You are on page 1of 3

Leticia Alvarez

Mr. Newman
English 101: Rhetoric
19 September 2014
Statement of Scope for the Annotated Bibliography
The government set up by our Founding Fathers was established with the objective of
protecting the “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” of Americans. Today, as conflicts grow
in their complexity and the sphere of people affected by them widens, the initial aim of
American government becomes threatened. Modern American government has been molded and
shaped by foreign and domestic terrorism as well as disorder through the years. Taking
advantage of our thriving technology culture, government has gradually become more involved
and aware of citizens’ activities, violating the very rights they are trying to enforce. In order to
smother the chaos at hand, our government has increased its supervision to protect the country as
a whole, but many of the measures employed directly violate the people's rights to privacy.
This essay will explore modern government’s use of technology for national security, and
how its use is being perceived by the people- whether they feel their rights are being protected or
violated. Although government employs technology in diverse facets, my primary focus will be
the use of technology for surveillance. I will provide examples of ways government supervises
digitally. Furthermore, I will argue that government’s modern methods have become too
intrusive and not nearly enough transparent. I will also asses the validity of the counter
argument which declares that national security is to be prioritized, treating any violation of
privacy rights as negligible.
This selected bibliography includes sources that describe some methods of government
surveillance, that argue for the limitation of government surveillance as well as against it, and a
source which give studies on government surveillance. Gillum and Sullivan’s article describes
the practice of cell phone sweeping and the Paulson article speaks about the practice of
continuous video recording by law enforcement. “A First Step in Reining In the NSA”
celebrates the USA Freedom Act which was passed to protect privacy rights against government
surveillance while Crovitz critiques and opposes the Act in his article. The Navi Pillay article
will provide concrete evidence in the form of studies conducted on government surveillance.
Together, these sources will allow me have a strong argument and offer a rebuttal.

Annotated Bibliography

Crovitz, L. Gordon. “Judges for National Security.” Wall Street Journal. 11 Aug. 2014:
A.11. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 18 Sep. 2014. L. Gordon Crovitz argues in “Judges
for National Security” that the measures legislation is taking to limit the National
Security Agency will leave the U.S. at greater risk of terrorism and the erosion of
personal rights. He supports his argument mainly through Judge John Bates’ warning
that in its effort to protect privacy rights, the newly passed USA Freedom Act will result
to be greatly counterproductive. Crovitz concludes by expressing that the limits placed on
government surveillance are further evidence that our government has not learned its
lesson from 9/11.
“A First Step in Reining In the NSA.” Los Angeles Times. 18 Aug. 2014: A.13. SIRS
Issues Researcher. Web. 18 Sep. 2014. In the article “A First Step in Reining In the
NSA” the author supports the limitations on the National Security Agency’s surveillance
programs that were set in motion by the USA Freedom Act. The writer elaborates on
Senator Patrick Leahy’s proposed version of the bill which is more protective of people’s
privacy rights and establishes more reforms than the bill passed by the House of
Representatives in May of 2014. According to the author, the passing of the bill should
only be the beginning of an effort to create balance between privacy rights and national
security.
Gillum, Jack and Sullivan, Eileen. “US Pushing Local Cops to Stay Mum on
Surveillance.” Toledo Blade. 12 Jun. 2014: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 15 Sep.
2014. Jack Gillum and Eileen Sullivan discuss the controversial cell phone sweeping that
is quietly conducted by the Obama administration in their article. They make the counter
argument known, declaring that government officials go through great efforts to maintain

secrecy in their practices because national or local safety may be at stake. According to
Gillum and Sullivan, the consent-less surveillance is extremely invasive and violates a
person’s constitutional rights.
“Navi Pillay: Dangerous Practice of Digital Mass Surveillance Must Be Subject to
Independent Checks and Balances” Targeted News Service. 16 Jul. 2014: n.p. SIRS Issues
Researcher. Web. 18 Sep. 2014. This article describes United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay’s, disapproval for the surveillance policies
and practices that government has established, which employ modern digital
technology. To check how well legal framework is protecting the right to privacy, her
Office works in examining national and international legislation, court judgments,
and compiled information from a broad range of sources. The article maintains that there
must be a transparency in the laws the check and balance dangerous habit of government
surveillance.
Paulson, Amanda. “Ferguson Shooting Amplifies Calls for Police to Wear Video
Cameras.” Christian Science Monitor. 20 Aug. 2014: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web.
15 Sep. 2014. In Amanda Paulson’s article she examines the pros and cons of the
growing use of body cameras and “dash cams” by police officers. She admits that there
are very few studies that prove the effectiveness of constant video recordings, but she
gives examples of instances where the cameras solved pivotal altercations. Ultimately,
Paulson maintains her neutrality by elaborating on the counter argument which claims
that the standardization of body cameras and “dash cams” will come at the expense of the
public, both in the financial sense and from the loss of privacy rights.