"The right to privacy, through internet monitoring, is a heated topic among politicians and voters. As american citizens we are given a series of rights, written within the sacred document we proudly call our constitution, but how far do our rights go? First, however, we must identify what our rights are. Our first right, as inscribed, is our rights to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.; but it’s important to find the balance between people’s freedoms and with people's right to privacy, as established in the fourth amendment decided by the case Roe v. Wade. Although no one case is identical, most of the time it is understood that anything posted or shared on social media is no longer private, but it is also in our nation's best
…show more content…
Over 200 school attacks have been executed in the past 7 years with the death toll being an accumulated 116. Research has shown that more than 400 potential school shootings have been stopped by analysis of social media activity and that with monitoring youths google searches, email patterns, and text/phone discourses the number of young deaths could be dropped by 50%. The case that decided all schools need to protect their students is reasonable suspicion. I’m no politician or law representative, but I would assume reasonable suspicion should include the monitoring, by any means, of all problematic students attending ones school, isn’t that really the bases behind Reasonable Suspicion? This isn’t a hard task to accomplish, so why is it so hard to understand that human lives ought to be saved by using the most modern of monitoring techniques? The facade of “privacy protects†is what’s going to kill your child. When you send your little girl to school you expect her to be protected, you expect her to be safe; when you put your child on the bus you hope the person they’re sitting next to isn’t armed. This hope can be realized and can be accomplished simply by the school monitoring what your child's peers are doing on the
Over 200 school attacks have been executed in the past 7 years with the death toll being an accumulated 116. Research has shown that more than 400 potential school shootings have been stopped by analysis of social media activity and that with monitoring youths google searches, email patterns, and text/phone discourses the number of young deaths could be dropped by 50%. The case that decided all schools need to protect their students is reasonable suspicion. I’m no politician or law representative, but I would assume reasonable suspicion should include the monitoring, by any means, of all problematic students attending ones school, isn’t that really the bases behind Reasonable Suspicion? This isn’t a hard task to accomplish, so why is it so hard to understand that human lives ought to be saved by using the most modern of monitoring techniques? The facade of “privacy protects†is what’s going to kill your child. When you send your little girl to school you expect her to be protected, you expect her to be safe; when you put your child on the bus you hope the person they’re sitting next to isn’t armed. This hope can be realized and can be accomplished simply by the school monitoring what your child's peers are doing on the