Ethics And Ethics Of The Patriot Act

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 was passed to additionally keep any terrorist invasion by gathering all data that could prompt the aversion of these attacks. It also expands the government’s reconnaissance. It increases the government’s capacity to take a gander at records on an individual's movement being held by outsiders. It extends the government’s ability to hunt private property without notice to the proprietor. Intelligence searches. It grows a limited exemption to the Fourth Amendment that had been made for the accumulation of foreign intelligence information. It extends another Fourth Amendment exemption for seeing that gathers addressing data about the starting point and goal of interchanges, instead of the substance.

Another week, another series of patches to download from Microsoft. It seems like every week, Microsoft is under siege from one virus or another. The complexity in the billions of lines of code embedded in its products make it impossible to be error-free. If it is this easy for hot-headed M$ haters to breach the world’s largest software maker, one has to ask: how hard would it be to expose vulnerabilities in the most sophisticated and technologically dependent country in the world?

The USA Patriot Act grants government agencies powers in terrorism investigations that it already uses in non-terrorist crimes. Several law abiding citizens have been approached, questioned, and interrogated without probable cause of any criminal activity, basically for engaging in political speech protected by the constitution (Bailie, 2012). The Act freely eliminates privacy rights for individual Americans, it creates more secrecy for government activities, which make it extremely difficult to know about actions the Government are taking.

The Patriot Act allows the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect data, it can apply to the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence court to force businesses, such as cellular telephone companies, to provide user records, these records can be searched without the owners knowledge or consent. It can also obtain internet data from it the National Security Electronic Surveillance Program (PRISM), operated by the NSA, including emails, chats, photos, video, payment information including credit card numbers, and other digital information.

A. Thesis: The Patriot Act is violating American’s right to privacy. Mainly, the right to hold a private phone conversation.

Congress ushered in the Patriot Act by arming law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism by expanding federal officials’ powers to keep tabs on our personal information, from credit card use to cell phone calls to car travel. It allows investigators to use the tools that were

     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 attacks on the United States of America on September 11th, 2001 fundamentally changed the way the government and its citizens viewed freedom and liberty. With the subsequent enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, security became the government’s top priority. (The USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.) Congress, eager to put a law on the books to prevent another attack, fast tracked the bill through both houses in six weeks. It passed by a near unanimous vote, with the majority of dissent coming from Democrats. A highly contentious and debated law, the USA PATRIOT Act infringes on Natural Law and the American citizen’s Civil Liberties. Also it violates the spirit and letter of the United States Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. Many amendments in the Constitution are at a direct contrast with the law’s many broadly worded sections, specifically the First Amendment’s right to free speech and freedom of assembly, and the Fourth Amendment’s guard against unwarranted and illegal search and seizure.

In the years since the passing of the Patriot Act, there has been much controversy and debate regarding the positive and negative advantages, and consequences of this bill. As a member of the law enforcement community I have experienced firsthand some of the changes the Patriot Act has brought upon this nation. A result of this experience along with information obtained in the studying of this act and

The USA Patriot Act was supposed to help the government find terrorists and prevent another attack, like the attacks on September 11th from happening again. However, there were many constitutional questions that surfaced with regard to the USA Patriot Act. The act gave the government more power than it had before September 11th. It allowed the government to put the rights of citizens aside, when the government thought that a person might be involved with terrorist activity. I will begin by discussing the contents of the USA Patriot Act and what questions might arise. I will then present some scenarios where the Patriot Act was used to justify the civil liberties of Americans being limited, and if the government’s suspicions were correct or

The Patriots Act has become a huge part of the community and some people do not even realize it, though plenty of the time they are using this Patriots Act to defend their idea of spying on the citizens around the world. In order for the community to feel safer, they must first take away the Patriots Act due to safety issues people tend to feel less secure when they know they are being watched for their every move. People have to understand that not only is this something that is pointless, but it makes people more aware of what they send. This act will not prevent terrorism in the world, due to the amount of damage that has been done in the world they have not found terrorist by seeing whom the contact when they contact and most of the time

Ever since the cloudy day on September 11, 2001, when two planes crashed into the twin towers, the United States government has been cracking down on security. The Patriot Act, passed October 26, 2001, was an effort by the United States government to ‘crack down’ on terrorism. The act removed several legal barriers that blocked or restricted law enforcement, intelligence, and defense agencies from storing data about possible terrorist threats and collaborating together to respond to them. The Patriot Act was supposed to make United States citizens feel more secure but in reality it had the opposite effect. Around 2013, when confidential NSA documents were leaked it was found that several government agencies had used the guise of the Patriot Act to monitor millions of United States citizens. In fact, it was found out by several civil liberties groups that the Patriot Act applies to more than just terrorist acts. For example, Title II of the Patriot Act allows government agencies to tap telephone lines and permits the interception of messages that may be relevant to a criminal investigation. Further, the act allows authorities to provide access to any tangible thing(books, records, papers, etc). Today, March 2, 2016, fifteen years after the government was given permission to spy on most of its citizens, the government is trying to spy on all Apple iPhones through the use of a code cracking software.

Shortly after the terrorist attack on the united states on September 11, 2001, president at the time George W. Bush enacted the USA Patriot Act. George bush has been quoted Stating “Terrorism against our nation will not stand” (Jones 2) a message which was hit home by the enactment of the USA Patriot Act. The Patriot Act gives law enforcement agencies increased powers enabling them to apprehend terrorist. The USA Patriot Act was enacted by congress on October 26, 2001, with the idea that it would help a crippled nation combat terrorism. The act of terrorism which is described as the act of using violence to gain political ground. According to James A. Morone author of the text “By the People Debating American Government” “The USA Patriot Act gave police and security personnel far more latitude to monitor, search, and detain suspects both abroad and at home” (Morone 683). The USA Patriot Act forfeits certain constitutional rights afforded by the constitution in an attempt of keeping the United States free of terrorism, On may 26, 2011 current president Barack Obama signed the Patriot Sunset extension act of 2011. The Patriot Sunset Extension Act of 2011 is a four year extension of three important provisions of the USA Patriot Act which has proved effective when combating terrorism. The extension extended the three of the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act. Wiretaps, searches of public records and the conduction of surveillance of individuals suspected of

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?