handbook. 2nd Ed. CRC Press.

Spread of Surveillance Technology Threaten

Drug tests can also be inaccurate, and show false positives, and are ineffective for more dangerous 'hard' drugs that have a shorter half-life in the body than 'soft' drugs like marijuana. Many extremely successful companies do not use employee workplace surveillance such as Google. Google's corporate philosophy is to keep employees happy at work. So what if a productive employee updates his or her Facebook page at 3pm, but stays late, and is productive, while emailing his or her coworkers in ways that blend social life and corporate chat? For the new generation, barriers between personal and work life are more permeable. Also, when more employers expect workers to do work at home, it is frustrating to be barred from doing even the most minor personal business at work, and being taken to task for 'time theft.' Better not to hire employees you do not trust, than use top-of-the-line workplace surveillance.….

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act FISA 1978 Antiterrorism

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) 1978, Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Acts of Terror There are a number of similarities and points of interest between the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 FISA, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, and the U.S.A. PATIOT Act of 2001. Collectively, these acts make it exceedingly difficult for those involved in acts of terrorism to operate and, when caught, to get any sort of leniency to assist in their getting out of jail. As such, these acts can have a formidable presence and make a significant impact on the war on terrorism. One of the points of commonality for all of these acts is the fact that they are primarily focused on domestic offenders. This is particularly true of FISA, which details specific procedures for engaging in covert activities to find criminals (DHZ/Office for Civil ights and Civil Liberties). FISA advocates the usage of….

DHS/Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. (2012). "Federal statutes relevant in the information sharing environment." Justice Information Sharing. Retrieved from  http://www.it.ojp.gov/default.aspx?area=privacy&page=1286 

Holland, J. (2009). "A tale of two justice systems." AlterNet. Retrieved from  https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/ (S (0cpgj055wpob3yqvjos2ua55))/displayArticle.aspx?articleid=21054&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

Lundin, Leigh (2011-10-02). "The crime of capital punishment." Death Penalty. Retrieved from  http://www.sleuthsayers.org/2011/10/crime-of-capital-punishment.html

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act FISA of 1978

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 and Other Laws The terrorist activities of Sept 11, 2001 serve as the source of the U. S fight against terrorism as made popular by the Bush regime. Previously, United States strategies to combat terrorism targeted on attacks against its interests overseas, and support for other governments' initiatives to control terrorism functions within their borders. However, Sept 11 exposed weaknesses to terrorism by non-state players within U.S. boundaries. In reaction, the U. S reformed its anti-terrorist techniques to prevent future attacks by focusing on terrorists, foreign and local, known and potential. In order to facilitate terrorist prosecution, the congress offers Appropriate Tools Required to Identify and Prevent Terrorism Acts. They include FISA, Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and the PATRIOT Act. At the most basic level, FISA describes the techniques needed to perform digital surveillance to obtain global intelligence. Considerably, these methods do not….

I\'m looking for essay topic ideas on theft in schools. Do you have any suggestions?

1. The Impact of Theft on School Climate and Student Well-being Explore the psychological and emotional impact of theft on students, teachers, and administrators. Examine the consequences of reduced trust and increased fear within the school environment. Discuss how theft creates a distraction from learning and disrupts the sense of community. 2. The Role of Security Measures in Deterring Theft Analyze the effectiveness of various security measures, such as surveillance cameras, access control systems, and security guards. Discuss the cost-benefit ratio of implementing different security measures. Explore the potential benefits and drawbacks of using technology to prevent theft. 3. The Psychological Factors....

Is there anything in the news related to investigation on theft that would make a good essay subject?

Yes, there are several recent news stories related to investigations on theft that could make for interesting essay subjects. Some potential topics include: 1. The rise of retail theft during the COVID-19 pandemic and the challenges faced by law enforcement in addressing this issue. 2. The use of technology, such as surveillance cameras and facial recognition software, in the investigation of theft cases. 3. The impact of organized crime networks on the theft of high-value items, such as jewelry or electronics. 4. The ethical implications of using sting operations and undercover agents in theft investigations. 5. The role of social media and online marketplaces in....

Art Heist Unravels: The Case of the Stolen Masterpieces In the annals of art crime, the recent theft of a collection of priceless masterpieces from the National Gallery has sent shockwaves through the art world and beyond. The heist, which occurred under the cover of darkness, has left authorities baffled and the public reeling in disbelief. The Stolen Treasures The stolen works include some of the most iconic and valuable paintings in history. Among them are "The Starry Night" by Vincent van Gogh, "The Mona Lisa" by Leonardo da Vinci, and "The Girl with a Pearl Earring" by Johannes Vermeer. Their combined value....

Let\'s brainstorm together! What essay topics could be interesting on Historical Perspective on Corrections?

Title: The Evolution of Correctional Institutions: A Historical Perspective Introduction: Provide a brief overview of the history of corrections, highlighting significant eras and developments. Discuss the changing philosophies and practices of punishment and rehabilitation. Introduce the concept of the historical perspective and its relevance to understanding contemporary corrections. Body: 1. The Early Days: Retribution and Punishment: Explore the historical roots of retribution and punishment as dominant themes in corrections. Examine the use of corporal punishment, solitary confinement, and other harsh methods. Discuss the impact of these practices on inmates and the overall effectiveness of corrections. 2. The Rise of Rehabilitation and Reform: Trace the....

Article Review

Also, employees should be mindful of what they post on social networking sites, even if done from their home computer. Employers should always be aware of what is considered…

Then, the patient can receive free care or referrals to specialists from the doctor. GPs thus can provide comprehensive data regarding patients with a variety of conditions, from…

Criminal Justice

This has the advantage of showing the suspect in different profiles. But there have also been accusations that in-person lineups may be biased, if they present the suspect…

Corrections - Public Perception

Cameras in Public PlacesQ1. List all the places you traveled this past week where you likely appeared on a closed-circuit television. Do you believe your environment was safer with…

Surveillance - Types, Methods, When to Conduct on Terrorist Surveillance can simply be defined as the observations undertaken to obtain information. This simple description contains a wealth of methods and…

Research Paper

Currently, the limitations of the current system include the fact that "they do not capture all cases in most countries. Cases may be missed by & #8230;systems because…

Education - Computers

Studies suggest that even "moe "omniscient" technology is likely to be developed" in the nea futue (Lyon, 2002). Cookies wee pehaps the fist fom of intenet suveillance, developed in…

These changes were accompanied by publicity in the treatment areas. No significant changes in robberies were found. The National Association of Convenience Stores (1991) reported on two other…

To help limit the potential bias in a study as this, and to help support the validity of the results, the researcher will cross compare the results of…

Research Proposal

Drama - World

1). The blimp, known as "Integrated Sensor Is the Structure" or ISIS has a demonstration ship scheduled for launch by 2014 (Wheeland). This latest addition to the electronic…

This leads to the downsides of syndromic surveillance. First, it can give indications of problems but it cannot replace the one-on-one doctor to patient examination process and its associated…

Terrorist Surveillance Critical overview of the reading Just as national governments possess information-gathering capacities, so do terrorists and members of other types of criminal organizations. The United States has the CIA…

Drug tests can also be inaccurate, and show false positives, and are ineffective for more dangerous 'hard' drugs that have a shorter half-life in the body than 'soft'…

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) 1978, Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Acts of Terror There are a number of similarities and points of interest between the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of…

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 and Other Laws The terrorist activities of Sept 11, 2001 serve as the source of the U. S fight against terrorism as made…

Workplace Surveillance Essay

In the last two decades, employers have used workplace surveillance to monitor their employees. The methodology employed in the study of the perspectives of various stakeholders in the labor industry involved a review of secondary sources of data.

The labor process theory was used to analyze the stakeholders’ perspectives. The findings indicates that controlling workers’ activities as opposed to ensuring workers’ security is the main objective of workplace surveillance.

The labor process theory indicates that workplace surveillance enhances modern management strategies which utilize elements of scientific management (West, 2005, p. 23). Thus workplace surveillance is a matter of control that leads to invasion of privacy.

Introduction

Workplace surveillance refers to the strategies used by employers to “monitor the activities of their employees” (Ariss, 2002, pp. 553-558). It mainly involves observing the working area and employees’ activities or listening to workers in a secretive manner.

The observation or monitoring is done with the help of electronic gadgets such as cameras, wiretaps, computers and microphones. Employers mainly use workplace surveillance to promote high productivity, control the use of resources, prevent theft and ensure workers’ safety (Ariss, 2002, pp. 553-558).

However, its use often facilitates great control over the labor force. Besides, it leads to violation of workers’ privacy rights if misused. This has led to the debate as to whether workplace surveillance is a tool for ensuring workers’ safety or a tool for control and violation of workers’ privacy rights.

This paper supports the premise that workplace surveillance is a control technique and an invasion of privacy. The views of various stakeholders in regard to workplace surveillance will be illuminated and evaluated using the labor process theory.

Methodology

The findings of this paper are based on qualitative research on workplace surveillance. The topic was studied through analysis of secondary sources of data. This involved conducting a literature review on the reports of previous research works on the topic.

Other sources of secondary data included journals, labor industry reports, newspaper reports and information available on websites of labor unions. The information obtained from these sources was used to evaluate the views of workers concerning workplace surveillance.

It was also used to assess the role of workplace surveillance and how it should be implemented based on employers’ perspective, labor unions’ perspective and the role of the state.

The main limitation of the methodology is that the sources of information mainly focus on the Australian labor industry and thus may not represent a worldwide view on workplace surveillance.

Besides, some of the data obtained on workers’ perspective in regard to workplace surveillance was based on the workers’ personal views. Such views however, might not be representative of the industry.

Workplace Surveillance as a Strategy for ensuring Workers’ Safety

Employers’ or management’s perspective.

Employers usually rely on electronic surveillance to ensure security of their employees and their buildings (Ariss, 2002, pp. 553-558). They normally use cameras to monitor the activities of their employees and everyone who enters their buildings.

The rise in acts of terror in the last decade has forced the employers to monitor activities at their workplaces. This has necessitated the introduction of CCTV systems to observe and report any activities at the workplace that may lead to security breach.

Cases of physical and sexual harassments have also necessitated close monitoring at the workplace. Due to the sensitivity of offences such as sexual harassment, concrete evidence is usually needed to apprehend the perpetrators.

It is against this backdrop that employers install cameras to monitor activities of their employees at the workplace (Stanton and Weiss, 2000, pp. 423-440). Indirect bullying at the workplace especially through the spread of defamatory information or gossiping is another cause of monitoring.

In this case, the management monitors the communications of employees to ensure that information that may cause emotional injury to other employees is not circulated.

This involves verifying the contents of workers’ emails and tape-recoding conversations in order to incriminate the offenders (Stanton and Weiss, 2000, pp. 423-440). These forms of surveillance are thus used by the management to ensure safety at the workplace.

Employees’ Perspective

Safety at the workplace is a major concern to majority of employees at any given workplace. The employees are likely to perform better if they are assured of their safety or security.

Research on workplace safety indicates that the security of workers is not only threatened by external aggressors but also fellow employees (Stanton and Weiss, 2000, pp. 423-440). Due to the competition at the workplace, some employees usually embark on unorthodox means to stay a head in the competition.

For example, some employees may focus on tarnishing the reputation of their colleagues in order to prevent them from being promoted. Such behaviors involve the spread of malicious information or physical harassment.

In order to prevent such cases of criminal acts, employees normally advocate for monitoring of their behavior at workplaces (Atak and Erturgut, 2010, pp. 1452-1456). Victims of workplace harassment are usually able to defend themselves if they are able to back their claims with the aid of evidences such as camera footage.

Research indicates that cases of workplace violence or harassment are less in offices where activities of employees are closely monitored (Atak and Erturgut, 2010, pp. 1452-1456). Despite these benefits, some employees are opposed to workplace surveillance as a safety measure.

They consider acts such as verification of the contents of their emails a fundamental invasion of their privacy. Besides, some employees are normally uncomfortable to work under cameras even if they do not have criminal intentions.

Role of State and Legislation

It is the role of the sate to ensure that employers provide secure work environments to their employees. This has always been achieved through appropriate legislation that forces employers to guarantee safety of their workers.

Failure to ensure security at the workplace is normally considered an act of negligence on the part of the employer (Mishra and Orampton, 2000, pp. 2-10). Injuries resulting from such negligence can result into severe consequences such as law suits or cancelation of licenses.

While workplace surveillance is not a government requirement, it has been accepted by labor industry regulators especially if it can guarantee the safety of employees (Mishra and Orampton, 2000, pp. 2-10). The state has the dual responsibility of ensuring that employees are safe at their workplaces as well as protecting their privacy rights.

This means that the state laws only recognize safety measures that do not infringe workers’ privacy. Consequently, appropriate legislation has been put in place to guide the process of workplace surveillance.

Such guidelines define the situations under which workplace surveillance should be used and how it should be implemented in order to protect workers’ privacy. The labor unions also support the fact that workplace surveillance as a safety measure must be conducted in a manner that does not violate workers’ privacy rights (Mishra and Orampton, 2000, pp. 2-10).

Workplace Surveillance as an Inversion of Privacy and Employer Control

Management perspective.

Contrary to the popular belief, workplace surveillance is not just about security and workers’ safety. Corporations in the modern economy consider workplace surveillance an effective control technique that can facilitate control over the workforce and an increase in productivity (Stanton, 2003, pp. 257-274).

It is for this reason that they invest in advanced information and communication technology to support the surveillance. Workplace surveillance as a control tool is used by employers for the following reasons. First, it is used as a strategy for preventing theft at the workplace (Mishra and Orampton, 2000, pp. 2-10).

This is a common practice in the retail industry whereby employers install hidden cameras in their stores to monitor the activities of their staffs. The employees who steal goods from the stores are caught by the cameras and the footages are used as evidence against them in law courts.

Cases of theft at the workplace are likely to reduce significantly if the workers know that they are likely to be caught.

Second, workplace surveillance is used to control the use of the company’s resources. Control over the use of resources such as computers and internet, phones and stationery can lead to significant reduction in operating costs (Saxby, 2000, pp. 17-18).

Consequently, employers set rules or guidelines on how and when the company’s resources such as internet can be used. In order to ensure that such guidelines are being followed, they embark on workplace surveillance. For example, internet surveillance has always been used to control workers’ ability to use the internet.

This involves verifying the content of emails and the WebPages visited to ensure that the internet is being used only for official duties (Saxby, 2000, pp. 17-18). Phones are normally wiretapped to ensure that employees do not use them for their private businesses.

Third, workplace surveillance is a tool for monitoring workers’ performance in order to promote high productivity. Employers use management software that monitors employees’ activities such as “sales, contacts with customers and time taken to complete tasks” (Schmitz, 2005, pp. 727-738).

These records are used to generate computer reports that form the basis of employees’ evaluation. Finally, employers use workplace surveillance to protect privileged information or trade secrets.

In markets characterized with high competition, businesses withhold information relating to their sales strategies, marketing plans and financial performances.

In cases where intellectual property is not protected through appropriate legislation, employers control employees’ access to information relating to product development (Schmitz, 2005, pp. 727-738). In order to achieve these objectives, the employers must use effective workplace surveillance strategies to closely monitor their employees.

Software packages are normally used to track employees’ activities whenever they work online to ensure they do not access or distribute privileged information (Schmitz, 2005, pp. 727-738). These trends indicate that workplace surveillance is an effective control tool, which enhances the profitability of the firm at the expense of employees’ privacy.

Research on employees’ job satisfaction indicates that majority of them across various industries are opposed to workplace surveillance. This is because many workers consider workplace surveillance a control tool associated with the following demerits.

First, employees consider “privacy a guaranteed human right” (Stanton, 2003, pp. 257-274). Consequently, they believe that no one including their employers have the right to deny them this right since it is provided for by the constitution.

Employees’ main concern is the fact that employers verify everything without distinguishing between private communication and official communication. Employees’ opposition to acts such as verification of the content of their emails is based on the fact that the emails are their properties and not the employers (Stanton, 2003, pp. 257-274).

Consequently, the later has no right to read their emails. This means that workplace surveillance especially through electronic means is an unnecessary invasion of employees’ privacy.

Second, intense surveillance at the workplace leads to low motivation among the workers (Blass and Douglas, 2002, pp. 36-52). As machines such as computers assume supervisory roles in the monitoring process, employees become alienated from their jobs.

Majority of employees feel that workplace surveillance makes them subjects of machines which they are in-charge of (Blass and Douglas, 2002, pp. 36-52). Performance evaluations based on computer reports are not balanced since they do not take into account other aspects of the employees’ performance such as their relationships with colleagues or their emotional wellbeing.

Besides, such reports do not allow the employees to explain their failures. In some cases, workplace surveillance leads to evaluation based on perception rather than facts (Blass and Douglas, 2002, pp. 36-52).

For example, information obtained from an employee through wiretaps can be used against them by their colleagues. Thus the evaluations made using such information may lead to biased results.

Third, workplace surveillance is a major cause of workplace stress due to the high level of pressure associated with it (Bryart, 2006). As discussed earlier, workplace surveillance is used by employers to ensure high productivity. However, it is sometimes used to set unrealistic job targets which leads to stress.

For example, companies that use digital systems to monitor check-in and check-out time are very strict on time management (Bryart, 2006). In such cases, the employees who are not able to keep time can be punished even if they had a genuine reason to be late.

Employees have had to work extremely hard to meet the high job targets associated with workplace surveillance. Working under tension thus becomes a common practice at work, thereby increasing cases of stress (Bryart, 2006). Finally, workplace surveillance is used by employers to gain access to intellectual property illegally(Bryart, 2006).

This particularly happens in cases whereby new recruits use their own computers at work. Thus when their employers monitor the use of their employees’ computers, they are likely to gain access and use the employee’s private information without being noticed.

These trends indicate that employees perceive workplace surveillance to be a control mechanism meant to benefit their employers at their expense.

The state is charged with the responsibility of protecting the interest of both the employers and the employees. This means that the state through labor laws regulates the relationship and interactions between the employers and their employees (Halpern, Reville and Grunewald, 2008, pp. 175-180).

Workplace surveillance being a form of interaction that determines the relationship between employers and their workers is thus regulated by the government (Halpern, Reville and Grunewald, 2008, pp. 175-180).

Regulating workplace surveillance has been necessitated by the fact that all stakeholders including the government and the general public should benefit from the exercise. The behavior or activities of employees not only affect their employers and colleagues but also the government and the public or customers, hence the need for control over their behavior.

As a neutral party, the government through the labor laws expects workplace surveillance to be conducted according to the guidelines which include but not limited to the following. First, it should be done in a manner that complies with human rights (Halpern, Reville and Grunewald, 2008, pp. 175-180).

This means that the process of workplace surveillance must not override the basic human rights provided for by the constitution. This requirement limits the level of privacy invasion that employers can engage in. for example, they can not install cameras in washrooms or engage in unnecessary recording of conversations at the workplace (Electronic Frontiers Australia, 2005).

Second, workplace surveillance must take into account the interest of both the organization and the public. For example, it should be done in order to prevent employees from committing crime at the workplace or promoting disorder (Electronic Frontiers Australia, 2005).

The crimes that can be prevented through workplace surveillance include drug abuse, tax evasion and watching pornographic materials. Third, workplace surveillance should be used to ensure public safety and health. The management should use it to ensure that workers’ activities do not result into production of goods that are not fit for consumption.

In order to achieve these objectives, the government expects the employers to conduct an impact assessment before embarking on workplace surveillance. The assessment should enable the employers to highlight the purpose and expected benefits of the surveillance (Halpern, Reville and Grunewald, 2008, pp. 175-180).

It should also enable the employers to indentify the negative effects of the surveillance. If a particular form of workplace surveillance is associated with adverse effects on the employees, the employers are expected to explore alternative ways of monitoring their staffs.

The employers are expected to understand the employees’ privacy rights and be ready to accept liability in the event that such privacy rights are violated. These trends thus define the best practice that should be observed by employers in regard to workplace surveillance.

They indicate that the government as a regulator of the labor industry remains neutral on the issue of workplace surveillance. However, the government provides guidelines to ensure that workplace surveillance is beneficial to all parties.

Labor Union’s Perspective

As representatives of the employees, labor unions believe that they must be involved in the process of implementing workplace surveillance. The unions are interested in the implementation process in order to ensure that the rights of their clients’, employees, are not being violated (Effey, Glass and Behly, 2000, pp. 167-177).

Consequently, most labor unions are involved in the bargaining process that determines how workplace surveillance should be implanted, the expected benefits and the punishments that should be used in response to the accusations based on evidence emanating from workplace surveillance.

As stakeholders, labor unions believe that they have a right to access the information obtained from employees through surveillance. For example, they can use information recoded in cameras to prepare defense for their accused clients.

According to labor unions, best practice in workplace surveillance should include the following. First, the employers must realize that surveillance at the workplace involves invasion of workers’ privacy. Thus it must be done in a legal and careful manner.

This is based on the fact that “employees have a legitimate expectation to keep their privacy at the workplace” (Effey, Glass and Behly, 2000, pp. 167-177). Second, the employers must clearly state the purpose of the surveillance and the monitoring activities associated with it should be warranted by real benefits. This means that unions are opposed to surveillance if it is of no value to all stakeholders.

Third, the reasons for conducting the surveillance must be communicated to the workers. Fourth, the employers should clearly specify the degree to which workers should use resources at the workplace (Effey, Glass and Behly, 2000, pp. 167-177).

This will help in avoiding ambiguity when determining whether an employee violated the company’s rules as reported by the surveillance system. Finally, the unions believe that they have a right to contest in a court of law, any accusations made on their clients based on evidence provided by the surveillance system.

These trends indicate that labor unions only support workplace surveillance when it is associated with real benefits to all parties and it is done in a manner that does not infringe the privacy rights of the employees.

Theoretical Framework: Labor Process Theory

This is a Marxist theory which describes the organization of work in the modern or capitalist society (West, 2005, p. 21). The theory explains the workers’ bargaining power in the capitalist labor market. According to this theory, the pursuit of strategies associated with capitalism culminates in deskilling of the workers and routine work.

The rationale for deskilling the workforce is to reduce the costs of production and facilitate high output (West, 2005, p. 26). The capitalists focus on deskilling the workforce since such a labor-force is cheap and can be controlled easily.

This theory explains the process of workplace surveillance as follows. Organization of work in the modern workplaces is based on elements of scientific management. Such elements include setting targets for employees, specifying what the employees are expected to do and how it should be done (Morden, 2004, p. 41).

The main task is broken down into small units which are executed by different workers on a routine basis. Thus in order to realize the objectives of the production process, the activities of each worker must be monitored to ensure that they meet their job targets.

According to the labor process theory, this forms the basis of workplace surveillance. Since the modern labor force is highly skilled, the workers might not be easily controlled even if they are alienated from the production process.

Consequently, employers in the modern or capitalist economy focus on the use of technology to control workers (Morden, 2004, p. 47). This explains the use of technologies such as internet surveillance and desktop surveillance to monitor the employees.

According to labor process theory, evaluation of workers’ performance is heavily reliant on the intelligence obtained from workplace surveillance (Morden, 2004, p. 49).

Workplace surveillance enhances high productivity since it forms the basis for rewarding workers who meet the expectations of the employers as well as punishing those who do not meet such expectations (Griffin, 2006, p. 67). The labor process theory is against this kind of control due to its negative effects on the workers.

As discussed above, monitoring at the workplace leads to stress, alienation, low motivation and job dissatisfaction. This means that intense workplace surveillance finally leads to low productivity instead of high productivity (Griffin, 2006, p. 67).

In regard to the debate on the purpose of workplace surveillance, the labor process theory indicates that it is meant to facilitate control which leads to invasion of workers’ privacy. Maintaining safety is just one of the many functions of workplace surveillance rather than its core objective.

Despite its demerits, employers continue to implement workplace surveillance due to the benefits accruing from the control it facilitates. This leads to the conclusion that workplace surveillance is a mechanism of control over employees and can lead to infringement of employees’ privacy rights.

Recommendations

According to the labor process theory, workplace surveillance can lead to infringement of workers’ privacy rights as well as lowering production as discussed above. In order to maximize the benefits of workplace surveillance, the following recommendations can be considered.

First, the company should develop a clear surveillance policy. The policy should be accompanied by controls that ensure protection of employees’ privacy rights.

Second, the employers should focus on reducing the negative effects such as stress and alienation which are caused by workplace surveillance (Griffin, 2006, p. 70). Finally, employers should encourage responsible autonomy instead of intense surveillance. This will help in boosting workers’ morale.

Workplace surveillance is a strategy used by employers to monitor the activities of their employees (Griffin, 2006, p. 56). It is used to ensure workers’ safety, prevent theft at the workplace, control the use of resources and encourage high productivity.

However, it is also associated with demerits which include low motivation, stress and alienation of workers (Stanton, 2003, pp. 257-274). The analysis of the perspectives of various stakeholders indicates that the primary objective of workplace surveillance is to control the activities of employees at the workplace. However, this control normally leads to the invasion of workers’ privacy.

According to the labor process theory, the use of elements of scientific management in the capitalist society necessitates control over employees. This is best achieved through workplace surveillance. This justifies the premise that workplace surveillance is a matter of control that can lead to invasion of privacy if misused.

Ariss, S. 2002. Computer monitoring: benefits and pitfalls facing management. Information and Management . 39(7), pp. 553-558.

Atak, M. and Erturgut, R. 2010. Importance of educated human resources in the information age view of information society organization on human. Social and Behavioral sciences . 2(2), pp. 1452-1456.

Blass, J. and Douglas, L. 2002. Monitoring colleagues at work. Labor Economics . 10(1), pp. 36-52.

Bryart, L. 2006. What are the pros and cons of monitoring employees using video surveillance? [Online] Web.

Effey, O., Glass, R. and Behly, R. 2000. Electronic workplace monitoring: what employees think. Omega . 27(2), pp. 167-177.

Electronic Frontiers Australia, 2005. Workplace privacy and surveillance . [Online] Web.

Griffin, R. 2006. Principles of management . New York: Cengage learning.

Halpern, D., Reville, P. and Grunewald, D. 2008. Management and legal issues regarding electronic surveillance of employees in the workplace. Journal of Business Ethics . 80(2), pp. 175-180.

Mishra, J. and Orampton, S. 2000. Employee monitoring: privacy in the workplace? SAM Advanced Management Journal . 36(1), pp. 2-10.

Morden, T. 2004. Principles of management . New York: Ashgate Publishing.

Saxby, S. 2000. Electronic monitoring poses email dilemma. Network Security . 20(1), pp. 17-18.

Schmitz, P. 2005. Workplace surveillance, privacy protection and efficiency wages. Labor Economics . 12(6), pp.727-738.

Stanton, J. 2003. Effects of workplace monitoring policies on potential employment discrimination and organizational attractiveness for African Americans in the technical professions. Journal of Black psychology . 29(3), pp. 257-274.

Stanton, J. and Weiss, E. 2002. Electronic monitoring in their own words: an exploration study of employees’ experience with new types of surveillance. Computer in Human behavior . 46(4), pp. 423-440.

West, R. 2005. Marx’s labor theory of value . New York: iUniverse.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, October 27). Workplace Surveillance. https://ivypanda.com/essays/workplace-surveillance/

"Workplace Surveillance." IvyPanda , 27 Oct. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/workplace-surveillance/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Workplace Surveillance'. 27 October.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Workplace Surveillance." October 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/workplace-surveillance/.

1. IvyPanda . "Workplace Surveillance." October 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/workplace-surveillance/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Workplace Surveillance." October 27, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/workplace-surveillance/.

• Surveillance Assemblage
• Workplace Monitoring's Legality and Ethics
• Are Law Enforcement Cameras an Invasion of Privacy?
• Electronic Privacy in the Workplace
• CCTV Cameras: Surveillance and the Reduction of Crime
• The Use of Video Surveillance Cameras in the Workplace Should Be Abolished/Reaffirmed
• Surveillance as the Answer to the Crime Issue
• Surveillance Cameras and Information Technologies
• The Moral Side of Government Surveillance
• Effects of Surveillance Technology on Privacy
• PGL Management: Motivational Strategy
• Needs of the employees of Melbourne Aquarium
• Global Challenges Faced By Fast Food Companies
• Hotel and Catering Business
• Cultural Implications of Information Systems in the Knowledge Management

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

‘Panic made us vulnerable’: how 9/11 made the US surveillance state – and the Americans who fought back

It took Edward Snowden and other whistleblowers to reveal the staggering extent of the government’s spying on its own people as institutional checks failed

O n the morning of 11 September 2001, an 18-year-old was driving his white Honda Civic on the way to work as a freelance web designer. It was a beautiful day under a sparkling blue sky, and as he sped down Maryland’s Route 32 with the window down and radio blasting, the teenager was sure it was going to be a lucky day.

Soon after 8.46am the radio cut to news that a plane had crashed into one of the Twin Towers in New York City. At 9.03am, by now at his desk, he was stunned to hear that a second plane had crashed into the other tower, followed half an hour later by similar catastrophe at the Pentagon in Washington.

He leapt back into his car and screeched into reverse, only to find himself stuck in gridlocked traffic sandwiched between hundreds of other vehicles. He was stuck outside the headquarters of the National Security Agency (NSA), the US intelligence body that runs one of the largest surveillance operations in the world.

The road was jammed with personnel streaming out of the NSA building following an order to evacuate. The air was thick with the sound of yelling, cellphones ringing, car engines revving vainly in the stationary traffic.

The surreal spectacle of thousands of NSA intelligence agents abandoning their posts after the worst terrorist attack on the US, only to be bogged down in gridlock, made a deep impression on the teenager, Edward Snowden . As did 9/11 itself, which radically changed the course of his life.

In its wake, Snowden became caught up in the surge of patriotism that swept the nation. Inspired to play his part, he joined the army, entered the intelligence community, and some 12 years after 9/11 found himself back at the same NSA where he had ground to a halt on that fateful day.

The attacks on the Twin Towers and Pentagon had brought Snowden deep into the heart of America’s secretive surveillance operations. But in the process it had given him access to highly classified databases that revealed to him a massive secret world, a sort of hidden state-within-the-state that had been created in the wake of 9/11.

Snowden would go on to carry out the largest intelligence leak in the NSA’s history . It would expose one of the great legacies of 9/11 – the rise of the ubiquitous US surveillance state.

“Panic made us politically vulnerable,” Snowden told the Guardian as he ruminated on the upcoming 20th anniversary of 9/11. “That vulnerability was exploited by our own government to entitle itself to radically expanded powers that had for decades been out of reach.”

Snowden said that upon reflection the explosion of domestic spying post-9/11 should have been anticipated. “We should have known what was to come and, looking back at the public record, I think that on an intellectual level many of us did know. But political and media elites relentlessly repeated that the choice here was obvious: a guarantee of life or a certainty of death.”

That teenager on 9/11 is now an exile from his own country , charged under the Espionage Act for having revealed the US government’s mass espionage on its own people. The way he sees it 20 years on, the false claim that expanding state power was necessary to avoid certain death from further terrorist atrocities has led to decades of public indifference.

“With that framing, who could care whether or not the gloves came off the machinery of state? We are only now beginning to care again – to care collectively – because we sit at the bottom of a 20-year hole carved by our neglect.”

I t happened in the blink of an eye. Within hours of the fourth plane crashing into a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, George Bush’s White House and intelligence chiefs had begun to lay the foundations of the mass surveillance state.

The Patriot Act , which swatted away longstanding rules preventing the state from monitoring US citizens without “probable cause”, was passed in a lightning-fast 45 days. The legislation became law with minimal debate or opposition in Congress, granting domestic law enforcement agencies sweeping new powers .

It allowed the government to track the online behavior of Americans while making it much easier to acquire a warrant. It gave the green light for the FBI and CIA to carry out “roving wiretaps” where agents could follow communications trails between phones and computers.

It eviscerated the firewall that had been in place since the 1970s shielding US citizens from foreign surveillance. And it greatly boosted the power of the FBI to obtain personal customer records of Americans from phone companies, banks and internet providers without court approval through so-called National Security Letters .

If the Patriot Act was produced in a flash, behind the scenes secret systems for mass surveillance were being built at even greater speed. One of the most audacious plans was drafted by nightfall on the day of 11 September itself.

The plan, ominously titled “Total information awareness” , was the brainchild of John Poindexter, a disgraced former naval officer who had been Ronald Reagan’s national security adviser and a key figure in the Iran-contra scandal . TIA, Poindexter blustered, would act as an early-warning alarm for future 9/11s by gathering up the digital data of all Americans – innocent or guilty – and using it to search for patterns of terrorist activity.

No warrants would be sought. They would just do it, irrespective of laws or constitutional niceties.

“We must put introduction of new technology on a wartime basis,” Poindexter said. Weeks later he managed to sell the idea to the Pentagon in return for a $200m budget.

The NSA wasn’t far behind. The agency was busy devising Stellar Wind , its warrantless surveillance system. It sought to identify terrorist links by analysing the metadata drawn from the emails, telephone calls and internet activity of huge numbers of Americans.

The Snowden documents showed that by 14 September – just three days after the attacks – the then director of the NSA, Michael Hayden, had taken a “tactical decision” to begin snooping on the digital communications of people based in the US. From now on, the NSA granted itself the power to surveil any American on US soil who was in digital contact with a foreign country where terrorism was known to exist – no warrant needed.

This was a seismic shift. It meant that the nation’s most powerful eavesdropping agency had ascribed to itself, without consulting Congress or the courts, the ability to listen in to the communications of Americans in a way that violated constitutional rights and laws. On 4 October 2001 the White House granted permission, again in secret and without consultation, for the NSA to turn its spotlight on to US citizens in what became known as the President’s Surveillance Program .

“They essentially claimed wartime authority to engage in domestic surveillance that is criminal under statutory law,” said Ben Wizner, Snowden’s lawyer, who works on surveillance at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

How could the spymasters have moved to put in place complex systems of mass surveillance just hours and days after 9/11? There is only one answer, many observers believe.

“They had it all ready,” said Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which defends civil liberties in the digital space. “This is what the NSA had long wanted – to ‘sit on the wire’, to watch all internet traffic and pick out whatever they chose. Now they finally had the crisis they needed to make it happen.”

B y the 10th anniversary of 9/11, an entire nation within the nation had arisen dedicated to keeping the American people nominally safe by placing everybody under observation. The Washington Post called it a “Top Secret America hidden from public view”.

The sprawling surveillance infrastructure had proliferated to the extent that nobody – not even top intelligence officials – knew how much it cost or how many it employed. The Post’s best estimate in July 2010 was that it spanned 10,000 locations across the US.

The scale of growth can be glimpsed by looking at some of the public elements. The number of National Security Letters granted each year increased more than fourfold between 2000 and 2003, peaking at almost 60,000 the following year. By 2008 almost 20,000 people were being targeted under its remit.

The intelligence budget grew from a little over $40bn a year in the late 1990s to almost $100bn by 2010, remaining $80bn to this day.

When Wizner looks back on the past 20 years he is struck not just by this explosion in surveillance but also by the failure of governance that enabled it. Key institutions like the secret foreign intelligence surveillance court , which is supposed to provide legal oversight, genuflected in front of the NSA.

“This is a story about checks and balances failing,” Wizner said. “The courts deferred to the expertise and secrecy claims of the executive, Congress failed to hold the intelligence agencies accountable.”

Even the media fell short of holding power to account. When in 2005 the New York Times revealed the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping, the newspaper admitted that it had sat on the story for a year at the behest of the White House.

The LA Times spiked a story brought to it by a whistleblower who revealed that the telecom company AT&T had handed over all its internet traffic to the NSA. The paper had been lobbied by Hayden and the then director of national intelligence, John Negroponte.

Traditional oversight did have some successes. Ron Wyden, a US senator for Oregon, managed to have Poindexter’s Total Information Awareness program shut down in 2003 , after an intern in his office stumbled across documents describing the operation.

“That was one of our first wins – it would have been the biggest spying operation in history,” Wyden said. (Three years later it was revealed that elements of the program had secretly been transferred from the Pentagon to the NSA.)

Wyden, a longstanding member of the Senate select committee on intelligence, has been at the forefront of efforts to force sunlight into the world of secret surveillance. As the 10th anniversary of 9/11 was approaching he issued his famous warning on the Senate floor, telling the American people that when they found out how the government had interpreted the Patriot Act “they will be stunned and they will be angry”.

In another legendary moment two years later, he posed a direct question to the then director of national intelligence, James Clapper, about whether the NSA was collecting data on hundreds of millions of Americans. “No, sir,” Clapper lied.

Wyden told the Guardian that the exchange showed how far the government had allowed itself to slide in terms of basic American values. “James Clapper lied to the American people and he lied to the committee. It wasn’t the only time they lied – they lied several times over the years, which is why I finally said I wouldn’t be doing my job if I didn’t ask the question I did in public.”

It is a paradox of Wyden’s attempts to wrench surveillance into the open that despite his efforts the full truth about the massive dragnet of all Americans’ digital communications remained concealed. As a member of the committee, the senator was briefed in secret about the warrantless eavesdropping but was constrained by what he has called the “cumbersome and unwieldy” restrictions on his public remarks.

The Guardian asked Wyden whether he thought, with the benefit of hindsight over these past 20 years, that Congress could have done more to check the intelligence agencies.

“You look back, and the answer is: sure. You keep pushing the rock up the hill and you have wins, and there are times when you wish there had been stronger support for reform.”

B efore Edward Snowden there was Mark Klein . He was the whistleblower who exposed the AT&T story that the LA Times declined to publish. Klein was a technician assigned to the internet room of AT&T’s Folsom Street building in San Francisco through which colossal quantities of data passed every hour. It was 2004 and unbeknown to the public the telecoms company had been bending over backwards since days after 9/11 to help the US government spy on its own people.

As Klein went about routine maintenance, his eye was drawn to a splitter cabinet inside the room. It was dividing the light beam carrying the data into two separate signals, and passing one of them – an exact copy of the other – down to the floor below.

Klein’s curiosity intensified when he tried to follow the signal and found that the lower room was locked behind a door marked 641A. Nobody was allowed in without special authorization from the NSA.

When Klein obtained internal engineering documents outlining the flow of data through the splitter cabinet down to the secret room, his suspicions were confirmed. The NSA was copying and collecting everybody’s information carried not only by AT&T but also by 16 other internet providers who shared the pipeline.

“I was horrified and astonished. It was like a police state, sweeping up everybody’s information blindly and allowing agents to go through it at their leisure.”

Klein’s discovery was made public by Wired magazine in 2006 . The documents he obtained went on to form the basis of a major lawsuit launched by the EFF , though in 2008 Congress passed a law absolving AT&T and other phone companies from any legal liability for collaborating with the spy chiefs.

Mark Klein, Thomas Tamm , Thomas Drake , William Binney , Kirk Wiebe, Edward Loomis, Diane Roark – the list of individuals who, for a variety of motives, provided critical information to investigative journalists seeking to expose the surveillance state is long and impressive. Without them, given the failure of checks and balances, we might still be in the dark today.

“Everything we know about mass surveillance we know not because of our government institutions but despite them,” Wizner said. “We know because of courageous sources and journalists who pried those stories out into the light.”

And then there was Snowden. On 6 June 2013 – almost 12 years after 9/11 – the first incendiary story exposing the NSA’s dragnet of the telephone records of millions of Verizon customers was published by the Guardian. The next day the paper reported on Prism , a system for sucking up data from US internet giants including Google and Facebook.

The lid on the secret US surveillance state had finally been lifted. One of the documents Snowden disclosed neatly encapsulated the NSA’s posture: “Sniff It All, Know It All, Collect It All, Process It All, Exploit It All, Partner It All.”

Snowden has an even more vivid way of summing up the public consequences of the closed world he had bust open. In his memoir Permanent Record he writes: “All of us had been reduced to something like children, who’d be forced to live the rest of our lives under omniscient parental supervision.”

I t is tempting to think of the mass surveillance put in place post-9/11 as a great leveler – after all, the NSA did grab the metadata of all Americans irrespective of race, class or religion. But to suggest that 9/11 gave birth to a new equality of snooping under the government’s all-seeing eye would be a travesty.

Surveillance has always fallen unevenly in the US, stretching back to the days when slaves were required to carry lanterns at night so they could be followed. After 9/11 it was the turn of Muslims.

“The Patriot Act was the stepping stone for what became open season on American Muslims,” said Nihad Awad, the executive director of the advocacy group the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “There were no rules. The government just said ‘Let’s go after Muslims.’”

Before 9/11 Awad had been invited to sit on White House advisory committees. After 9/11 he and his family would routinely be stopped and searched at airports and treated like criminals. “We became the enemy,” he said.

For years Awad was puzzled by the hostile stories in the press containing personal details, the banks that refused to do business with him. He had to wait until Snowden to make sense of what was happening.

An investigation by the Intercept based on the Snowden files showed that Awad had been placed on a top-secret list of 7,485 people, many foreigners but also including an unknown number of Americans, whose emails were being monitored by the NSA and FBI. They included other high-profile Muslim Americans including a former Republican candidate, a lawyer and university professors.

“When Snowden let us know that I was on the list I realized the government had access to my private emails and were sharing them with Congress and leaking them to the media,” Awad said.

“I felt invaded by my own government, punished for leading a civil rights organization. If people like me in positions of influence were treated like this, what about the average Muslim?”

Asad Dandia was born and raised in Brooklyn. He was eight years-old on 9/11 and a teenager when his troubles started. As a religiously observant Muslim, he had founded with friends a food distribution charity offering help to struggling families from his community.

In March 2012 he was contacted through Facebook by a stranger named Shamiur Rahman who said he wanted to volunteer for a spiritually grounded organization like his. Rahman said he had been through a rough patch himself and now wanted to help others.

Dandia welcomed Rahman in. “He quickly grew close to me and to my circles,” he said. “He met my family, he ate my mother’s food, he slept over one night. We shared many intimate moments of emotional and spiritual reflection.”

At times Rahman behaved strangely. Whenever Dandia introduced him to anybody the first thing he would do would be to ask for their phone number. He also asked provocative questions, like what Dandia thought of the killing in Benghazi of Christopher Stevens , the US ambassador to Libya.

“That was a really dumb question – it was murder and obviously we thought it was wrong,” Dandia said. But he gave Rahman the benefit of the doubt.

“I attributed that to the fact he had mental health and drug addiction issues. I thought we should be patient with him.”

A few months after Rahman entered his life, Dandia was taken aside by a member of his local Muslim community who was working as an NYPD officer. “You are being watched, there’s a file with your name and photos in it and you are being followed,” he told Dandia.

Seven months into their friendship, Rahman posted a confession on Facebook. He was an NYPD informant tasked with infiltrating Muslim groups and mosques.

The news travelled fast and sent a chill throughout the area. Mosques asked Dandia to stop fundraising for his food bank as they were afraid of being targeted themselves. Dandia grew reclusive.

“It made me suspicious of people. I hid my left-leaning political views and deeper religious commitments. That wasn’t how I wanted to live, in a state of permanent paranoia, but there was a complete breakdown in trust.”

Through the Associated Press , Dandia came to learn that he was just a speck in the NYPD’s mountainous surveillance of Muslims. Communities up and down the east coast were mapped through a secret “Demographics Unit” and individuals’ daily habits – shopping, work, prayer, school – tracked on massive CIA-designed databases.

Muslims with drug habits who fell into the NYPD’s clutches, like Rahman, were offered lenient treatment in return for turning informant.

“I felt betrayed,” Dandia said. “I was born and raised in New York. This is the city that I love and that I’m proud to call my home. It targeted me because of my religion, like a foreign enemy.”

S ince Snowden shone his laser beam into the secret surveillance state-within-a-state, there has been a concerted effort to restore the balance, destroyed after 9/11, between individual liberties and national security. The USA Freedom Act in 2015 curtailed some of the NSA’s metadata practices, passing the storage of bulk phone records from the agency to the phone companies, and opening up the foreign intelligence surveillance court to a modicum of public scrutiny.

It was the first time since the 1970s that Congress had limited the NSA’s authority in any way. “We have closed great swathes of the internet to the oldest methods of mass surveillance,” Snowden told the Guardian.

In 2019 the NSA let it be known that it had shut down its mass collection of phone and text records. The NSA cited “technical irregularities”, but by then it was widely known that the spying program had not only been illegal in its inception, it just hadn’t worked.

Despite the NSA’s claim that by snooping on all Americans’ communications it had thwarted numerous other 9/11s, the agency could only point to one terrorism case, that of Basaalay Moalin , found guilty of funding Somali extremism, that had come through the phone records program. Last year a federal judge concluded that even Moalin’s case had been irrelevant: the NSA played no role in his conviction.

There have been other victories in the battle against the surveillance state. Wyden was heartened by the vote in the Senate last year on his amendment to protect the browsing history of Americans from secret surveillance.

The amendment failed, but by only one vote. “I thought that was very telling, we almost won – that wouldn’t have happened 15 years ago.”

Asad Dandia signed up to a class-action lawsuit challenging the NYPD’s mass surveillance of him and so many other Muslim Americans. In 2016 they achieved a groundbreaking settlement that sharply reined in police targeting of religious and racial groups.

“I felt empowered, it gave me hope that Americans can push the country to live up to its own ideals,” he said.

Perhaps the biggest shift has been among the American people. The urge of individuals to protect themselves against state eavesdropping became so intense that tech giants were forced to respond and in 2016, for the first time since the internet was created, it carried more encrypted data than unencrypted.

Which is not to say that the state-within-a-state has withered away, or that the balance between privacy and security has been perfected. “Not even close,” Cohn said.

The Guardian asked surveillance experts what, in the present moment, keeps them up at night. What dastardly new tricks from the spymasters do they fear most?

Wyden pointed to legal loopholes that allow shady private data brokers to sell Americans’ personal information to government agencies without any court oversight. “I continue to be very worried about that,” he said.

Snowden raised a similar shift, where mass surveillance is now predominantly performed by “amoral telecommunications and surveillance-masquerading-as-advertising companies. They exploit weaknesses in our laws, devices and networks to pad out their dossiers, and then sell them to governments.”

Cohn talked about how surveillance cameras were being weaponized with the addition of facial recognition technology that could have especially dire consequences for people of colour.

Wizner said he sweated over the rise of robotic surveillance and AI. “More and more we will see critical decisions affecting liberty being made inside black boxes,” he said.

For Patrick Toomey of the ACLU’s national security project, what keeps him up at night is simply all of it, the whole technological gamut. “The threat is persistent surveillance – of being surveilled wherever we go using a vast network of devices that can potentially listen to what we say , or recognize who we are based on our faces or the way we walk. There’s a very real danger that this sensitive information will be used to make decisions that are discriminatory or inaccurate, that can profoundly impact our lives.”

In the last analysis, the US surveillance state got away with operating in total secret for so many years after 9/11 that it raises the question: are we still in the dark?

“This will always be like trying to keep the kibble from the cat,” Snowden said. “So long as they know what they want is out there somewhere, they’re going to work out new ways to get it.”

• Surveillance
• 9/11: 20 years later
• Edward Snowden
• September 11 2001

Most viewed

16 Pros and Cons Government Surveillance of Citizens

When we look back at the top-trending stories of the last decade, there are three in particular which stand out when looking at the issue of government surveillance: the death of Trayvon Martin, the rise and fall of Google Glass, and the release of information about the surveillance program called Prism.

Even though these issues may not seem like they are connected at first, each story represents a growing movement toward, or away from, a society that features surveillance.

On one side of the debate, there are people who say that there is too much surveillance already present in our society. We have wearable cameras, mobile computers, and a complete lack of privacy thanks to the amount of video we can produce without anyone realizing they are captured in the data.

The other side of the debate suggests that a society which offers cameras and recorders everywhere will make the world a safer place. When you are on camera committing a crime, then it becomes more.of a challenge to find a successful result in our adversarial system of justice.

Do we want this kind of society? These government surveillance pros and cons go beyond the idea that such an action would provide justice for all at the cost of having zero privacy.

List of the Pros of Government Surveillance

1. It is one of three primary methods of collecting information to keep people safe. Marc Thiessen from The Washington Post argues that there are only three ways that the government can collect the data that is needed to keep everyone in the country safe. Officials can obtain the information by questioning subjects, infiltrating enemy groups, or using intelligence resources to monitor communications. Even though this effort can track the phone calls, text messages, and emails of millions of people who pose no threat to the country, the argument is that the government surveillance is necessary to detect any association to international terrorism.

2. Surveillance does not create a threat of physical harm on its own. When the government is performing surveillance over video, communication lines, and Internet resources, then no one is being physically harmed by these activities. You can install trackers on a vehicle that might invade some of your privacy, but it will not be an actual attack on your person. Because the goal of this work is to discover criminal activities, many people believe that the ends justify the means when it comes to keeping everyone safe.

3. The act of surveillance acts as a deterrent to would-be criminals. Because there is an extensive web of government surveillance in place across the country, there is a natural deterrent in place that stops criminal activity before it can start. People tend to react to safety interventions instead of responding to them, which means their effort at harming someone is stopped before it can start. When those with nefarious intent discover that they have no way to hide from law enforcement, then there are fewer incidents that will eventually come to fruition.

That won’t stop the individuals who take their communication underground, but it can pick up many of the conversations and messages that people exchange when trying to coordinate an attack.

4. It provides a real-time look that provides an accurate account of events. When we look at the case of Trayvon Martin, who was an unarmed African-American teen that was shot because of his appearance, the most important evidence was the words of the shooter about how the argument between the two began. During the trial, the statements of the eyewitnesses differed, creating uncertainty about the sequence of events. With surveillance in place, it would have been much easier to determine what happened and what level of justice was necessary in that circumstance.

5. Surveillance equipment can be installed almost anywhere. The modern equipment for government surveillance can go almost anywhere. You can find cameras installed on telephone poles, stop lights, and in the ceilings and exterior of homes and businesses around the world. There are automated license plate readers that can be installed almost anywhere to track driving patterns in the city. Drones can provide real-time surveillance as well.

Then you have the secret programs of the government that can record and analyze data automatically on a mass scale.

6. Government surveillance can occur on a global scale. Under FISA 702, the U.S. government can collect a massive quantity of detailed, sensitive, and intimate personal information about individuals from all over the world. This advantage includes anyone who has a foreign intelligence interest for the government. That means we can even eavesdrop of foreign ambassadors, gather information about commodities, and then use all of this information to gain more leverage during negotiations.

List of the Cons of Government Surveillance

1. It is impossible to catch everything that happens in society. When the government is conducting surveillance on a mass scale, then it is impossible for the monitors to pay close attention to everything that happens in society. Even when there are automated systems in place that can alert the authorities to suspicious behavior, conversation keywords, or specific subjects who could be problematic, the number of false positives in the system are always going to be greater than the real problems you’re trying to catch.

The world is full of a variety of conversations that makes monitoring all of them an imprecise effort at best. From the words with double meanings to metaphors that alarm systems unintentionally, there is a lot of data to sort through. That reduces the chances to catch something of concern.

2. Anyone can connect the dots in hindsight. When we take a look back at the various acts of violence that were captured through government surveillance, it is notable that many of the perpetrators tend to appear on watch lists because of the sheer amount of data collected. When Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev was placed on a terrorist watch list before attacking the city during the marathon, it was much easier to see the behavioral patterns and actions that led to the event after the fact than it was to predict what his actions would be.

This issue creates a conundrum for government surveillance. You can always see clearly in retrospect. That means we tend to learn more when we start to connect the dots instead of trying to prevent problems in real time.

3. Surveillance misses lead to even more data being collected on people. When there is a miss from government surveillance activities, then the reaction tends to be an ever-closer analysis of the information that was collected already. It can also lead the authorities to add even more surveillance to create additional data to sift through in the hopes that the real threats can be isolated from the false ones. This outcome means that there will be more privacy invasions over time as AI and human investigators apply a mass-scrutiny policy to their review efforts.

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore,” said Philip K. Dick. “Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.”

4. Government surveillance places innocent people under investigation. Even if the data collected through government surveillance creates a reasonable suspicion of conduct for the targeted person, there may not be a guarantee that the individual is guilty. When we increase the amount of coverage that’s available in society, then we begin to restrict the rights of those who don’t deserve security interventions.

We have already seen innocent people being placed on watch lists, having their lives placed underneath the microscope of an investigation, and it occurs with ever-fewer pieces of evidence that back up the scope of what is happening. “There are no private lives,” said Dick. “This is a most important aspect of modern life. One of the biggest transformations we have seen in our society is the diminution of the sphere of the private.”

5. The government can use the information for its own benefit. The information that the government collects through surveillance can provide more data on behaviors and choices that go beyond the need for safety. This effort could help politicians discover unique data points which might predict voter behavior patterns in an election. It shows a person’s travel patterns, the structure of their social networks, and even the products they prefer to purchase at the grocery store.

When the government can use the information from surveillance to influence people to vote or buy in specific ways, then they are changing the very fabric of society. It is an authoritarian way to govern without the presence of a dictator to direct traffic. “Under observation, we act less free,” said Edward Snowden, “which means we effectively are less free.”

6. Government surveillance sweeps gather more bystanders than subjects. In an analysis of the information gathered through FISA 702, the number of non-targeted communications are 10 times greater than the data that the government actually wants to analyze from a suspect. Even if the goal is to spy on foreigners only, the huge volumes of data cannot help but to bring in information from email exchanges, photographs, social medial sharing, and conversations.

The government classifies the unwanted data as being incidental, but that doesn’t necessarily stop the information from being used in inappropriate ways. Once the data is acquired, other law enforcement agencies can search through the information without the need to obtain a warrant in some situations.

7. There is a persistent threat for insider abuse. There are already documented cases of agents in the government taking advantage of the data that surveillance programs collect information about others. It is easy to access this data to look at what is going on with a spouse, a mistress, or someone who is a personal enemy. The problem is so prevalent that there are nicknames for these searches.

The insider abuse of this data also applies in the form of attorney-client privilege. Governments are not bound to recognize this confidential nature of this relationship with the data that they collect. That means people could potentially incriminate themselves through surveillance even though they believe that there are protections in place while they prepare for their defense.

8. Individuals can be charged without any knowledge of their participation. This disadvantage comes to us courtesy of the Upstream program from the NSA. The government scans the information that flows over the internet to see if there is information about foreign intelligence targets. If you mention a political figure to a friend who lives overseas, then that could be enough to trigger a review of your conversation. Discussing their address or contact information could even lead to charges.

This issue could apply if you’re having a conversation with someone who commits a crime without your knowledge. In the United States, government surveillance efforts could collect your whole email account even if there is only one email that triggers the automated review systems.

9. There may not be any oversight over the government surveillance programs. Under section 702 in the United States, there is no judicial participation in the targeting decisions made by the government. The courts will assess the procedures to determine if they fit into the correct procedures that authorize this monitoring. There is no actual oversight on the targeting decisions that get made. That means any of the information that is collected through incidental gathering can flow to law enforcement even though it was never authorized by a judge.

10. There is an expense to consider with government surveillance. When you consider all of the technology investments, labor, and analyzing hours that go into a government surveillance program, the amount of money that gets spent each year can total several billion dollars. That money comes through taxpayer support in the name of defense, which means the population effectively pays for the data that the government could potentially use against them under the right set of circumstances.

Verdict on the Pros and Cons of Government Surveillance

There is a time and place for government surveillance where the use is authorized to keep someone safe. Whenever there is a threat to human life that is predictable and eminent, then this technology can help to save lives.

The problem with this issue is that governments tend to collect and keep the information so that it becomes useful in a variety of ways. Instead of keeping people safe, the data transitions to keeping specific people in power.

The pros and cons of government surveillance are essential to review every so often because as time passes, our priorities may change. The Patriot Act in the United States authorized many of the programs that fall into this category in 2001. It may be time to revisit that need.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ
• Our Offices

Archived Press Releases

Archived News

Para Notícias en Español

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on the Senate’s Vote on the Reauthorization and Reform of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702

The Justice Department issued the following statement from Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on the Senate's vote on the reauthorization and reform of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Section 702:

“Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is indispensable to the Justice Department’s work to protect the American people from terrorist, nation-state, cyber, and other threats.  

“This reauthorization of Section 702 gives the United States the authority to continue to collect foreign intelligence information about non-U.S. persons located outside the United States, while at the same time codifying important reforms the Justice Department has adopted to ensure the protection of Americans’ privacy and civil liberties.  

“In today’s heightened global threat environment, the Justice Department will continue to use Section 702 to ensure that our efforts to keep our country safe are informed by the most valuable and timely intelligence, as we continue to uphold our commitment to protect the rights of all Americans.”

Related Content

Thank you, Steve. I am grateful for that overly generously introduction. No disrespect intended, but next time I’d like that woman there to introduce me. She’s really something.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland and Director Steven M. Dettelbach of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) dedicated a new “Faces of Gun Violence” exhibit today at...

The Justice Department announced today the seizure of four domains used by the administrators and customers of a domain spoofing service. The domain seizures were authorized pursuant to seizure warrants...

• Free Essays
• Citation Generator

"Surveillance camera thesis paper" Essays and Research Papers

Surveillance Camera

Surveillance cameras in banks‚ offices‚ shops and streets have been very successful in reducing crime in the workplace and in public‚ but they are also a tool for their users to spy on people’s private business. Surveillance is a close observation of a person or a group‚ especially one under suspicion for the purpose of influencing‚ directing‚ managing‚ or protecting. It creates both positive and negative effects. It is very useful for governments and law enforcements to maintain social control

Premium Crime Police Constable

Surveillance Cameras

Surveillance Cameras Nadine Strossen is the authors of “Everyone is watching you” an article that its main purpose is to alert readers how our privacy rights are been violated by surveillance cameras . The article in general informs the reader of the topic right from the beginning with the title which explains a lot of the matter to discuss. The author introduces the topic very clear with the example of Eric Blair the author of “Big Brother is watching you” and how this caption relates to the matter

Premium Privacy Surveillance Data Protection Act 1998

Hidden Surveillance Cameras

Hidden Surveillance Cameras Shawn Pettis Westwood College Hidden Surveillance Cameras Topic &amp; Purpose Hidden surveillance cameras are an important topic because time and time again‚ the use of hidden cameras has given us better ways to catch criminals in the act. “Did you see?” has become an obsolete question; just go to the video. Imagine waking up to an intruder in your home‚ getting robbed at gun point or witnessing a crime being committed. I have experienced all of these events

Premium Surveillance Security guard Privacy

Are Surveillance Cameras Necessary

While I do understand that surveillance cameras have many practical purposes in today’s world‚ I still find the very notion of them disturbing and unnerving. It is too easy to slip over the line between necessary and invasive . That line is just too thin. While I realize that many of the surveillance cameras are installed in buildings for sound reasons‚ the idea that I am being watched as I walk through a store‚ across a parking lot or

Premium Surveillance Reason Saul Kripke

Surveillance Camera Introduction

Surveillance Camera Smile‚ you are on a surveillance camera . Walking along a major street and looking up‚ people will probably see cameras glaring back at them. Perhaps people cannot see them‚ but they are staying there. In these years‚ society has seen the rapid proliferation of different measures aiming to prevent or reduce crime. Surveillance cameras have become ubiquitous in many cities and countries. These smaller‚ less noticeable cameras are used not only by the government but also by individuals

Premium Surveillance Crime Crime prevention

Use of surveillance cameras

Use of surveillance cameras in public areas Surveillance cameras are used all over the world in public and semi-public areas for a range of reasons. About three-quarters of small businesses record who comes into their location on CCTV. CCTV stands for closed-circuit television. There are systems that recognize license plates on moving vehicles and systems that monitor traffic flow and catch people violating traffic laws. Examples of relevant public places that CCTVs are used include: Public parks

Premium Surveillance

Surveillance Cameras Panopticism

will  display  a  camera .  While  in  school‚  behave  to  the  principal’s  policies  because  he  will  certainly  see.  While  being  nearly  any  place  in  public‚  be  aware  that  there  is  a  watchful  gaze  upon  each  person.  This  is  not  merely  done  for  fun   as  a  silly   spy  game.  Every  camera   is  installed  to  observe  the  actions  of  the  people.  Such  a  structure  is  set  up  nearly  everywhere.  In  fact‚  around   30   million  surveillance   cameras   are  now  established 

Premium Panopticon USA PATRIOT Act Michel Foucault

The Pros And Cons Of Surveillance Cameras

the book‚ The Testing surveillance is a major factor in the lives of all the competitors. The competitors were constantly being watched by Testing Officials. Even in real life‚ surveillance cameras are all around you. ¨Most developed countries use them; however‚ they are most prevalent in the UK‚ where there is 1 surveillance camera for every 11 people¨ (Newsy). As surveillance cameras become more advanced‚ it may not only be for watching for crime. “ Surveillance cameras have become far more sophisticated

Premium Crime Police United States

The Pros And Cons Of Government Surveillance Cameras

The fourth amendment states‚ “The 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.” The government is invading this amendment by spying on the citizens without warrant. The government shouldn’t have the right to spy unless

Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Law

Surveillance Cameras: Real Life Robocops

Surveillance Cameras : Real Life ’RoboCops’ Audience - American Citizens‚ especially registered voters in major cities Point of View- Policemen Working the streets for twenty years has shown me a side of humanity I wish I didn’t know existed. One night with me on the streets‚ patrolling‚ protecting‚ you’ll wish there were policemen on every corner. We have threats within and outside of our borders‚ playing on the weakness of our law enforcement. Since it isn’t possible to hire thousands of

Premium Surveillance Government Law enforcement

• Computer security
• Crime prevention
• Criminology
• Data Protection Act 1998
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
• Law enforcement
• Law enforcement agency
• Michel Foucault
• Surveillance cameras in public places
• Surveillance cameras sentence outline
• Surveillance interpretation linkage entertainment and formulating values
• Surveillance society
• Surveillance under the usa patriot act
• Survey advantage
• Survey and feedback
• Survey at least 20 people to find out what traits they ha
• Survey in management accounting in nepal
• Survey in pharmacy

• Request a Meeting
• Invite Me to Speak
• Newsletter and Text Update Subscription
• Report a Website Problem
• Congressional App Challenge
• Congressional Art Competition
• Community Project Funding
• Congressional Commendations
• Help with a Federal Agency
• Military Academy Nominations
• Tours and Tickets
• Affordable Internet
• Delivering for Those Who Served
• Lower Prescription Drug Costs
• Tackling the Student Loan Debt Crisis
• Committees and Caucuses
• Sponsored Legislation
• Voting Record
• Press Releases
• COVID-19 Information and Resources
• Free Tax Preparation & Filing
• For Business
• For Internships
• For Military Personnel
• For Veterans
• For Senior Citizens
• For Students
• Additional Services and Resources
• Appropriations Requests
• Bringing Manufacturing Jobs to America
• Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) 
• Medicare Open Enrollment

Congressman Hakeem Jeffries .logo-0 { fill: #FFFFFF; } .logo-1 { fill: #5589AD; } .logo-2 { fill: #2F3030; } .logo-3 { fill: none; stroke: #2F3030; stroke-width: 1.6981; stroke-linecap: round; stroke-linejoin: round; stroke-miterlimit: 10; } .logo-4 { fill: #2F3030; stroke: #2F3030; stroke-width: 0.8491; stroke-linecap: round; stroke-linejoin: round; stroke-miterlimit: 10; } .logo-5 { fill: none; stroke: #FFFFFF; stroke-width: 1.6981; stroke-linecap: round; stroke-miterlimit: 10; } .logo-6 { fill: none; stroke: #FFFFFF; stroke-width: 2.5472; stroke-linecap: round; stroke-linejoin: round; stroke-miterlimit: 10; }

• Federal Grants

LEADER JEFFRIES STATEMENT ON SENATE PASSAGE OF NATIONAL SECURITY LEGISLATION

Brooklyn, NY — Today, Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries released the following statement upon the Senate’s passage of the critical national security package:

Congratulations to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and members of the Senate on swift passage of bipartisan legislation important to America’s national security interests. Led by Chuck Schumer, highly consequential legislation that supports democracy and freedom throughout the world and provides humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza and other theaters of conflict is on its way from the Senate to President Biden’s desk. 

The House Republican majority irresponsibly delayed critical security assistance to our democratic allies in Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific for months, until a bipartisan coalition led by President Joe Biden ultimately prevailed. It was an epic struggle to get to this point.  

At every step of the journey, House Democrats provided the votes necessary – procedurally and substantially – to secure military and economic aid for Ukraine, repeatedly breaking with congressional customs and traditions. In the end, House Democrats concluded to a person that standing up for democracy and American leadership of the free world was far more important than letting the GOP civil war crash and burn the legislative process. House Democrats were determined to break the extreme MAGA Republican wing in our chamber, so that pro-Putin Republicans could not break democracy in the free world. 

Mission accomplished.

Opening statements in Trump's historic trial set to begin Monday after tense day of jury selection

Opening statements are set to begin next week in Donald Trump’s historic criminal trial after the final members of the jury were seated Friday, following a dramatic day in which two prospective jurors broke down in tears, an appeals court judge rejected Trump's request for a stay, and a man set himself on fire in front of the courthouse.

“We’re going to have opening statements on Monday morning. This trial is starting,” Judge Juan Merchan said towards the end of the day, after successfully seating the remaining five alternate jurors that were needed.

The case — the first-ever criminal trial of a former president —will be heard by a panel of 12 jurors and a total of six alternates. It's expected to last roughly six weeks.

The five alternates ultimately selected Friday include an unemployed married woman who’s into art and described herself as not political, an audio professional, a contract specialist, a clothing company executive and a construction company project manager. It took four days of jury selection to find the 18 jurors.

Around the same time the judge declared, "we have our full panel" inside the courtroom in the early afternoon, a man set himself on fire outside the courthouse. The NYPD said the man, identified as Max Azzarello of Florida, later died. He appeared to have had pamphlets describing a conspiracy involving cryptocurrency that he threw around before setting himself ablaze, police said.

Later in the afternoon, Trump's attorneys were in a state appeals court trying again to get an emergency stay of the trial. Trump attorney Cliff Robert argued his client could not get a fair trial in Manhattan, which had been Trump's longtime home before moving to Florida after he was elected president in 2016.

Steven Wu of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office countered that "what the last week has shown is that the jury selection has worked."

"We have 18 ordinary New Yorkers who are ready to serve. It would be unfair to them and the public for this to be delayed further," he argued. The judge rejected Trump's stay request a short time later.  

The jury selection process Friday was especially intense, some potential jurors breaking down in tears and others saying they were too anxious to serve.

The day began with the judge calling up the 22 remaining potential jurors from the previous pool of 96 to answer questions designed to indicate whether they could be fair and impartial about the divisive real estate mogul and presumptive Republican nominee for president.

The first of those potential jurors was dismissed after she said she didn’t think she could be fair. “I have really, really bad anxiety and people have found out where I am,” she told the judge. A short time later, two other potential jurors were dismissed after each told the judge that upon further reflection, “I don’t think I can be impartial.”

Other potential jurors included a married father who said he listens to a podcast called “Order of Man,” which is described on Apple’s website as discussions about “reclaiming what it means to be a man.” Some past guests of the podcast include people who’ve been outspoken in their support of Trump and were highly critical of the civil fraud case New York Attorney General Letitia James brought against the former president. The man, an audio specialist, was chosen as one of the alternates.

Another potential juror was a married fund manager who said he’d done “get-out-the-vote” work for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Trump’s 2016 presidential opponent. Trump and his attorney Todd Blanche passed notes back and forth while that juror was speaking. He was later dismissed after being asked about a 2020 Facebook post where he apparently called Trump “the devil and a sociopath.”

Trump appeared most interested in jurors whose answers offer ambiguity around their personal political views. When one prospective juror said they were a Fox News viewer, Trump cocked his head, then quickly conferred with his lawyer, Todd Blanche.

Another potential juror was a woman who became emotional as she disclosed she'd served two years in prison on drug-related charges, but said she could be "fair and impartial."

During a morning break, Merchan — who'd chided reporters on Thursday for disclosing too much information about potential jurors — said the woman had shared "very personal things about her life" and was "very brave." “I just wanted to encourage the press to please be kind. Please be kind to this person,” the judge said. He later dismissed her, saying she needed a certificate of release to be qualified for service going forward. On her way out, she cheerfully called out, "Good luck!"

Following that juror's departure, the DA's office began its individual questioning of the jurors. One woman, who'd disclosed that her father is lifelong friends with Trump ally turned critic Chris Christie, broke down in tears when prosecutor Susan Hoffinger asked her an innocuous question about the burden of proof in the case. "I feel so nervous and anxious right now. I’m sorry," she responded, bursting out into tears. "I thought I could do this," she said, adding "I wouldn’t want someone who feels this way to judge my case." She was dismissed.

Hoffinger's questioning was followed by Trump attorney Susan Necheles, who asked a potential juror who'd started their own business how she would assess a witness's credibility. The woman then asked to speak to the judge, saying she was "getting anxiety and self-doubt” from Necheles's line of questioning. She was dismissed. 

Necheles later asked another woman — who previously said she was a victim of sexual assault — whether she would hold it against Trump that women outside this case have accused Trump of sexual assault. She said she would not have a problem setting those accusations aside but the judge ultimately excused her, saying, "It’s best to err on the side of caution."

Another man said he has some differences from Trump on his policies but thinks he's “usually awesome.” He was not chosen for the jury.

On his way into court in the morning, Trump again complained the case against him is "unfair," and that the partial gag order preventing him from lashing out at witnesses, prosecutors, court staffers and jurors is not "constitutional." "Everyone else can say whatever they want about me. They can say anything they want. They can continue to make up lies and everything else. They lie. They’re real scum. But you know what? I’m not allowed to speak," he told reporters.

Prosecutors this week asked the judge to fine Trump and hold him in contempt for social media posts that they said violate the gag order. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for Tuesday.

The m a in pa nel of 12 is made up of seven men and five women, including two lawyers, a teacher, a retired wealth manager, a product development manager, a security engineer, a software engineer, a speech therapist and a physical therapist. The foreman — the juror who essentially acts as the leader and spokesperson for the panel — is a married man who works in sales and gets his news from The New York Times, MSNBC and Fox News.

The lone alternate selected Thursday is a woman who works as an asset manager.

Trump vented about the speed of the process in a post on social media shortly after the final jurors were selected, claiming the judge is “‘railroading’ me, at breakneck speed, in order to completely satisfy his ‘friends’.”

Later in the day, Merchan held what's known as a Sandoval hearing . That's a type of hearing designed to let defendants know the scope of questions they could face from prosecutors on cross-examination so they can make informed decisions about whether to take the witness stand in their own defense.

Leaving court on Friday, Trump was asked whether he was still planning to testify and he said he was.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's office disclosed in a court filing that it would like to ask Trump about several items, among them the $464 million civil judgment against him and his company for fraud , the total $88 million verdicts and liability findings for sexual abuse  and  defamation in lawsuits brought by writer E. Jean Carroll and a number of other adverse court rulings over the past few years.

Trump has denied wrongdoing in all the cases and is appealing  the fraud judgment and the Carroll verdicts.

Prosecutors said they want to be able to bring those findings up “to impeach the credibility of the defendant” if he takes the witness stand.

Discussing the findings in the fraud case, prosecutor Matthew Colangelo told the judge it was "hard to think of something that is more squarely in the wheelhouse” for the DA to ask Trump about "than a finding by a judge of persistent and repeated fraud and illegality."

Trump's attorney Emil Bove countered that prosecutors shouldn't be able to breach the topic at all because Trump's appeal is still pending. He made similar arguments over the DA's contention that they should be allowed to ask about a judge's finding that he was untruthful on the witness stand during the fraud trial and had violated a gag order in the case.

“Is it your position that because a case is being appealed or might be appealed, that therefore it can not be used?" Merchan asked the lawyer. "Not necessarily," Bove replied.

The judge said he'd issue his ruling on the dispute on Monday morning.

Trump said last week he  “absolutely” plans to testify , but he is under no obligation to do so.

Asked by Necheles at the end of the day who the DA's first witness would be, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said they wouldn't inform Trump's team of the person's identity until Sunday, given that Trump has been criticizing some witnesses on social media despite the partial gag order in the case. “And if that should be tweeted, that’ll be the last time we provide that courtesy,” Steinglass said.

Merchan called the DA's position "understandable" and told Necheles "I will not compel them to do anything."

Trump has pleaded  not guilty  to 34 counts of falsifying business records and faces up to four years in prison if he is convicted.

Bragg alleges that Trump falsified records to hide money he was paying his former lawyer Michael Cohen to reimburse him for $130,000 he paid adult film actor Stormy Daniels  near the end of the 2016 presidential campaign. Daniels has claimed she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. Trump has denied that he slept with Daniels, but he has acknowledged repaying Cohen.

The DA’s office also alleges that as part of a scheme to boost Trump, National Enquirer publisher American Media Inc. paid $150,000 to model and actor Karen McDougal , who appeared in Playboy magazine and claimed that she had a nine-month affair with Trump before he was elected president “in exchange for her agreement not to speak out about the alleged sexual relationship,” according to a statement of facts filed by Bragg.

Trump has also denied having a sexual relationship with McDougal.

Adam Reiss is a reporter and producer for NBC and MSNBC.

Lisa Rubin is an MSNBC legal correspondent and a former litigator.

Dareh Gregorian is a politics reporter for NBC News.

The Trump Trials: All rise

Welcome back to the regular Sunday night edition of The Trump Trials newsletter. We’re bracing for a momentous week in two courtrooms — opening statements in Donald Trump’s first criminal trial , and Supreme Court arguments about his claims of presidential immunity . It may seem like a lot to keep track of, but that’s why we’re here. We’ll also keep sending out newsletter summaries on the big news days.

Have questions on the upcoming trials? Email us at [email protected] and [email protected] and check for answers in future newsletters.

Okay, court is almost back in session, so let’s get started.

Like what you're reading? Get the Trump Trials newsletter in your inbox every Sunday.

What’s ahead

On Monday in Manhattan criminal court, a prosecutor and a defense attorney are set to offer their opening statements in Trump’s trial for allegedly falsifying business records to hide a hush money payment, and then the district attorney’s office will begin presenting witnesses and evidence to make its case for convicting the 45th president of the United States.

• On Tuesday, the judge will take a quick break from witnesses to hold a hearing on whether Trump — the presumptive Republican nominee for president — should be found in contempt of court for allegedly violating his gag order.

In a different New York courtroom, a court will weigh the state attorney general’s challenge to Trump’s $175 million bond on Monday. That’s important because the bond in question allows him to pursue an appeal and delay paying a nearly half a billion dollar civil judgment for misstating Trump company assets.

Thursday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about Trump’s claim that he cannot be prosecuted for allegedly trying to block the results of the 2020 presidential election. Whatever the outcome for Trump personally, the case may force the highest court in the land to draw new, clearer lines about the limits of presidential power.

Now, a recap of last week’s action.

New York: State hush money case

The details: 34 charges connected to a 2016 hush money payment .

Last week: We have a jury. In quick fashion (less than four days total), New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan picked a panel of 12 jurors and six alternates to sit in judgment over the former president. You can read about them here .

The jurors in Trump’s New York hush money trial

When court resumes Monday morning, those jurors will hear opening statements. The historic day will also be an abbreviated one, as court ends at 2 p.m. ahead of the Passover holiday.

Gag-tracker

The government accused Trump last week of 10 violations of Merchan’s gag order, which bars the former president from attacking witnesses, prosecutors or family members of the judge and the Manhattan district attorney. Trump’s lawyers argue he should be allowed to push back against political criticism even if it comes from witnesses in the case, like his former lawyer Michael Cohen.

Merchan seems dubious but has scheduled a hearing on prosecutors’ request to hold Trump in contempt of court and fine him $1,000 per violation.

That’s chump change for Trump, but he may have to pay another price as well. Typically during a trial, prosecutors tell defense lawyers who the next few witnesses will be, so everyone can prepare. But prosecutors have said they will only tell the defense team who the first witness is, and if Trump posts on social media about that person, it will be the last such notice they get.

If Trump’s lawyers don’t know which witnesses are coming next, that will put them at a significant disadvantage when it matters most.

On Saturday, Trump posted a link to an article about Merchan’s adult daughter — another possible breach of the gag.

Check out The Washington Post’s new podcast on video or audio , recapping and analyzing the latest in Trump’s New York trial.

Nerd word of the week

Cause : Juries are chosen through a process in which a judge removes potential jurors for “cause” — you could also say they are removed for good cause, such as when they say they cannot be impartial, or they don’t answer questions truthfully, or they have a prior relationship with a witness, lawyer, or investigator in the case.

Last week, Merchan removed some potential jurors for cause, including one who seemed to have written online years ago that Trump was “the devil.” We wrote about the role social media played in this screening process here .

It’s easy to mock jury duty, but more often than not, the selection process is inspiring, as everyday Americans are called to stand up and serve the most important roles in the legal system.

Trump’s jury pool was no exception. Hour after hour, New Yorkers described their lives, from taking their kids to Knicks games to walking their dogs. A mother of four who once served prison time broke down crying, not tears of shame but of pride — pride in her new life, pride in her family, and pride in the face of what she feared (wrongly) would be harsh judgment from others in the courtroom.

If all people were always good, courts probably wouldn’t need to exist, but jury selection is a reminder that most people are good.

D.C.: Federal case on 2020 election

The details: Four counts related to conspiring to obstruct the 2020 election results .

Planned trial date: Unclear

Last week: Trump’s legal team made their final written filing to the Supreme Court as they prepare for the arguments Thursday on his immunity claim.

On Tuesday, the high court heard arguments on an obstruction charge that has been used against hundreds of Jan. 6 , 2021 rioters. The conservative majority voiced concern federal prosecutors had overcharged the law . If they rule broadly on that issue, that could undercut two of the counts Trump is facing in this case.

Jan. 6 rioters might get out of jail early. The latest from the Washington Post Universe: pic.twitter.com/YYAbCxSRPJ — Washington Post Universe Guy (@davejorgenson) April 17, 2024

Florida: Federal classified documents case

The details: Trump faces 40 federal charges over accusations that he kept top-secret government documents at Mar-a-Lago — his home and private club — and thwarted government demands to return them.

Last week: U.S. District Judge Aileen M. Cannon denied requests by Trump’s co-defendants, Waltine “Walt” Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, to have their charges dismissed based on alleged deficiencies in the indictment.

Georgia: State case on 2020 election

The details: Trump faces 13 state charges for allegedly trying to undo the election results in that state. Four of his 18 co-defendants have pleaded guilty.

Planned trial date: None yet

Last week: That stage was dark.

Question Time

Q. Trump asked Merchan if the New York trial could adjourn for a day so he could attend his son’s high school graduation on May 17. Is it normal for a judge to work around a criminal defendant’s personal schedule?

A. It’s really up to the judge. In general, judges try to put trials on hold for a day to allow criminal defendants to attend big life events, according to Jeffrey M. Cohen, associate professor at Boston College Law School. He noted that criminal defendants have not yet been convicted and still have rights to live freely, but a judge also has to consider the rights of the jurors and prevent the trial from going longer than it needs to go.

“Once you are convicted, then your rights are severely curtailed,” Cohen said. “But he’s not a felon so there is good reason to let defendants go to major life events so long as it does not severely inconvenience jurors or disrupt the trial schedule.”

Merchan told Trump he would try to allow him to attend graduation if the trial is not running too far behind schedule. That’s typical, said Cohen.

“He is trying to be a human being as well as being a court administrator,” he said.

Thanks for catching up with us. You can find past issues here .

Suggested reading

Trump lawyers deploy his favorite tool, social media, as legal cudgel

Who are the jurors in Trump’s trial?

Storied Manhattan courthouse tested by Trump’s days in court

The jury pool spoke, and Trump had to listen

Trump’s legal bills drain millions more from his political committees

• Supreme Court divided over key charge against Jan. 6 rioters and Trump April 16, 2024 Supreme Court divided over key charge against Jan. 6 rioters and Trump April 16, 2024
• Highlights from Supreme Court arguments over key charge for Jan. 6 rioters April 16, 2024 Highlights from Supreme Court arguments over key charge for Jan. 6 rioters April 16, 2024
• Special counsel urges Supreme Court to reject Trump’s immunity claim April 8, 2024 Special counsel urges Supreme Court to reject Trump’s immunity claim April 8, 2024

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

Statement from President Joe   Biden on Senate Passage of the National Security   Package

Tonight, a bipartisan majority in the Senate joined the House to answer history’s call at this critical inflection point. Congress has passed my legislation to strengthen our national security and send a message to the world about the power of American leadership: we stand resolutely for democracy and freedom, and against tyranny and oppression.

I will sign this bill into law and address the American people as soon as it reaches my desk tomorrow so we can begin sending weapons and equipment to Ukraine this week. The need is urgent: for Ukraine, facing unrelenting bombardment from Russia; for Israel, which just faced unprecedented attacks from Iran; for refugees and those impacted by conflicts and natural disasters around the world, including in Gaza, Sudan, and Haiti; and for our partners seeking security and stability in the Indo-Pacific. I want to thank Leader Schumer, Leader McConnell, and all of the bipartisan lawmakers in the Senate who voted for this bill. This critical legislation will make our nation and world more secure as we support our friends who are defending themselves against terrorists like Hamas and tyrants like Putin.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.