Patriot Act Wiretapping

After the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, a controversial piece of legislation was adopted and passed called the U.S.A. Patriot Act. The title for this bill is an acronym for "the United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act" (USA Patriot Act).

One common idea many Americans have is that the USA Patriot Act keeps them safe. Even Robert Mueller, the former director of the FBI, believed having such an act in place prior to 9/11 could have prevented the attacks (CBS News). He further explained that having the act in place at the time could have tracked the phone of one of the terrorists that carried out the attacks. He implies here that the information from the act is

First, this violates our 4th amendment right, but I am not diametrically opposed to the intention of the patriot act. However, what I am opposed to the way in which the act is executed and the contributing factors that allowed the terrorist attack. It needs revision to suit its situation, were the act was derived from. The problem originally was that crazy Muslim extremist drove a plane into a building, thus killing a multitude of people. Which obviously set off an alarm to the government and our people and it lead us to rethink about how we handle terrorism. We shouldn’t so be quick to pull the

The misuse of our personal information collected by private and public institutions has made privacy, or the lack of it, a major societal concern today. One of the biggest reasons privacy has become such an issue is the enactment of the “Patriot Act”, signed into law in reaction to the attacks on 9/11/2001. This act broadened the ability for the US government to collect surveillance on people in order to protect against terrorism inside the US. Critiques say it violates our civil liberties and undermines our democracy. One example of this is the collection and storage of phone data by the government under the Patriot Act. Is this an invasion of privacy? In order to keep society safe, a certain amount of private information has to be known by Law Enforcement. In order to collect taxes and for society to function, the government also needs some information. Collecting basic information isn’t an invasion of privacy, but the collection phone data is too intrusive. Can the public trust the government to not miss-use or lose the information they have on them?

I strongly believe that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional; hence, I would say the government is acting illegally. Further, the book notes that the NSA put gag orders on several companies to prevent them from sharing their policies and procedures. The book also notes that even after certain laws and court cases ruled wiretapping illegal, law enforcement still did it. In my opinion, government surveillance and intrusion into personal data with a warrant is neither legal nor ethical.

"We're dealing with terrorists who operate by highly sophisticated methods and technologies, some of which were not even available when our existing laws were written. The bill before me accounts for the new realities and dangers posed by modern terrorists. It will help law enforcement to identify, dismantle, disrupt, and punish terrorists before they strike," (President George W. Bush at signing of Patriot Act, 2001). The terrorists of today cannot be reasoned with. We must do whatever necessary to ensure that there never will be another September 11th. Since the enactment of the Patriot Act, there have not been any major acts of terrorism committed on U.S. soil. If the Act had been established earlier, perhaps the

There are many pros and cons to the USA Patriot Act. Some feel that the government already has way too much power and that this just gives them more. Another con is some feel allowing the government to conduct surveillance on US citizens means that there is less privacy protection than before, and that there is certainly opportunity for abuse. A big issue is electronic surveillance, this provision is supposed to apply to suspected terrorists, but that definition is very open ended, and the government could easily label anyone as a suspected terrorist, and to start gathering information on them. Another big problem is that law enforcement is allowed to go into someone’s home and search through all their possessions without notifying them at all. Here are a list of five sections in the USA Patriot Act that many argue are unconstitutional; Roving Wiretaps, Section 206; Roving wiretaps have long been used in criminal cases to allow law enforcement to "follow a target across multiple telephone or Internet accounts when there’s reason to believe the suspect is

First, are the positives of having the patriot act. Terrorism is still a really big problem, by having the patriot act we can keep a closer eye on terrorist groups. This can help us gain info on threats and heighten our nation's security. Even ordinary criminals could have a large impact on our security so by using our new technology we can keep our country far safer. Although some people think this is against our rights, I believe our safety is a lot

Response to “Letter to America” Margaret Atwood comes from a Canadian-American background; throughout her letter, “Letter to America,” she discusses how her views of America have changed from a very inspirational view to a concerned and disappointed view. Atwood used to think America was “a ton of fun” because of the books, music, tv shows, and other extravagant entertainment that were booming. Now-a-days, however, Atwood feels she does not even know America anymore. Political and economic decisions America has made in the past fifty-five years have greatly affected Atwood’s view of America and have also affected others’ views, including my own.

The uses of wiretapping and surveillance have become extremely evident in the society we live in today. With issues of terrorism and foreign threat, the concern for the safety of American citizens is at an all-time high. Over the past 50 years, different amendments and acts have been passed to help regulate the use of wiretap and surveillance tactics, but perhaps the most significant of the bunches would be Title III, FISA, and the Patriot Act. These acts paved way to a safer feeling society, but at the same time they bare constitutional issues which take away some of the liberties granted to citizens by the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, raising a lot of controversy within our society. One of the most controversial themes being the NYPD Surveillance Program which targets foreign operations here in the U.S. by unconstitutional means of action, but due to the regulations of amended acts such as the Patriot Act, the actions of the NYPD have been found completely legal. This paper discusses the evolution of wiretap and surveillance laws and how the NYPD has incorporated them into tactics that suffice many constitutional issues.

"Wiretapping American citizens on American soil without the required warrant is in direct contravention of our criminal statutes,” stated by Senator Russ Feingold; pertains to the unwarranted wiretapping of United States civilians suspected of terrorist affiliation (Feingold). The National Security Agency’s act of wiretapping the United States’ people is argued to be illegal and a violation of civil rights. However, under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, the President of the United States is permitted to authorize a terrorist surveillance program to protect the nation from foreign attacks (Feingold). Therefore, wiretapping should be allowed in order to

The terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was the single most devastating terrorist attack in this country and, indeed, the world, with more than 3,000 deaths. (Pollock, 2014, p.403). The terrorist attack on September 11th, 2001 was a wakeup call for local law enforcement and the United States. This resulted in an increase of law enforcement officials and change of missions for local law enforcement, federal law enforcement; the creation of the Department of Homeland Security(DHS).

“The law, known as the PATRIOT Act, granted the federal government sweeping new powers of being able to spy on people. This included expanding the government's wiretapping authority. Wiretapping means secretly using special equipment to listen in to someone's phone conversations. The PATRIOT Act allows "roving" wiretaps. This means the FBI can target a person and tap into any device that person uses, including computers, cell phones, and regular phones.” As stated in the Associated press phone records seized, from newscurrents.com. To clarify, the patriot act has raised controversy because of how unconstitutional it is. Many people believed that it was wrong for the government to tap into phone conversations and remotely check your computer

Warrantless wiretapping should never be justified in any case of protecting national security.Why? Lets just say if this is permitted ,what would stop the government from violating domestic citizens privacy? With that question in mind,allowing warrantless wiretapping is still breaking breaking the law even if it's our own government who is doing it. The constitution was put in place to protect peoples rights and to keep our government in order. Without the constitution, the government would become a tyranny.Andrew McCarthy argument was the we should want the government to do wiretapping for our own protection to assist in investigations. The is some truth in his opinion, being that a lot of investigations would be easily solved if the were

Imagine discovering yourself locked between the four acrid walls of a maximum security prison, all because of something you have said during a telephone call in which the government was secretly monitoring. There is much contention as to whether or not wiretapping is an appropriate method of justice in today's society. Those against wiretapping worry that it violates their privacy rights and that the government will abuse and misuse their power. They argue that the government can not be trusted and that the influence of political power is subject to increase in the action of wiretapping. Those in favor, argue that nothing but justice can be achieved in doing such. Does wiretapping violate the bill of rights? Or does it make the United States