![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/tech\/files\/2012\/11\/sq_surveillance-300x277.jpeg\")
<\/a>Domestic Surveillance. Source: Capital International Security<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n While the majority of Americans agree that public surveillance<\/a> is a necessary evil to stop crime and other illegal behaviors, private surveillance is a controversial issue.\u00a0 And behind this controversy, there is a slew of litigation that backs up the legality or certain types of surveillance in certain situations. Surveillance in public is deemed as okay, as there is little expectation of privacy in a public setting. In one\u2019s own home, however, there is an expectation of privacy. Trespassing laws<\/a> exist in order to secure an American\u2019s privacy in the home and dictate that strangers are not allowed on private property. Although when we think of trespassing laws, we most likely immediate think of physical <\/em>trespassing, this also dictates laws against videotaping<\/a>. If a camera is placed off of the surveyed property in a legal place, any footage is legal, with or without the consent of the filmed. Local laws can also be applied and may change the definition of trespassing accordingly. The bigger issue here is actual surveillance within one\u2019s home, without consent. In addition, audio surveillance requires the consent of one party in the conversation in question. If it is not granted, it is essentially illegal.<\/p>\n FISA cartoon<\/p><\/div>\n In response to the Terrorist Attacks of September 11th<\/sup>, 2001, the Patriot Act<\/a> was passed, expanding the authority for gaining information in the United States. Other aspects of the law crucial to domestic surveillance are increasing the discretion of government officers in detaining individuals suspected of engaging in terrorism, and reducing restrictions to gain information. In accordance with Arizona Senate Bill 1070<\/a>, \u201creasonable suspicion\u201d is the only necessity for taking action. \u00a0The Electronic Communications Privacy Act<\/a> grants warrants to officers to enter private property and bug electric communication devices. Also, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act<\/a> requires the cooperation of telecom companies to provide access to the technology necessary to target a specific person and create a wiretap. FISA<\/a>, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, allowed warrants to be granted to those looking to gather foreign intelligence, including U.S. citizens suspected in aiding foreign terrorists. These Acts require permission from a higher power, which grants the use of bugs and wiretaps when there is reasonable suspicion.<\/p>\n Homeland Promotional Advertisement. Source: Wiki<\/a><\/p><\/div>\n In Little Brother<\/em><\/a>, the citizens of the greater San Francisco area are being watched by the government, specifically the Department of Homeland Security. This includes the use of cameras and bugs, even within private homes. We know now that a warrant mentioned above had to have been granted for these bugs to be legal. Another example of private surveillance is the TV show Homeland<\/em><\/a>, which follows a CIA agent who suspects an American prisoner of war has been turned by terrorists located in Iraq, and invokes measures of surveillance within his home. Although it may seem as if private surveillance is a lesser issue than its public counterpart because it seems much less likely to occur, it is serious because its questioned legality, and necessary when it comes to issues of national security.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" As innovation has stimulated advancement in technology, outdated laws must be updated and renewed to accommodate these advances. As surveillance has expanded to include video cameras, bugs, and wiretaps, existing litigation does little to protect those whose rights had been … Continue reading ![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/tech\/files\/2012\/11\/fisa-cartoon-01.gif\")
<\/a>![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.scu.edu\/tech\/files\/2012\/11\/Homelandposter-204x300.jpeg\")
<\/a>