Americans have long valued their constitutional rights, which ensure them a certain degree of independence and protection from mistreatment by the government. The fourth amendment ensures that citizens are not searched without reason or in an unlawful way--this guarantees that one’s person or property is not searched without a warrant or probable cause. When it comes to technology, however, the line begins to blur. The exponential growth of technology within the 21st century alongside the growing threat of terrorism has led the government to conduct surveillance and searches through technology. Laws and acts such as the USA PATRIOT act have granted the government increasingly more freedom to gather information through technology. While the
…show more content…
Wiretaps, small microphones (bugs), etc. were used for years to gather information about criminals, but were only done so with a court-issued warrant. Up until 2001, this is how most surveillance operations were carried out--the government agency, whether it be NSA, FBI, DEA, DOD, etc. needed permission and a valid reason to carry out surveillance operations. The events of September 11, 2001, however, changed all of this. On October 26, 2001, a little over a month after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress and President Bush passed the USA PATRIOT act. The name of the act is an acronym meaning “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” (The USA PATRIOT Act). The “appropriate tools” meant that federal agencies were able to conduct electronic surveillance with much less evidence than had previously been required. In the context of the situation, this is an appropriate response--the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks needed to be brought to justice through whatever means …show more content…
in order to stop any terrorist activities. While quite valid in theory, this idea is ineffective in practice. The extensive searches and information gathered by the NSA and various other government agencies rarely stops any terrorist activities. It may occasionally help in an investigation into someone, but does not often stop any attacks. This is largely due to the massive user-base of the internet. Terrorists and criminals have endless ways to communicate online, and the surveillance agencies simply lack the man-power to observe every single communication made via technology. Terrorist activities are also not entirely handled online. A high-profile target would most likely know they are being monitored, and thus would refrain from communication online and opt for person-to-person communications. The same can be said for a recently radicalized terrorist or a sleeper-cell. Being unknown to the government and surveillance agencies, they could easily coordinate activities online without suspicion, as the government is not keeping an eye on them. Furthermore, the argument that the “relaxation of Fourth Amendment safeguards should give no cause for concern because good citizens have ‘nothing to hide” is invalid (Alexander 668). It may be true that good citizens should have
Wiretaps, small microphones (bugs), etc. were used for years to gather information about criminals, but were only done so with a court-issued warrant. Up until 2001, this is how most surveillance operations were carried out--the government agency, whether it be NSA, FBI, DEA, DOD, etc. needed permission and a valid reason to carry out surveillance operations. The events of September 11, 2001, however, changed all of this. On October 26, 2001, a little over a month after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress and President Bush passed the USA PATRIOT act. The name of the act is an acronym meaning “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” (The USA PATRIOT Act). The “appropriate tools” meant that federal agencies were able to conduct electronic surveillance with much less evidence than had previously been required. In the context of the situation, this is an appropriate response--the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks needed to be brought to justice through whatever means …show more content…
in order to stop any terrorist activities. While quite valid in theory, this idea is ineffective in practice. The extensive searches and information gathered by the NSA and various other government agencies rarely stops any terrorist activities. It may occasionally help in an investigation into someone, but does not often stop any attacks. This is largely due to the massive user-base of the internet. Terrorists and criminals have endless ways to communicate online, and the surveillance agencies simply lack the man-power to observe every single communication made via technology. Terrorist activities are also not entirely handled online. A high-profile target would most likely know they are being monitored, and thus would refrain from communication online and opt for person-to-person communications. The same can be said for a recently radicalized terrorist or a sleeper-cell. Being unknown to the government and surveillance agencies, they could easily coordinate activities online without suspicion, as the government is not keeping an eye on them. Furthermore, the argument that the “relaxation of Fourth Amendment safeguards should give no cause for concern because good citizens have ‘nothing to hide” is invalid (Alexander 668). It may be true that good citizens should have