“Privacy is not an option, and it shouldn't be the price we accept for just getting on the Internet,” stated Gary Kovacs the president of several software companies (Kovacs). However, since the implementation of the Patriot Act in 2001, the loss of American privacy is one of the many results of the new set of revised laws that have been rewritten to give the government more freedom in observing our electronic fingerprint (“Surveillance Under the Patriot Act”). In their hurry to act on the tragedy of 9/11, Congress passed the Act a mere 45 days of the event, with little to no debate. The result of it’s ratification, was a drastic change in the surveillance laws and restrictions of the federal government (“End Mass Surveillance Under the Patriot
…show more content…
Supporters of the act argue that this freedom of information allows the government to be more efficient in rooting out terrorism and protecting national security, without the hindrances of protocol. However, this is also a blatant infringement upon the privacy of Americans, and has also failed to produce any significant results in preventing terrorism in the United States (“Surveillance Under the Patriot Act”). Fortunately, the inclusion of a “sunset clause” within the act allows certain provisions to expire by 2015, such as NSA’s authority to wiretap, seize of voicemails, and receive warrants for electronic evidence (Kayyali). Therefore, although it was originally intended as a defense for our nation, the USA PATRIOT Act should be allowed to expire without a renewal of these clauses because it oversteps federal boundaries outlined in the constitution, infringes upon the rights and sovereignty of US citizens, and has produced no significant results in the fight against terrorism since its …show more content…
For example, a sixteen-year-old homeschooled teenager, Ashton Lundeby, was detained recently due to a bomb threat report made from Lundeby’s home (Lamb). Following the report, federal agents arrived at the house and arrested Lundeby, taking him to a juvenile detainment center without due process of law, or the allowance of a proper defense of his case. Since then, Lundeby’s mother has had limited contact with her son and has been told by a number of lawyers and officials that nothing can be done about her son’s situation. According to Lundeby’s mother, there were no materials to make a bomb in the house, and stated that her son had an alibi at the time of the report. Lundeby is now being tried as an adult without any legal rights under the authority of the Patriot Act (Lamb). Similarly, a different lawsuit against a suspected terrorist was recently settled for two million dollars when the FBI admitted that they misread a fingerprint (“Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional."). The mistake led to the accusation and detainment of Brandon Mayfield, an american citizen, who, as a result, had been searched with a warrant based on ambiguous evidence, constructed as a result of the fingerprint and didn’t signify probable cause (“Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act
Supporters of the act argue that this freedom of information allows the government to be more efficient in rooting out terrorism and protecting national security, without the hindrances of protocol. However, this is also a blatant infringement upon the privacy of Americans, and has also failed to produce any significant results in preventing terrorism in the United States (“Surveillance Under the Patriot Act”). Fortunately, the inclusion of a “sunset clause” within the act allows certain provisions to expire by 2015, such as NSA’s authority to wiretap, seize of voicemails, and receive warrants for electronic evidence (Kayyali). Therefore, although it was originally intended as a defense for our nation, the USA PATRIOT Act should be allowed to expire without a renewal of these clauses because it oversteps federal boundaries outlined in the constitution, infringes upon the rights and sovereignty of US citizens, and has produced no significant results in the fight against terrorism since its …show more content…
For example, a sixteen-year-old homeschooled teenager, Ashton Lundeby, was detained recently due to a bomb threat report made from Lundeby’s home (Lamb). Following the report, federal agents arrived at the house and arrested Lundeby, taking him to a juvenile detainment center without due process of law, or the allowance of a proper defense of his case. Since then, Lundeby’s mother has had limited contact with her son and has been told by a number of lawyers and officials that nothing can be done about her son’s situation. According to Lundeby’s mother, there were no materials to make a bomb in the house, and stated that her son had an alibi at the time of the report. Lundeby is now being tried as an adult without any legal rights under the authority of the Patriot Act (Lamb). Similarly, a different lawsuit against a suspected terrorist was recently settled for two million dollars when the FBI admitted that they misread a fingerprint (“Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act Unconstitutional."). The mistake led to the accusation and detainment of Brandon Mayfield, an american citizen, who, as a result, had been searched with a warrant based on ambiguous evidence, constructed as a result of the fingerprint and didn’t signify probable cause (“Judge Rules Part of Patriot Act