How far should the state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders

Does the state have a right to monitor? August 31, By G. Not only do her seven children stay occupied all day, but the five of school age seem to thrive in her regimented rotation covering earth science, reading, math, and even piano practice.

How far should the state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders

An Evaluation By Andrew J. Prior to the s, the U. How terrorists act, react, and even think is thus foreign to U. But the terabytes of data we collect are well beyond human means to wade through, and our human intelligence is deficient.

If ever there was a culture and mentality that the U. In the Middle East, from which our current enemy hails, the United States does not have sufficient intelligence personnel who can speak and read the languages and understand their nuances.

In contrast, during the Cold War, the U.

How far should the state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders

The difficulty is greater in vetting linguists for sensitive positions. Given the tinderbox nature of the region, this negligence is incomprehensible. These events should have been a wake-up call, but existing policies continued largely unchanged. This study reviews some of the most important current vulnerabilities and what has or has not been done to reduce them.

A significant threat to air travel is the use of shoulder-fired surface to air missiles: As cited by Charles Pena, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, between the s and worldwide there were twenty-nine MANPADS attacks on civilian aircraft involving some five hundred deaths.

The new Transportation Security Administration TSA [6] is in charge of security for all transportation modes, but most prominently for air-travel security. General Accounting Office GAO report indicates that federalized security forces performed worse than the private forces still employed by five airports as an experiment.

As passengers, we have had to remove footwear, coats, and jackets; are scanned with hand-held magnetometers; and are required to walk through the door-frame-type scanning devices. We have watched as our carry-on baggage is X-rayed and in some cases opened and rummaged through.

Our loyalty, honesty, and responsibility stand routinely questioned by people who themselves may be in need of closer scrutiny. In its haste to subject the American public to the federal microscope, TSA has required checked baggage to remain unlocked, making theft by airport screeners and baggage handlers easy.

How far should the state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders

A report issued by the U. What nobody seems to have voiced is that it is easy to insert contraband into unlocked baggage. An improvised explosive device IED or an improvised incendiary device IID can simply be inserted within unlocked baggage stored in the aircraft baggage hold.

Since Septemberthe TSA has demanded passenger data for use in a new passenger-screening plan called Secure Flight. The information can include name, flight origin, destination, flight time, duration of flight, seat location, travel agent, form of payment, credit card number, travel itinerary, address, telephone number, and meal requests.

Young, [13] a member of the House Transportation Committee. But here is the conundrum in this situation: The United Kingdom and the United States also now have a new passenger-screening system that gives the X-ray vision of Superman to airport officials.

The TSA is already using the scanners at U.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. The Texas Constitution, in Article I, sections 8 and 27 protects the “liberty to speak, write or publish opinions on any subject,” and “the. How far should the state have a right to monitor the actions of people within its borders? People, not the government, should control their own lives. Do you agree? 3 While they have concerns about government surveillance, Americans also say anti-terrorism policies have not gone far enough to adequately protect them. More (49%) say this is their bigger concern than say they are concerned that policies have gone too far in restricting the average person’s civil liberties (37%), according to a January survey.

There seems to be no limits to the degree of intrusion governments will adopt, regardless of whether any security benefit results. Is the public now to be irradiated with ionizing radiation at every turn?

People who use X rays routinely are mostly medical personnel, such as radiologists and X-ray technicians. They are licensed and educated in the use and hazards of ionizing radiation and are legally and civilly accountable for their use of this technology.

How much knowledge, education, and legal accountability do those persons have who may use such devices in the name of homeland security? Are they qualified beyond the fact that they are government law enforcement officials?

The bulk of screening currently done in the United States is of passengers themselves, their carry-on baggage, and their checked baggage.

This practice has led to many problems, not the least of which are long lines; of the necessity to remove coats, belts, and shoes; and scrutiny of canes, wheelchairs, walkers, and so on. The efficiency and thoroughness of passenger screening has its limiting factor in the screeners themselves.

Poor, repetitive working conditions are a contributor to the turnover rates. Because of the turnover, security checkpoints are rarely staffed by experienced screeners. These firms are certified by the German government, and the individual screeners must be licensed as well.

Clearly with licensing comes professional accountabilityesprit de corps and with retention of personnel, an institutional memory for avoiding past mistakes, and improving performance.

The conflict inherent between encouraging that which you are also to regulate is problematic. With the creation of the TSA, security for all transportation fell to it.White, 74 U.S. () the Supreme Court ruled that Texas had remained a state ever since it first joined the Union, despite claims to have joined the Confederate States of America; the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give .

Should governments spy on their citizens? 49% Say Yes 51% Say No that and avoid major problems than respect privacy and we end up without a huge issue because they were not allowed to monitor people? We should be given a certain amount of freedom, but some of it is just them checking up on us and moving on.

We are living in a police. Does the government have the right to monitor private emails? share article: 1 July Politics. state-directed paranoia in which people’s lives are shut down on suspicion alone.

These are freedoms that previous generations paid mightily to protect, but which governments are now casually destroying. New Internationalist. About us. The state should monitor the actions of people within its borders if such actions pose a threat to the national security.

A nation's security is of an utmost importance to a . As this cognitive dissonance increased, the people of the Northern states, and the Northern states themselves, became increasingly inclined to resist the encroachments of the slave power upon their states' rights and encroachments of the slave power by and upon the federal government of the United States.

According to the discovery rule, pateints have 2 years frm the time that they knew or should have known of the injury to file a personal injury lawsuit in the majority of states. The time frames vary according to state .

What Americans think about NSA surveillance, national security and privacy | Pew Research Center