We use technology every day, all day, for pretty much everything we do. Any information about ourselves, messages we send, or phone calls we make, it all takes place on our phones. However, they are also the biggest risk to our personal security as they are very vulnerable. They are not just vulnerable to scammers and hackers but also to our own government. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the president at the time, George Bush, responded by passing an act. This act is known as the Patriot Act. It allows the government unlimited access to phone records, emails, and text messages without a warrant through National Security Letters and Sneak and Peak Searches. Why do they do this, why was this act passed, they claim it’s for our safety. Both can be obtained and carried out without a judge’s approval, without a warrant, and without the knowledge of the person who is being searched. The Fourth Amendment is the right of the citizens to legal and just searches, with a warrant, with probable cause. These are not required under the Patriot Act to search through call histories and messages. The Patriot Act clearly infringes on the Fourth Amendment and the rights of the everyday citizen and does not accomplish its original goal of stopping terrorism. The great American patriot Robert F. Kennedy once said in his famous “Day of Affirmation Address” that the first and most critical element of “individual liberty is the freedom of speech; the right to express and communicate
The Patriot Act, an act passed by Congress in 2001 that addressed the topic of privacy in terrorist or radical situations, is controversial in today's society. Although it helps with protection against terroristic events, The Patriot Act is not fair, nor is it constitutional, because it allows the government to intrude on citizens' privacy, it gives governmental individuals too much power, and because the act is invasive to the 4th amendment right. To further describe key points in the act, it states that it allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking, and it allows law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurred.
The Patriot Act, in my opinion, is violating the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution (even though it is an exception to it) because it invades our privacy by allowing the government to place wide ranging wiretaps on us without even identifying the target or locations of target individuals who have no connection to terrorist organizations and collect business records of all Americans without any connection to terrorists. Under the act, any data can be collected by the government without a warrant. They have access to the phone calls we make, the inbound and outbound internet traffic we navigate, and even the emails we receive/send in a daily basis. Basically, under this act, none of the electronic information that we consider private is untouchable
Several weeks after the horrible terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act was rushed through Congress by Attorney General, John Ashcroft. This particular Act, however, was established with a ruling hand of fear. Life for Americans changed dramatically in those immediate days, weeks, and months after the attack. America had been spoiled with luxury for so long, that the illusion of control had ingrained itself into our very nature as Americans. That act of terror, on September 11, 2001, brought that belief crashing down, almost immediately. Fear and anger were rampant though out America; a dangerous
A. Thesis: The Patriot Act is violating American’s right to privacy. Mainly, the right to hold a private phone conversation.
I believe that the government has good reasoning to want to go through our phone conversations and e-mails, but that doesn’t make it right. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate. This means that they can’t just go against the United States Bill of Rights and dig through people’s electronic devices. Part of the first amendment states you have the freedom of speech. If you have freedom of speech and the government is watching and listening to your conversations and you accidentally say something that sounds like terrorism but you happen to be joking, they can arrest you because they are suspicious. Both
The United States of America is a country that is based upon a principle of balancing the rights of an individual, while still preserving public order. The U.S. Constitution (specifically the Bill of Rights) guarantees every American certain Individual rights. Some of these rights include; freedom from unreasonable search and seizures, a right to due process of law, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment (The 4th, 5th and 8th Amendments). Historically the criminal justice system has preserved these rights of peopled accused of crimes. However on September 11, 2001, the United States became the victim of the largest terrorist attack the World has ever seen. According to Schmalleger in 2003, that
The United States government changed the face of computer and internet use when it signed the USA Patriot Act on October 26, 2001. This act was created in the wake of the terrorist attacks in New York City on September 11 that same year. Many people believe that this act is a good thing and will help in defense against any future attacks. What most people do not know, however, is the effect of this act on the more general public. This includes individual people, public libraries, colleges and universities, and even trucking or hauling companies.
After the devastating attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, this country scrambled to take action to provide future protection. New techniques had to be developed to protect the nation from the menace of terrorism. Along with the new techniques came the decision to enact laws that some believed crossed the threshold of violating civil liberties this county and those living in it were guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. “On October 26, 2001, the Public Law 107-56, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, also known as the USA Patriot Act, was signed into effect” (Stern, 2004, p. 1112). While speaking to Congress,
Until now, many people argued that searching of historical cell phone records affects people’s privacy, but some other argue that the fourth amendment gives extreme protection for people’s privacy and it puts the country’s safety at risk. In general, it’s obvious that the fourth amendment gives extreme privacy to people since searching for the call history of a person to find just the location and time of call of a person without getting deep into its contents doesn’t touch the privacy of a person but at the same time gives an important information for
When we approach people in any country around the globe and ask questions as to who are terrorists and the word terrorism which brought to the Unite States the birth of Patriot Act as well as the controversy surrounding the Act as a whole, we will see that the patriot act went too far because certain provisions seem to violate the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country.
The United States government’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment has caused them to believe they are justified in amassing a collection of American phone records, which creates a breach in many American citizens’ privacy. According to the FISA Amendment Act, the government has the authority to “target foreigners abroad” (ACLU) and the phone records of any communications between Americans and those foreign targets can be collected. However, this act does not allow amassing
Your viewpoint towards The Patriot Act was noteworthy. This writer holds a contrary opinion towards yours. On a smaller scale, would you oversee the safety and well being of a sibling, a family member, a neighbor? Even if it meant, checking up on them from time to time. The Patriot Act may seem invasive, but at the end of the day could save hundreds of innocent lives, including yourself and your family. On a larger scale, the government has the responsibility to protect its people from foreign and domestic terrorism.
The Patriot Act was signed into law on October 26, 2001 by President George W. Bush. The act expanded the surveillance capability of both domestic law enforcement and international intelligence agencies. When this law was passed it was under the assumption “to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world, to enhance law enforcement investigatory tools, and for other purposes” (The USA Patriot). The Patriot Act has given the government the power to spy on the average American through monitoring phone records and calls, gaining banking and credit information, and even track a person’s internet activity. This is an unbelievable amount of power intelligence agencies wield all under the umbrella of national security. This power has gone too far, is unjustified, unconstitutional, and infringes on the privacy of the
The Patriot Act (Title II, Sec. 213) allows for the delayed notification of the execution of a search warrant. Under what circumstances can the notification be delayed?
The Patriot Act was passed in 2001 as part of the United States response to 9/11. One of the things that the Patriot Act allowed was a much simpler way for law enforcement agencies to tap the phones of suspected terrorists. While some people say this is an invasion of privacy, it is not. The government passed these laws to prevent future attacks on American soil. It is necessary to have easier access to warrants for many reasons. The first is that attacks have been carried out on US soil, secondly the government must does not always have the time to procure a warrant in the traditional sense. Lastly the job of the government is to keep the people safe, no matter the means.