Surveillance and Spying on the Home Front Since 9/11

Domestic Surveillance in the Unites States has been going on for decades without the public 's knowledge. Domestic Surveillance didn 't seem important in the eye of the American government. After the September attacks (9/11) congress started to treat Domestic Surveillance as a number one priority. After September 11th Congress passed a law to use military force for those responsible for the attacks in New York, NY. The go ahead with using military force did not give the President to use surveillance without a warrant. Congress started to pass legislation against counterterrorism efforts. The most controversial measures, including the 2001 USA Patriot Act that gave the US federal government the ability to collect and analyze private information that has identified itself with the United States of America.

Privacy and safety of citizens is common in today's society, as well as the government looking over their shoulder at all times. As an example, George Orwell wrote a book called, "1984" which in it gave an outlook of society being taken over by a party. Government surveillance is different from protecting and bringing safety to the citizens, it violates their freedom, privacy, and human rights.

Most Americans feel trapped by the government. They believe that the government is spying on them just to do so and that there is absolutely no reason for it. However this is wrong because the government has several reasons to spy on us Americans. Even though this may seem outrageous, it is needed and there are ways the United States’ citizens have privacy. With all of these false accusations it is simple to see why people would be supportive of our right to privacy. On the other hand, the government eavesdropping on the people of the United States has helped save many lives and justice being served. The United States of America is a free country, so we should have the option to be spied on by the government; however, as citizens we do

Government surveillance is beneficial in moderation, but can quite easily become excessive. A well-known example of this is the controversy regarding the NSA monitoring U.S. citizens discreetly on American soil. This unwarranted watch crosses the fine line between monitoring criminal suspects for security, and blatant overreach of authority in spying common citizens. The personal infringement of information has been commonly associated with the NSA’s PRISM, but their MUSCULAR program is much more disconcerting. According to Harry Bruinius in “Why Tech Giants Are Now Uniting Against U.S. Surveillance”:

Over the past few years, government surveillance in the United States has become a widely debated issue with two completely different sides. The National Security Agency, a government agency known for it’s efforts in spying and surveillance, has been at the center of this issue since it’s founding in the 1950’s. The Cold War had just begun and the United States government was doing anything they could to find potential terrorists and communists. In fact, many famous people including Einstein were being spied on by the government to find citizens with potential ties to the Soviet Union. (New York Times - New Details Emerge from the Einstein Files; How the FBI Tracked His Phone Calls and His Trash) As the cold war came to an end in the early 90’s, NSA spying seemed to come to an end as well.

President Bush intended through legislation, to aid federal agencies in identifying potential terrorists and to ultimately protect this country from possible potential terrorist attacks in the future (Banks, 2010). Both individuals in power and ordinary citizens were greatly supportive of giving up certain liberties and privacy in order for the protection of the greater good. However, The Patriot Act was extremely controversial and advocates feared that power could be abused and that non-threatening citizens were being examined for crimes in which were not terrorist related (Sievert, 2007). Additionally, the most controversial aspect of The Patriot Act was the fear of privacy in relation to the first and fourth amendment (Xhelili and Crowne,

After the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, an American public was shocked, flabbergasted, and lost for words for the first time since Pearl Harbor. Out of these fears the PATRIOT act was conceived; promising to help stop future terrorist plots the bill was initially met with high praise from the public and media. It was not for another decade that the side-effects of the patriot act were revealed to the world. The American public was appalled at the circumvention of their fourth Amendment rights. Still there is a clear divide between those who believe that the National Security Agency Is not violating the constitution and what they are doing is good for the betterment of the country and those who believe that their privacy and undeniable American freedoms were violated in part of the NSA spying with both parties bringing their own views and ideals to the field. The September eleventh attacks were the beginning of the end of privacy for American citizens the PATRIOT act which was signed a month later granted full access to the phones and computers of the people. It took over a decade for the public to become aware of the illegal spying that the NSA had conducted. The NSA spying is a complicated and controversial matter while there have been several judicial courts that have ruled against the spying there has also been just as many cases of the court 's finding the spying constitutional.

The National Security Agency (NSA) has been an information gathering arm of the Executive branch since the Cold War and continues to be an essential part of ensuring the security of the United States. The public issue that involves the NSA is the spying of U.S citizens which can be seen as a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This was revealed to the public by the whistleblower Edward Snowden who released classified documents of activities that the NSA had been conducting in conjuncture with telecommunication companies, which angered many U.S citizens and received media coverage with a call for the U.S Government to restrict the NSA’s activities or at least for there to be Congressional oversight. This debate revolves around how much the NSA’s surveillance activities are actually used for national security as well as the constitutionality of the NSA’s surveillance. This all began after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 when there was a call for the attacks to never happen again and the adoption of the Patriot Act in that same year which increased the power of the NSA.

Government surveillance is made with the intent to keep American society safe, usually made in response to major terrorist attacks to prevent future terrorist attacks. After the tragic events of 9/11 the Us government took measures to prevent future terrorist attacks from happening. One major act enacted was the Patriot act.

In this day and age it is very hard to be secretive or private about affair, whether it be business or the other sense of the word when two people come together as forbidden lovers, ask Bill Clinton. One often acquires a feeling of eeriness while alone or when the phone rings and no one is there. And that individual labels these incidents as paranoia or thinks nothing of it. But what if this isn’t coincidence? What if someone has tapped lines and to ensure it is working the phone rings. Remember that “Collect call from”, the government you received yesterday? Wake up people. Surveillance of U.S. Citizens is real. The NSA is videotaping, tapping the phone lines and watching us watching them. That

Under Section 215, the government contends that it authorizes the seizure of “any tangible thing.” In this case, they have been seizing “telephone meta-data” in hopes of obtaining intelligence to prevent foreign terrorist attacks. The “meta-data” is then stored in a “bulk collection” that can be accessed whenever necessary. The ACLU asserts that the government is acting outside the authority of the Patriot Act. And if the government is not, then this mass seizure violates the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution (cite). So, today we consider whether this surveillance program is lawful under the Patriot Act, and-if not-whether the statute violates the Constitution—all else is

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

“The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival” (Orwell). The world today is full of many dangers domestic and abroad. It has become a routine in the news to report on the daily mass shooting or update with the war on terror. We live in a world where being worried is justified; however, we should not give up our constitutional rights in the face of fear. The NSA’s dragnet surveillance programs, such as PRISM, are both ineffective and are surpassed by less questionable national security programs. The FISA court's’ approval of NSA actions are not only illegal, but exist as an embarrassing formality. Surveillance is a necessary

Thomas Jefferson once said that “Everyone has the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” If the government spied on its citizens, the citizens would carry the burden of having the government constantly watch every move being made, interfering with citizens pursuit of happiness. With that being said, if a citizen’s privacy was invaded then their pursuit of happiness would be demolished. The government should not be able to spy on its citizens because it is a major invasion of privacy, people become fearful of the government, and is a large violation of the rights citizens are permitted.