Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Summary

Today, electronic surveillance remains one of the most effective tools the United States has to protect against foreign powers and groups seeking to inflict harm on the nation, but it does not go without a few possessing a few negative aspects either. Electronic surveillance of foreign intelligence has likely saved the lives of many innocent people through prevention of potential acts of aggression towards the United States. There are many pros to the actions authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) pertaining to electronic surveillance, but there are also cons. Looking at both the pros and cons of electronic surveillance is important in understanding the overall effectiveness of FISA. [1]

Since the passing of FISA came after a widespread finding of warrantless wiretapping by a number of different government entities, Congress along with the Carter administration, needed to carefully craft a bill that not only reconciled national security needs to conduct domestic surveillance, but also continued to protect individual liberties such as that of the first and fourth amendments. The once top-secret Carter administration memos regarding FISA offer a first-hand glimpse at the thinking that went into

The Patriot Act came into existence upon signing into law by the President George Bush. This Act of the Congress was meant to unite the Americans as they fight and intercept the different acts of terrorism (Doyle 2). Through the act, appropriate tools necessary for the execution of the mandates were provided. The act allows the empowered surveillance bodies to search for the different business records, rove through the wiretaps and carries out surveillance on the persons who are suspected to be terrorists or linked to terrorist-related activities. Owing to the powerful nature of the act, several issues have been raised concerning the validity and appropriateness of the act. Most of the issues raised point towards the morality aspect of the act. One issue of concern is privacy of individuals as far as the execution of Patriot Act is concerned (Doyle 2).

The provisions of the Patriot Act sought to beef up security against homegrown terrorism increase surveillance procedures, including phone taps against an individual rather than just one phone number. Next, the act aimed at the removal of access to funding for terrorist groups and made it a requirement for financial institutions to prevent money laundering wherever possible. Title four was aimed specifically at providing more funding for protecting our borders. The most important part of title five was the use of National Security Letters and included an order which kept the target from knowing about it or even telling anyone else. Then, the act outlined compensation for victims of acts of terrorism and their families. Also, there was a sharp increase in information sharing between law enforcement entities and jurisdictions. Afterward, several criminal acts were added to the list of things considered acts of terrorism and the penalties increased for these acts as well. All of these things are, to me, a utilitarian effort to make our best moral effort to secure our country. Viewed from a consequentialist standpoint, things like the Patriot Act are

The Patriot Act was introduced as a response to the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11th. It has radically changed the way in which the government operates in the investigations of people in and out of our country. It has broadened the powers of the federal government in the way in which they can obtain information on people. In this paper I will be discussing the ethical and moral issues of the expanded ability of wiretapping, search and seizure, the establishment of the FISA court, and end with the transparency of these practices.

Bazan, E. B. (2008). The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: overview and modifications. New York: Nova Science Publishers. When you look into this Act, there were many flaws that were infringing on American freedom. The FISA has faced much criticism and disapproval. One of the major problems associated with the FISA is the fact

With today’s technological surveillance capabilities, our actions are observable, recordable and traceable. Surveillance is more intrusive than it has been in the past. For numerous years countries such as the United State and the United Kingdom have been actively monitoring their citizens through the use of surveillance technology. This state surveillance has been increasing with each passing year, consequently invading the citizen’s fundamental constitutional right to privacy,. This has lead to the ethical issues from the use or misuse of technology, one such ethical issue is should a government have the right to use technology to monitor its citizens without their knowledge or approval? For this reason this paper will

However, critics challenged the constitutionality of FISA and the abuse of the government power under the First, Fourth and Fith amendments of the United States Constitution. The problem led to the erection of “the wall” that inhibited the information sharing between the intelligence and law enforcement communities. The expansion of FISA after the enactment of USA PATRIOT Act significantly broadened the authority of the Executive Branch for the electronic surveillance and removed the wall, allowing the flow of information among Intelligence Community in the fight against terrorism. However, the removal of the wall led to the tension between national security and civil liberties. The FISC review has clarified the requirements for the use of intelligence under FISA to limit abuse of the Executive power. However, much is still needed to be done to properly balance the national security concerns and privacy rights. Consequently, the role of the Congress as an oversight machine is strongly required to limit instances under which the Government may conduct unlawful electronic

As if it were not enough with all of these new security acts and suppositions that the government needed to do more to keep us safe. In late December 2010, the New York Times article revealed that President Obama and also his predecessor George W. Bush, had secretly authorized and approved the National Security Agency (NSA) having access to wiretap domestic phone calls and emails without obtaining legally required warrants. Through the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) administrative institutions were permitted to wiretap on an emergency basis and apply for warrants without the necessary legal authorization, the administration thought that FISA was too monotonous and cumbersome pertaining to urgent issues of national security.

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA) is a law granted by the United States which defined procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance that was deemed in the best interest of national security. This gave congress the ability to oversee foreign intelligence surveillance while maintaining secrecy in conducting surveillance of national security threats. The Patriot Act enhanced the FISA capability to conduct wiretap surveillance without warrants. According to Matthew A. Anzaldi and Jonathan W. Gannon (2010), FISA "provides the legal framework through which the Intelligence Community lawfully collects intonation about those who pose national security threats to our country” (p.1690). The right of privacy that’s protected

Mass surveillance is a word that has been thrown around every so often in the last few decades, especially ever since George Orwell’s book Nineteen Eighty-Four. Although this book was released over 60 years ago, some aspects of the book are seeming to become true in the United States, and other parts of the world today. The idea of mass surveillance isn’t so taboo anymore, as there are several programs ran by sovereign countries around the world which monitor their domestic citizens, as well as citizens and leaders of other foreign countries. With all of our technological communication advances since 1949, this age of information is only going to get more severe, and more tracking and monitoring will be done. The biggest offender of doing

The US Constitution came to life 230 years ago, but recent actions of the National Security Agency is interpreted to be defying the Bill of Rights by the government and depriving the citizens their constitutional right to privacy. However, when posed with the question: Do people want to live in a surveillanced environment like animals in a zoo, with justice and safety ensured but privacy denied completely ? , the answers vary in the community. The revelation of the National Security Agency's massive

This article specifically explains the legal constraints that go hand in hand with information sharing while being monitored through the Patriot act. Showing how the Patriot Act itself monitors specific agencies with respect to national security. Its main subject areas deal with information sharing amongst U.S. citizens through cyber space such as internet, social networks, emails etc… But most importantly this article is a reflection of the United states government’s precautionary measures taking by our U.S. Government in order to up hold not only the safety of our citizens but our national security as

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 was a result of “congressional investigations into Federal surveillance activities conducted in the name of national security” (Intelligence Surveillance Act, n.d.). FISA allows for judicial and congressional supervision of foreign surveillance, while maintaining the “secrecy necessary to effectively monitor national security threats”, and outlines the procedures for the physical and electronic surveillance and collection of foreign intelligence information (Intelligence Surveillance Act, n.d.).

This act was created in 1978. It proposes methods for gaining judicial permission in order to carry out physical and technological search for a person, who might be a terrorist threat for USA, on behalf of a foreign power.