Federal Restrictions on Your Privacy and Communications

Federal Restrictions on Your Privacy and Communications
Michael Brillon
ENG 122 English Composition II
Dr. Sarah Bowman

Throughout the history of the United States, Americans have always expected a certain level of privacy. This right was granted to them by both the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution. In 2001, then President Georg W. Bush signed into law the US Patriot Act.
This act was originally introduced as a response to the September 11th attacks to reduce the restrictions on law enforcements abilities to search specific types of electronic communication, authority to regulate financial transactions more in depth and to expand the timeframe individuals detained for being suspected of participating, support or funding terrorist activities (USA Patriot Act, 2001). With the increase of technological advances in communications technology, Americans will need to start expecting the US Government to more freely pry into their privacy. The USA Patriot Act has become a vital tool for law enforcement in identifying, locating, and apprehending terrorists in the US. Without this act, it would be much more difficult to locate these terrorists and they would be allowed to venture into the US and create any havoc they see fit. Because of the Patriot Act, Americans have started to see certain privacy issues surface from full body scanners at the airports to increased communications interceptions on their phones.

On September 11th 2001, ten individuals boarded two separate flights departing out of Boston Massachusetts. In Washington DC, five more individuals boarded a plane heading for Los Angeles. Finally, in Newark New Jersey, almost exactly the same time as the three fore mentioned flights, four more individuals boarded a plane destined for San Francisco. According to the Staff Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission, 2004) all four of these flights departed their respective airports within 20 minutes of each other and by 8:10 am all four were in the air heading for their destinations. 36 minutes later American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into World 's Trade Center North Tower (9/11 and Terrorist Travel (2004). 14 different people, all non residents of the USA choreographed one of the deadliest attacks ever made on the US. The ultimate question is: Could it have been prevented? If the Patriot Act had already existed, the possibility the Government would have been able to intercept these individuals would have been much greater thus preventing the deadliest act of terrorism in the history of the United States.

Now called the USA Patriot Act, which is an acronym for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (18 USC Sec. 107-56) it was initially embraced by the American public thinking it was a new tool for the government to take down terrorist in the U.S.. Gould and LeClerc (2006) stated "although initial response to the Patriot Act was overwhelmingly positive" it didn’t take long for Americans to see just how much the government has taken control of their civil liberties and rights. Many people took the approach "I 've got nothing to hide" but did not reasonably consider just how much power the government had given themselves.

Prior to the USA Patriot Act, Federal law enforcement agencies struggled with communication between each other. There wasn’t a seamless avenue which law enforcement could share known knowledge of potential terrorists. Rossini, M.( 2009) In 1999 the National Security Agency had received communications between Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmil, two of the terrorists on flight 91, which linked themselves and Mohammad Atta, the main perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks, that they would be coming to the US. These individuals were already known by the FBI as potential terrorist’s threats but when the NSA tried to escalate the threat to the CIA, bureaucratic conflicts between the NSA and the CIA prevented the information to be passed along to the FBI. In January of 2000 James Bramford claims the CIA’s Alec Station, a unit assigned to Bin laden, knew that Al Mihdhar was planning to come to New York. One of the 3 FBI agents working inside the CIA station tried to send a message, or a CIR, to the FBI to alert them about the arrival of potential terrorists and to have them put onto a watch list. The CIA Deputy Station Chief, Tom Wilshire denied permission to send such information (Aspel 2009). If the US Patriot Act had been already in place this information would have had to have been passed along therefore the FBI, who already had the terrorists on the radar, would have had a better response time when these individuals arrived into their respective airports.

There are two very overwhelming sides either supporting or opposing the act. Supporters justify the loss of privacy as a better good for all, compromises to be made by the American people during a trying time to increase national security and limit follow up terrorist’s attacks. McKay (2007) made the conclusion after a debate between security and privacy rights “In the war against terrorism, and with advances in technology, Americans need to lower their expectations of privacy.” Many believe because the act has a "sunset clause", a statute which will expire the act after a predetermined time, makes it an even stronger case. Original sunset clauses were to expire in 2005 and have been renewed in 2005, 2006, and 2010 and again in 2011. Taylor writes (2011) "By reauthorizing the Patriot Act, President Obama guaranteed (barring any judicial action) that the law will live on in its current form until June 1, 2015." (Official Oversight section, ¶ 4)

Opposition of the act however argues that the act itself is unconstitutional and goes directly against the Fourth Amendment which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. They argue the act violates civil liberties of Americans and increases racial profiling. Between September 2001 and October 2002 the ACLU filed 24 lawsuits for civil liberty violations for individuals who were kicked off flights because of the color of their skin (Sheers, 2002). Thur (2009) states the US Government has sought to restrict the freedoms of its citizens during times of war since World War I. The US Government has historically restricted the rights of Americans, Peter Mayeux, a broadcasting faculty member for the College of Journalism wrote a historical perspective on the USA Patriot Act and Civil Liberty Restrictions says during WWI 75 Socialists and German –American citizens lost mailing privileges and censorship of all communications moving in and out of the US was authorized. This movement parallels the USA Patriot Act today. In WWII the Supreme Court upheld President Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 mandating the internment of more than 100,000 Japanese-American based solely on their ancestry.

Though Americans have started to find the USA Patriot Act increasingly invasive, they have to realize the US Government has to take into consideration the whole picture. Not only is the aegis of National Security, but protection of the general American public is also a massive responsibility of the Government. History shows that when the US Government temporally restricts the rights of Americans, and having the ability to infringe on the privacy of its residents, it increases the overall safety of all Americans. The US Patriot Act offers a temporary solution to the ongoing threat to America.

Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures is considered one of the most controversial titles in the Act. (US Legal, 1998 ¶1) In the age of electronic communication and with the advances in technology there is a clear opportunity for this act to stay. This title extends the government’s authority to use wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Survey act of 1978 (FISA). Prior to 1978 the FISA Act allowed the law enforcement to conduct wire tap surveillance for foreign intelligence investigations only outside the US borders. During these types of investigations investigators did not have to show probable cause to obtain a warrant. The Patriot Act expanded the Fourth Amendment exception. Now, pursuant to section 218, FISA may be used where a significant purpose of the investigation of the investigation is for foreign intelligence gathering, even if the investigation is within the borders of the US. This has a direct impact on the American public. If anyone at any time is considered a threat to US Security, the Government can, and will conduct a formal investigation on the individual. Once an individual is targeted for an investigation, the Government can apprehend this individual for an unlimited amount of time without a warrant or probable cause. This individual can be held against his or her will and can even be moved outside the county to a facility where Government Agencies can conduct interrogation techniques that would be illegal within the US. Many Americans are not aware of this bill. The Bill is called the National Defense Authorization Act and allows the US Military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American suspects arrested within the United States without Charge. (Nies, 2011)

With the increase of technological advances in communications technology, Americans will need to start expecting the US Government to more freely pry into their privacy. History shows that with the advancement of technology, whether in 1939 or 2012, the US Government will always take the American people in its best interest. Many believe the Government is out to protect itself from the evils of the world, to preserve its dominance in the world, but without the American people the Government would have nothing to protect. Americans today do not realize the extent the Government goes to protect each and every one of them. The USA Patriot Act proves it’s a necessary tool to accomplish this mission. Americans will soon realize that without a tool like the USA Patriot Act, it would be much harder to secure absolute freedom that they all have.

References Aspell, Paula S. (Producer). (2009). Nova, The Spy Factory [Television Series]In Bumford, J (Writer) Boston: PBS

Gorham-Oscilowski, Ursula; Jaeger, Paul T., 2008, “National Security Letters, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the Constitution: The Tensions between National Security and Civil Rights” Government Information Quarterly, v25 n4 p625-644 Oct 2008

LeClerc, P. P. and Gould, K. A. , 2006-08-11 "The US Patriot Act and the Future of Social Movements" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Montreal Convention Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada Online <PDF>. 2011-03-13 from http://www.allacademic .com/meta/p95818_index.html McKay, C. (2007, January 25) A Debate Between Security and Privacy Rights. Retrieved January 25, 2012, from Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada web site: http://blog.privcom.gc.ca/index.php /category/global-standards/ Mayeux, Peter E., The USA Patriot Act and Civil Liberty Restrictions: Historical Perspective, College of Journalism and Mass Communications. Retrieved February 5, 2012 from http://journalism.u nl.edu / cojmc/alumni/jnews/0304_winter/mayeux.shtml

Nies, Yung D. With Reservations, Obama Signs Act to Allow Detention of US Citizens. ABC News, Political Punch Online. Retrieved February 11, 2012 from http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011 /12/with-reservations-obama-signs-act-to-allow-detention-of-citizens/ Taylor, D. (2011, July 21) No Official Oversight but a Few Voluntary Measures, The Tampa Bay Times on the Web. Retrieved January 26, 2012 from http://www.politifact.com/truthmeter/promise /179/revise-the-patriot-act-to-increase-oversight-on-go/

Thur, Victoria L.(2009) “War, Law, and the Librarian: The Creation, Precedence, and Passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and Its Effects on Libraries” Journal of Access Services, v6 n4 p437-445 2009. Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106

Scheeres, J. (2002, October 16) ACLU Acts Against Patriot Act, Wired Magazine Online, Retrieved January 26, 2012 from http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/10/55838

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required intercepting and obstructing Terrorism (USA Patriot Act) Act, H. R. 3162, 107th Cong. (2001) US Congressional Legislation (2004) National Commission on Terrorists Attacks on the United States, 110 Congress, 1st Session, Washington DC: National Archive

USLegal.com (2010) Title II Enhanced Surveillance Procedures, Retrieved on February 9, 2012 from http://civilrights.uslegal.com/usa-patriot-act/provisions-of-the-patriot-act/title-ii-enhanced-surveillance-procedures/

References: USLegal.com (2010) Title II Enhanced Surveillance Procedures, Retrieved on February 9, 2012 from http://civilrights.uslegal.com/usa-patriot-act/provisions-of-the-patriot-act/title-ii-enhanced-surveillance-procedures/