Khalid Al Mihdhar Pros And Cons

With new found ways of viewing American citizens personal information the federal government had to learn how not to get caught. American citizens have right to their privacy and with all the new Domestic Surveillance programs many were warrantless. In 2002 Bush signed a presidential order allowing the National Security Agency to monitor without a warrant. This presidential order applied to international telephone calls and e-mail messages of thousands of citizens and legal residents inside the United States. This program never had the requirements to obtain or produce a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court but, as the 4th Amendment to the Constitution

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was originally enacted to protect entities from abuse of surveillance for national security reasons. FISA contains policies associated with the process of gathering foreign intelligence by the intelligence community for national security reasons (Addicott & McCaul, 2008, p. 46-47). FISA also consisted of a secret court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), which had eleven unnamed federal judges who issued warrants regarding surveillance or searches for the intelligence community, and a court review board, which consisted of three federal judges who reviewed the actions of the secret court. After the passing of the Patriot Act by the Bush Administration, the NSA was essentially given full authority to collect information on citizens without a warrant, thereby circumventing the FISC, and Bush fully defended the NSA, stating “‘The activities I have authorized make it more likely that killers like these 9/11 hijackers will be identified and located in time.’” (Schwartz 2009

NSA infringes on the 1st and 4th Amendment rights. America was the safe zone: a lot of people came to the United States so that they would have the freedom to express who they are, what they believe, and their thoughts without punishment. Edward Snowden, NSA whistle blower, wasn’t allowed that freedom when he made it know what the NSA was doing with Verizon’s phone records. Snowden did break the law but he brought awareness of this dilemma to the average citizen, villain, and hero. In the end, it caused the NSA to change some policies but it doesn’t even make a difference because still the administration continues to collect data without a cause. Correction: the NSA uses surveillance to protect United States of America from terrorist, terrorism and terrorism related crimes… The agency’s interpretation: anyone and anything under the sun.

Unreasonable, warrantless searches and seizures should not take place because it violates the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, by not being justified by law. The NSA goes to the FISA court to get the kind of warrant needed for going through metadata, if the warrant is issued, then the NSA may go through the metadata. When the NSA goes to the FISA court, it means that the surveillance requires judicial oversight. Also, If the “intelligence committee” wants to listen to a phone call, then they have to take special measures such as a federal judge. The intelligence committee may not just listen to a phone call, all that the intelligence committee can do without taking special measures is look at the length of a phone call. Warrantless

The Patriot Act is still having effects on the lives of citizens today. Many of the parts of the Patriot Act have been repassed in the U.S.A. Freedom Act and will be in effect as of 2019. With the passage of some parts of the Act the Senate has voted to stop the mass surveillance by the NSA. The surveillance was discovered by a man named Edward Snowden but he remains in hiding in Russia because he came out with the truth about the NSA which is a violation of the Patriot Act with the penalty of long periods of jail time so he fled to Russia in 2013 after coming out with his findings (Timm).

Although the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) already permitted the administration to wiretap on an emergency basis and apply for warrants retroactively, the administration maintained that FISA was too cumbersome when urgent issues of national security were at stake. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales offered two justifications for the legality of the domestic spying program, asserting that the president had the "inherent authority under the Constitution, as commander in chief, to engage in this kind of activity" and that Congress, "when it authorize[d] the president to use all necessary and appropriate force" against al-Qaeda in 2001, indirectly sanctioned it. Critics objected that the wiretapping infringed on civil liberties, sidestepped the legislative branch, and placed the president above the law. In August 2006, a federal judge in Detroit ruled the wiretapping program unconstitutional. However, in July 2008, Congress passed a bill overhauling the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act—effectively legalizing Bush's secret program. The new law gave legal immunity to the telephone companies that participated in the NSA secret wiretapping program after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and broadened the government's ability to eavesdrop on those in the U.S. and abroad it suspects are linked to terrorist

So, a bill that almost 40 years ago which clearly stipulated that it could only be used for monitoring foreign agents has been made available to non-intelligence agencies that were not the subjects of the original bill to conduct more intrusive surveillance. Specifically, with the PATRIOT Act, law enforcement could now use the FISA Act as a precursor to obtain private information from “banks, businesses, credit companies, Internet providers, and others about U.S. citizens without a showing of probable cause” (Baker 15). This obviously were not part of the original FISA Act, because the original FISA Act pertained to foreign nationals and spies in the United States, not American citizens. More importantly however this amendment to the FISA Act that gives the government the opportunity to obtain private information without probable cause is in strong violation of Fourth Amendment which stipulates that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause” (US. Const. amend. IV), because now the government doesn’t need probable cause anymore to conduct surveillance or gather private information.

Ever since the American public was made aware of the United States government’s surveillance policies, it has been a hotly debated issue across the nation. In 2013, it was revealed that the NSA had, for some time, been collecting data on American citizens, in terms of everything from their Internet history to their phone records. When the story broke, it was a huge talking point, not only across the country, but also throughout the world. The man who introduced Americans to this idea was Edward Snowden.

An important case that the 2nd Circuit Court has reached a judgement on is ACLU v. Clapper. The decision reached by the Court invalidated one of the main justifications for mass surveillance by the NSA, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. In this case the judges focused on the original intentions of Congress when it signed the PATRIOT Act into law. Specifically, if it intended the creation of a permeant database of all telephone and wireless communications in the United States, which the NSA was creating. (Source 3) In addressing this issue, the Court had to define the significance and change of definition of metadata since the writing of the act. In a brief issued by the Court, they concluded that, “The more metadata that the government collects and analyzes, furthermore the greater the capacity for such metadata to reveal ever more private and previously unascertainable information about individuals. Finally, as appellants… point out, in todays technologically based world, it is virtually impossible for an ordinary citizen to avoid creating metadata about himself of a regular basis simply by conducting his ordinary affairs.” (source 3) This change in thinking has spurred the outcome of the case. The Court determined that the programs enacted by the NSA under Section 215 where overstepping the authority granted to them by that

This debate on liberties and security was resolved in june 2015, when the act was revised by the Congress. According to the revised act, police and security agencies cannot retain information and data, but the mobile companies can. And, mobile companies can give this data to NSA if they are able to provide enough evidence in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

In practice, the FISC system curtails the constitution, is appointed by a single person, and acts a simple bureaucratic box to tick. The judges of the FISC are appointed solely, without any approval, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Justice John Roberts and the chief justices before him alone dictate the interpretation of the fourth amendment, a largely republican bias, “[John Roberts] appoints all FISA judges, drawn from the federal bench, and right now 10 of 12 were originally appointed by Republican presidents” (Walsh). Likewise, the warrants issued by FISC are not specific to individuals, organizations, or specific items to be found. They lack essential principles of law, such as probable cause and particularity, “indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted under the authority of ‘general warrants’ were the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment” (Payton). Moreover, the government effectively provides no contest to any NSA search or spying. According to statistics of court rulings, warrants and records requests over the court’s history were denied 0.03% of the time (Center). The current situation of surveillance oversight in the United States is dismal, reckless, and

To begin, government spying creates potential risks to public trust, personal privacy, and civil liberty, which is why dometic programs that allows bulk data to be stored should be put to an end. With the Patriot coming to an end, the senate voted to end NSA’s bulk data collection programs to end on may 13. “[T]he House overwhelmingly passed the USA Freedom Act by a vote of 338-88 . The bill would take the storage of bulk telephony metadata away from the government and would instead rely on the telecom

Examples of how government has gotten in the ways of things. The government has interpreted the First Amendment as protecting freedom of association ,but however the government is arresting those speaking out and violently crushing peaceful assemblies which attempt to petition the government too do the right thing. In 2016 NSA has admitted they have listened to more than 151 million records of America’s phone calls in 2016. Privacy advocates have argued that Section 702 permits the NSA to spy on Internet and telephone communications of Americans without warrants from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and that foreign intelligence could be used for domestic law enforcement purposes in a way that evades traditional legal requirements. The government will do anything in its power/control to surveillance and to use force for any given way without telling the real government the

The new acts state that the NSA may not listen in to phone calls, or read emails, where United States citizens are involved, without the suspicion of them currently residing outside of the United States. However, the new acts require no individualized warrants when any situation that the NSA screens involves, or may involve a person, whether United States citizen or not, who they suspect to have been outside of the United States or currently outside of the United States. As Jack Balkin, professor at Yale Law School states, “The Fisa Amendments Act of 2008, effectively gives the President authority to run surveillance programs similar to the warrantless surveillance program (secretly implemented by George Bush in late 2001).” And if you still don’t believe that these government programs could be violating the rights given to you by the fourth amendment then look at the response that was published when senators began asking the NSA exactly how many Americans were having their phone calls or emails screened without individualized warrants, “the implication that NSA 's collection is arbitrary and unconstrained is false. NSA 's activities are focused and specifically deployed against - and only against - legitimate foreign intelligence targets in response to requirements that our leaders need for information necessary to protect our nation and its interest” (NSA). This statement was published a month before President Obama announced in his

The fact is that the federal government recently ruled that NSA’s gathering of mass phone and mail data is illegal. Yet many voters still Condone NSA’S spying practices. Though according to Sen. Al Franken, from Minnesota “Americans aren’t getting the most basic information about what 's going on with the NSA’s surveillance programs, and whether or not their privacy is being violated.” . As Sen. Al Franken stated, the American people don’t know what’s going on inside NSA and many people think data collected by NSA in recent years is safe. NSA stores data into a cloudbase, however it has a lot of issues and one big issue with cloud storage is business data is at risk. Putting information onto a server that is accessible to the public is a risky idea. Hackers can access all types of sensitive data such as: tax returns, bank records, mortgage applications, blueprints and business plans. (V3) This connects to Pagliery’s recent article which is about the U.S Government data being hacked by the