Category: Patriot Act

Technology and the Internet has become part of nature and the way we conduct business globally. From communication, research, and information collection, nothing can be done without the use of technology and the Internet. The rapid uses of the Internet and advance technology have changed the way information or intelligence is collected. Consequently, concerns about the privacy of the Internet and information collection have increased in recent years.

Privacy today faces emergent threats from an increasing surveillance sources that is often seen right because of national security. Some government agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation infringe upon private communications of citizens based on unclear and misinterpretation of policies. Throughout our history, intelligence collection has provided vital information to prevent attacks both nationally and internationally. As adversaries continue to develop new methods to defeat and attack the United States, modes and complexity of collection methods have increased to combat and prevent the intent and threats of adversaries. As such, the methods used in collection have evolved through electronic means and hence the privacy concerns.

Currently, one of the greatest challenges we face is finding the stability between privacy and national security. The advancement of technology has paved the way for the intelligence sector to collect information. These advances have raised concerns about communication and information privacy and its impact. Although the perception of privacy is complex, there are policies and laws in plays to protect the rights and privacy of individuals. Since the Snowden leaks, the problem of ensuring the security of the nation while protecting people’s privacy has been an issue. To be able to balance privacy and security, intelligence agencies will have to collect information against foreign intelligence and likewise provide the fundamental rights of protecting citizen’s privacy.

As the world continues to advance in terms of globalization and technology, security threat arises from cyber-attacks to terrorism and as such, the need to collect information both internally and externally. After 9/11, the Attorney General gave guidance to the bureau to obtain information needed in its operations. This guidance was a result of the 9/11 findings and how information can be collected in relation to terror or crime.

The general objective of these Guidelines is the full utilization of all authorities and investigative methods, consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, to protect the United States and its people from terrorism and other threats to the national security, to protect the United States and its people from victimization by all crimes in violation of federal law, and to further the foreign intelligence objectives of the United States.

With the liberty to operate freely, technical platforms with various capabilities are deployed in various environments to include domestic areas to fetch data. The use of technical devices, drones, and so on were widely used post 9/11. Although the effect could and can be seen, there were negligence and disregard to law and policies. Appropriately, the voluntary of people providing personal information on social media through the internet has made it possible for the intelligence community to gather private information and use it where it applies. This has brought about the perception of infringing on an individual’s privacy and concern to the public.

The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines privacy as “the state of being alone and not watched or disturbed by other people or the state of being free from the attention of the public” (2020). Citizens have been concerned recently about government illegal collection of their information. This speculation was increased due to the Snowden leaks and collection methods used. Although tensions have increased, citizens are failing to address the fact that, most personal information can be gathered through social media. Subsequently, social media platforms have provided a gateway for intelligence agencies to use people’s information. One can argue that, if I have my information on any social media platform, it does not guarantee the government to use my information. This can be argued within the fourth amendment to protect people’s right to privacy.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that ‘[t]he 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, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Finding a probable cause is the underlining factor between privacy infringement and information collection. Waters (2014) indicated some members of the Israeli Military Intelligence Signal Unit were reluctant to remain in service due to surveillance used to monitor civilians. This claim was just a year after the Snowden leaks. With the world in shock, members of the Israeli unit used the Snowden situation to voice their concerns over how cameras and other technologies were or are used to collect information on ordinary citizens. In this instance, there was no probable cause and the Israeli military Intelligence Signal voiced their concerns due to violation of citizen’s privacy.

After 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States, issues of information collection and collaboration between the intelligence communities were raised. After the outcome, policies and laws were passed to increase surveillance and collection methods. In addition to this, there have been amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as well as the Patriot Act. “The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) establishes procedures and authorizes the use of electronic collection methods of foreign intelligence and additionally, the FISA Court was established to approve the use of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes” (Justice Information Sharing, 2013, pr.4).

In the past few years, due to leaks and domestic issues relating to terrorism and espionage, the Attorney General issued guidelines, which gave liberty to the FBI to use technical methods in intelligence collection. As such, data and information may be obtained without the approval of authority if a situation is imminent. Under the guidelines of the Attorney General, the FBI may have overreached stepped their boundaries in collecting data.

In an October 2018 ruling unsealed and posted on October 8, 2019, by the Office of the Director of Intelligence, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) found that the employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had inappropriately used data collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The FBI was found to have misused surveillance data to look into American residents, including other FBI employees and their family members, making large-scale queries that did not distinguish between US persons and foreign intelligence targets.

Ashcroft (2007) provides insight, analysis, and authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigations to conduct investigations based on threats to national security by collecting foreign and domestic intelligence using all abilities and techniques to protect the United States from threats. “ The general objective of these Guidelines is the full utilization of all authorities and investigative techniques, consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, so as to protect the Unmuted States and its people from terrorism and other threats to the national security as Executive Order 12333 provides” (Ashcroft, 2007, p.23, pr. 3). The general guidance was as a result of the 11 September 2011 terrorist act. The Attorney General’s guidelines to the FBI Operations especially give the FBI freedom to obtain information needed by the United States in relation to foreign affairs operations.

The plethora of information on the Internet these days have made it easy for data to be gathered. These days open-source intelligence has become one of the main sources of intelligence disciplines to gather data. Apart from the open information on social media and the Internet, technical tools are developed and used in the name of national security to gather information. This has brought about a lack of privacy. Although electronic surveillance is authorized in foreign intelligence investigations, citizens are concerned about their information being gathered without their knowledge.

Under the National Security Letters (NSL), which was expanded under the Patriot Act, the NSL permits the Federal Bureau of Investigations to search, investigate, and gather information without the approval of a judge. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, “The National Security Letter provision of the Patriot Act radically expanded the FBI’s authority to demand personal customer records from Internet Service Providers, financial institutions and credit companies without prior court approval” (2020, p.1, pr.1).

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) needs to limit government agencies on the proceedings of issuing NSLs without approval. “FISA court judges may, moreover, “impose additional, particularized minimization procedures” with respect to any “nonpublicly available information concerning unconsenting United States person’ (Liu, 2015, p.1, pr. 5). Intelligence and data collection took a deep dive after 9/11. With the quick response of passing the Patriot Act, which enables tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism, the collection has become the subject of intelligence finding regardless of the source of data.

Finding the balance between security and privacy is hectic on the government due to national security issues. As long as collected data does not become the norm of the day, it may okay for citizens to feel safe if personal information is not used against them and instead used in crimes and fighting terror. According to Pulver and Medina, “it is important to evaluate the people’s trust in the government, as mistrust can lead to national security issues. The public has been informed through media, to some degree, of these alleged intelligence collection programs and they are concerned with governmental surveillance” (2018, 11).

History predicts that after an attack on the homeland, laws, and policies are passed and tightened to prevent another attack. In this review, after the September attack, authority was given to collect technical communication to gather and analyze intelligence, both domestic and foreign. With the advance in technology, more capabilities are developed and the collection has infringed on individuals’ privacy in recent years. The use of social media platforms has also made it easy to gather information. Although those data are private and not ‘releasable’ to the intelligence community for intelligence purposes, that information is stored and used to provide security measures. In addition, the Snowden leaks increased awareness on privacy issues as well as more security measures in place to prevent further and more leaks.

Intelligent agencies and the Attorney General must take practical and realistic percussions to protect personal information derived from the Internet especially United States persons. When personal data must be used, it must be relevant for the purpose, such as crime and terror activities. In order for all the security policies to be enforced, there must be compliances across all the agencies and intelligence communities. It is paramount to collect information based on foreign intelligence and adversaries and equally essential to protect citizen privacy. In all collection, data collection needs to be approved or reviewed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court unless a threat is imminent. Today, terrorism, cyber attacks, biological, chemical, and weapons of mass destruction pose a real threat to our country and to prevent any disastrous attacks, we must use preventive measures to identify and neutralize possible attacks before they occur. Additionally, policies governing privacy need to be more stringent to gain the trust and confident of all citizens.

Reference

1. American Civil Liberties Union, 2020. National Security Letters. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/other/national-security-letters
2. Ashcroft, John. The Attorney General’s Guidelines for FBI National Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection. 2007. Web. Retrieve from https://search- proquest- com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/docview/1679103836/fulltextPDF/26DCAC79CCA5485 8PQ/1?accountid=8289
3. Benjamin G. Waters (2019), An International Right to Privacy: Israeli Intelligence Collection in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, 50 Geo. J. Int’l L. 573.
4. Cornell Law School (n.d). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
5. Justice Information Sharing (2013). The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. Retrieved from https://it.ojp.gov/PrivacyLiberty/authorities/statutes/1286
6. Gallagher, Sean (2019). FBI misused surveillance data, spied on its own, FISA ruling finds. Retrieved from https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/unsealed-fisa- ruling-slaps- fbi-for-misuse-of-surveillance-data/
7. Liu, Jodie 2015. So What Does the USA Freedom Act Do Anyway? Lawfare, Hard National Security Choices. Retrieved from https://www.lawfareblog.com/so-what-does- usa-freedom-act-do-anyway
8. Pulver, Aaron, and Richard M. Medina. 2018. “A Review of Security and Privacy Concerns in Digital Intelligence Collection.” Intelligence & National Security 33 (2): 241–56. doi:10.1080/02684527.2017.1342929.
9. The Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/docs/guidelines.pdf
10. The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary (2020). Privacy. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/privacy

The day ingrained into everyone who is twenty-five years old or older is September 11, 2001. We all know where we were when the first plane struck the World Trade Center in New York City. Approximately a month later, a new law was passed by Congress called the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. The act tore down walls and limitations that kept the United States from obtaining necessary warrants to seek and deter any future foriegn or domestic terrorist attacks.

This act was passed to avert attacks and bring to justice those who inflict terrorist acts of violence in the United States and anywhere in the world. (Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2019) It provides law enforcement the ability to analyze intelligence data, intrude upon the plots that are being formulated, and impedes terrorist acts of violence and their financing activities. (Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2019) It also allows open communication between law enforcement agencies, regulators, and businesses that oversee financial transactions and a method to report any suspicious activity. (Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2019)

Events took place at three locations: the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001 (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2019) President George W. Bush acted quickly after one of the worst attacks that that had ever occurred on American soil. Within days, it was announced that the perpetrator was identified as the terrorist organization Al Qaeda which had established terror cells around the world. The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by Congress on Oct 26, 2001. (History.com Editors, 2017)

United States implemented security policies and procedures to impede, disclose, and indict money laundering operations and prevent the financing of future terrorist attacks or plots. (Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2019) All foreign jurisdictions, foreign banks, and any foreign overseas transactions would have a deeper inspection when suspicious activity is detected (Office of the Director of National Intelligence, 2019) Also, all financial businesses were required to report any suspected money laundering activity to the proper authorities. Foreign officials were prevented from exploiting personal gains from our financial system and stolen assets could no longer be sent to foreign countries. Penalties become tougher on any convicted terrorist individuals and anyone harboring or helping them. (History.com Editors, 2017) The process of sharing intelligence information across government agencies was improved and the statute of limitations for crimes related to certain terrorist attacks was removed. (History.com Editors, 2017)

The PATRIOT Act also allowed the Federal Bureau of Investigations and National Security Agency the ability to obtain warrants while bypassing the need to justify probable cause on foreign suspects. These agencies did not have to report the surveillance results after obtaining the warrant. The courts met in secret with government officials which allowed them to never be denied a search warrant. (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2019) The government was allowed to obtain a search warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for tangible evidence associated with a terrorist suspect. (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2019) Section 215 silenced all ISPs and public officials from notifying the individual who had their records inspected by the government. The act allowed the authorities to perform “sneak-and-peek” investigations. (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2019) It delayed the notification of the warrant to the citizens and could have their property inspected in secret to prevent the destruction of evidence. The act authorized search warrants on any US citizen suspected by the FBI who was providing assistance to terrorist plots or attacks. (Constitutional Rights Foundation, 2019)

Authorized federal agents could use wiretaps that essentially followed specific suspects, making it easier to track individuals who would have otherwise easily avoided detection. (Dept of Justice, 2019) Surveillance was now permitted into other crimes such as offenses involving chemical weapons, developing and the operation of weapons of mass destruction, murdering Americans on foreign soil, and financing terrorism (Dept of Justice, 2019) Victims of computer hacking could now request assistance from police to monitor their systems to catch anyone not authorized from accessing their systems. Increased penalties could be served to terrorists charged with arson, energy facilities destruction, providing materials to terrorist organizations, and destroying national defense material. (Dept of Justice, 2019)

This act also broadens the scope of conspiracy charges that can be brought against the terrorists to committing mass homicides on federal property, destruction of communication equipment, sabotaging nuclear facilities, and obstructing flight crew members among other offenses. (Dept of Justice, 2019) Terrorists could be charged for crimes associated with their attacks on mass transit systems as well. (Dept of Justice, 2019) Bioterrorists were identified and could also be charged for terrorist attacks.

I would not personally propose any changes to the PATRIOT Act. In order to catch terrorists, we must use the best techniques available. This could potentially lessen some of our liberties but, in the bigger picture, will greatly reduce the possibility of another devastating attack. While many might feel that their personal liberties are being violated, not all threats stem from within our borders. It is a delicate balance between the security of our nation and protecting our personal liberties.

Living in our free country will always come with a cost directly or indirectly but when an outside influence threatens our very existence and the freedoms that we have fought for, we must react to that threat. We need to stand up for what we believe in and fight back to resist their advances to inflict fear in our hearts. Preventing another 9/11 attack whether the source is either foreign or domestic. We will prevail against all odds to defend our freedoms in the United States of America.

Introduction

Predictive methods of assessing threat methodologies rely on the belief that humans behave in predictable ways and that future behavior can be predicted. New policing technologies collection is a fundamental capability for the identification of individuals. The collection of multiple sources of information provides an increased probability for positive identification (PID) of an individual using emerging technology. Because predictive policing and intelligence-led policing involve gathering a wide range of different types of data, they inevitably raise concerns among civil libertarians. We are in a technology revolution today. Implementation system that can chart the past activities of an adversary or criminal element through the importation of tabular, imagery, and biometric data is a powerful tool. As the deviant behavior becomes more aware of the importance of technology to identify criminal operations, criminal infrastructure, and identity dominance, the criminal element becomes more sophisticated in their means to “spoof” or counter police effort. In short, the more technical information collected, the higher the probability of single encounter identification, and the greater the probability for future PID encounters. With this onset of new policing where the collection is based on public information of its citizen’s use of social media, law enforcement must provide safeguards to prevent violations of your constitutional rights. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act provides protection based on authorization or exceeding law enforcement need to know of personal information. The US code is vague in it speaks of knowingly accessed a computer (Cornell, n.d).

Patriot Act

The purpose of the implementation of the Patriot Act was to have a mechanism to aid our law enforcement with investigatory tools and nonconventional goals (Act, 2001). This ACT was placed into law in October 2001 in which the Senate approved by a vote of 98-1 and the House of Representatives by 357-66. The justification during the George W. Bush presidency was based on the government’s needs to use methods that had the potential to be invasive of civil and constitutional rights. This approval allowed law enforcement the ability to deliberate tracking and intercepting communications, both for purposes of law enforcement and collection of sensitive information on foreign and US citizens. Additionally, it provides a course of action for the Treasury to counter corruption of organization within the US financial institutions for money-laundering. The freedom of access has enhanced terrorist ability to gain funding in the criminal markets to organize and control the free flow of capital. Banks (2010) Security and Freedom After September 11, explains that the execution of this fight against terrorist activity has created a challenge to our constitutional given rights to privacy. Banks’ article takes an examination of the Patriot Act and how federal lawmakers can conduct its investigation within the thin margins of this invasive law (Banks, 2010).

The intent of this act that was articulated by Banks was to give law enforcement the latitude to wage offensive operations to counter-terrorist activities. With any power, misuse is predictable in which numerous violations of false arrests caused significant concerns pertaining to civil liberties (Banks, 2010). Additionally, the article examines the bias judgment prosecutor is left to make when it comes to using the Patriot Act in non-traditional prosecutions (Banks, 2010). Agency safeguards to prevent violations should focus on methods to set limits in the use of intrusive methods for information collection, and there should be three primary safeguards put in place: 1. Comprehensive legislations, 2 Control mechanisms (executive and judicial), 3. Effective oversight. Comprehensive legislation should only be mandated in a last course of action once less invasive measure has been used and should be proportional to the nature of an offense. Control of information to protect civil rights must be implemented by internal controls of law enforcement linked with judicial authorization, such as a warrant. Effective oversight must consist of not solely depending on probable cause or the authority of a prosecutor, and this effort must be an executive of the high courts.

Emerging Policing

Over the next two decades, law enforcement will operate in a technologically advanced environment of considerable uncertainty, an era of persistent criminal activities using cyber and traditional criminal activity. his era will be characterized by protracted confrontation among the US, non-US nations individual actors using violence to achieve their political and ideological desired end states. Future technical criminals will rely less on conventional street craft methods and more on employing technical tactics that allow them to frustrate law enforcement without direct confrontations. Law enforcement will operate increasingly complex internet environments which severely restrict engagement based on constitutional rights or civil liberty.

Law enforcement will face a wide range of information operations threats from computer network operations to electronic warfare. Information Operations attacks may occur in the form of Computer Network Attack (i.e., hacking and/or malicious code) and Computer Network Exploitation (i.e., data compromise and/or manipulation) or as classic Electronic Warfare (EW), such as Electronic Support (intercept or direction-finding) or Electronic Attack (jamming or spoofing). Criminal elements may attempt to compromise and corrupt data, disrupt system operation, and physically destroy equipment. Additionally, law enforcement may be subjected to physical and weapons of mass destruction threats due to the homegrown terrorist.

Within computer network operations, the trusted US citizen may be the greatest threat. A trusted US citizen insider may be able to insert malicious code and extract, corrupt, or delete information. Trusted insiders are a threat throughout the entire lifecycle of the US government hardware and software. The use of commercial-based technology further increases the risk of malicious activity. Information about commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) and government-off-the-shelf technology, including security and vulnerability features, is readily available from open sources.

Transition in Policing

The day to the activity of policing is not the same as it was two decades ago and not the same as the onset of the internet. Although police still have the responsibility of traditional policing of taking calls and responding to the constant deviant behavior of society, civil and private rights must be above approach. In exploring and anticipation of the emerging capability of predictive police analysis and intelligence collection of critical citizens information, we have miss lead the public and confused law enforcement on the true nature of predictive policing tentacles. The history of these new models of policing arrived from the procedures in which the United States conducted military action against the Soviet Union. The nature of battle was based on if the Russians would send one hundred tanks, and we will use airstrikes to counter their superiority of armor. These methods were in the place of how to fight and defeat an enemy since the end of World War II. Policing methods were in tune with using the exploratory method of the rule of law. Not until the Vietnam war did we see the first change in how unconventional war disrupted traditional policing of an adversary. Fast forward to the September 11, 2001 attack, both law enforcement and military were not accustomed to this method of criminal, terrorist, an ideology that combined both military and law response. On September 19, 2001, a team of four Special Forces personnel was given the task to assemble and develop a method of action to find, fix, and finish the threat domestics and international.

Our four-person team concluded that in order to deter this future activity, we must use a combination of law enforcement and military tools first to establish patterns, prevention, and predictions. The crime link tool that law enforcement was using provided an excellent method for cataloging unstructured data. However, mapping of this data was outdated, and geospatial representation of a map from an aerial view was new to police personnel. Although the full range of how predictive analytics cannot be displayed in this document, the primary focus was to protect individual civil rights afforded by the constitution. Multiple scholars have argued that the use of predictive analysis has violated our rights by collecting personal information from its citizens. Although there are rogue elements who have misused their access to sensitive data, the vast majority of investigators have stayed within the legal framework.

During our establishment of this new methodology, it was determined that the only source that we would use for data collection is open source information that the general public had access to. Opens source, typically known as OSINT, is defined as knowledge obtained from gathering and conducting predictive analysis processing and analyzing public data sources such as broadcast TV and radio, social media, and websites (OSINT, n.d). Once processed, patterns would show potential information in which lawmakers would use to decide if direct tracking of foreign or US citizens was warranted. Although the term predictive gets the public excited about individual rights, the primary intent was prevention. As a collaborative method for prevention, social media continues to provide pleather of open source information that is not in violation of civil rights. In 2001 the team objective was preparing a Technology Transition Plan that addresses all elements to be considered in transitioning the technology to the intended users. This plan will include information on the management of intellectual property, and an assessment of regulatory, security, export control, liability, and suitability information as well as a discussion of the strategy for transitioning the technology to production.

As an observation in reading the 9/11 terrorist attacks: A failure of policy, not strategic intelligence analysis. Marrin (2011) articulated that it is critical to emphasize the development of policies and enforcement of the individuals executing is not always continuous processes for the good of its citizens. Marrin’s article tells the reader that the September 11 event has been studied and determined a significant failure from a tactical and strategic level (Marrin, 2011). The author explains that key leaders knew of the potential of the threat but neglected to influence their tactics, techniques, and procedures based on the assumptions that it would not have prevented an attack (Marrin, 2011).

Agency Safeguards

The establishment of the Constitution was not designed to modify when needed. It was put in place to protect the civil liberties of the citizens and to set the legal standards of how our newly formed democracy will conduct themselves. Although the Constitution is multi-facet with items such as a preamble, articles, and various amendments, the bounding rules have remained over time. The dilemma of technology comes to play in the same arena as the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act allows that law enforcement has the authorization to search and seize Americans’ documents, listen to private conversations and effects without probable cause to aid in their investigation. As long as the people keep a vigilant eye on law enforcement activities, the federal courts don’t overreach its power, and the ability to challenge governmental conduct is a vibrant part of the American conversation, the risk of excessive violations on our fundamental liberties is minimal (McNeil, 2011).

Conclusion

The government has provided a mechanism for the citizen to have the confidence that their constitutional and civil rights are protected and is not being intruded on using social media to violate personal information. However, the threat of predators and criminal terrorist have threatened the foundation of our day to day life. For the safeguard, reasonable policies, procedures, and systems such as the Patriot Act have to be in place to stop attacks and prevent our resources from being overwhelmed (Homeland, 2016). Free speech and expectation of privacy are protected by the Constitution. However, some United States citizens have conducted homegrown terrorism that has resorted to loss of life. These actions are counterproductive in the fight against your civil rights and result in a nonproductive effect on the rule of law, good stewardship of governance, and constitutional rights (Terror, n,d).

The term intelligence collection is a term that indicates loss of rights in pursuit of government operations. Although it is a form of offensive operations, internet criminal activities have resulted in law enforcement mandates to counter crime. Predictive analysis using social media is a process of taking information to protect citizens from planned attacks. The misconception of intelligence collection is in fear of civil rights when in actuality, it is protecting public safety for event planning such as sporting events, concerts, political events, and freedom of movement. Either way, law enforcement has the responsibility to keep the citizens inform of their actions and provide transparency of their need to know of sensitive information. The justice department’s early warning of threats provides confidence that there is minimum abuse of civil rights. Svendsen (2008) The globalization of intelligence since 9/11 explains that the police will need to learn how to collect and analyze intelligence from a globalization perspective (Svendsen, 2008). The author articulate that police will need to understand their constraints and operational parameters. Police will have to become familiar with the ideology based on a social media influence (Svendsen, 2008). Although the internet provides pleather of intelligence information, procedures still must show resistance from civil violations of the community (Svendsen, 2008). The information requirements of a given capability such as predictive analysis require measurable and testable characteristics and/or performance metrics to ensure the timely, accurate, and complete exchange and use of information. The system must have common communications to pass critical information to users or directly into intelligence or command and control channels.

I was one year old when 9/11 occurred, but the damage it caused to my way of living will forever affect how my life and the lives of others will be carried out. The USA Patriot Act was put into place because of the events that took place on 9/11. Osama Bin Laden was the leader of Al Qaeda, which was the group that caused 9/11. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the introduction of the USA Patriot Act, and the death of Osama Bin Laden were headline events that have severely affected my life.

The world as everyone knew it going to bed on September 10. 2001 had officially been broken. This was a time in history that cannot be taken away, although I am sure some Americans wish it had never happened. Two planes were taken over by terrorists and flown into the World Trade Center. Then, a third plane was taken over and flown into the Pentagon (Drew). A plane also went down in a field. Many people lost their lives that day because of the terrorist attacks. Operations were carried out by the American people and their allies to find the Afghanistan people responsible for the terrorist attacks. (Santhanam). The president at the time, George W. Bush, placed more security in airports to try to prevent any of this from ever happening again. To this day, terrorism is not taken lightly in an airport (Santhanam). As a one-year-old at the time of this event, I cannot remember exactly what happened on that day. This is why I learned about the event through both school and my father. Nevertheless, America has changed drastically since September 11, 2011. When planning any trip that will require air travel, I plan my trip to allow plenty of allotted time for the intense security measures. These security precautions include but are not limited to baggage checks, baggage searches, body scans, metal detectors, and pat-downs (Mathew). 9/11 influenced me to join the National Guard when I graduated high school in 2017 to be part of the 1% of Americans who choose to put the needs of America before their own needs. I started attending the drill each month. One month I injured my right knee when I was running the track and was medically discharged. I was very disappointed in myself because I have always wanted to be as brave as the men and women who fought against the terrorism that dreadful September day and there on out. 9/11 impacted not only the way my life is carried out, but it also affected how I had dreamed for my life to be from the time I was a young girl. Wanting to be a soldier was all I hoped for growing up after learning about the torture spread on America during 9/11. Shortly after 9/11, to better accompany the search to protect the United States of America the ‘USA Patriot Act’ was introduced to congress on October 2, 2001 (‘Patriot Act’).

The USA Patriot Act was passed on October 26, 2001, to provide appropriate tools required to interpret and obstruct terrorism (‘Patriot Act’). I will always be grateful for the USA Patriot Act being enacted by congress because it will always allow me to feel safe. The events on September 11 allowed us to see that anything can occur, but the Patriot Act allows us to trust the system against terrorist attacks. My biggest fear is not flying in an airplane, but what could arise on that plane. The USA Patriot Act is directed towards all people to put an end to terrorism, not just one ethnicity, race, or religion. I am glad that the United States took a stand to design this act to protect all the American people. America can be just as dangerous as anywhere else, but many brave American men and women put their lives on the line every day to protect our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As American people, we can feel safe with acts such as the USA Patriot Act and laws to deter terrorism. It is best to show the importance of the Patriot Act by explaining how it helps law enforcement agencies to find and end any terroristic threats made towards our country (McNeill). It is written to provide a way to obstruct terrorism of all types. The USA Patriot Act has created a barrier between people wanting to cause terror and the people who would be undergoing terror without this act in place. Even though I was very young at the time of this event, I have a great understanding that American was not scared of terrorism before this occurred. The Patriot Act gives me peace of mind because it allows me to feel safe on planes, in public, and at places that hold great value to America. The World Trade Center and Pentagon had great importance to America and the American people. It is unknown to anyone if anything like this will ever occur again, but having the Patriot Act at least allows some protection from other terrorist attacks. This gives both hope and protection to America and the American people.

After 9/11, Americans did not feel safe traveling to places outside of American soil, especially by airplane. September 11th has made the world what it is now. Osama Bin Laden and his erratic followers were the cause of the terror, fear, and anger in America and their ally countries. His planning and involvement in this terrorist attack was the leading cause of the Bin Laden manhunt. The hunt for Osama Bin Laden eventually led to his end and the demise of many of his followers. Even though the best of America’s military groups were successful in Osama Bin Laden’s death, I am still terrified of people who share his beliefs about getting revenge on America. I am still scared that Osama Bin Laden’s followers, Al Qaeda members, or ISIS, for example, will find other ways to terrorize the American people and their freedom. President Barack Obama gave a SEAL team the authority to raid a compound in search of Osama Bin Laden on April 29, 2011 (Marks). This authorization was the beginning of the actual manhunt for Osama Bin Laden instead of the training. When Osama Bin Laden was found on May 2, 2011, he was killed by the SEAL team authorized to raid the compound (Marks). Many Americans believed that Bin Laden was the leading force of the terrorist strike of 9/11 and that is why he was the most wanted terrorist worldwide. Osama Bin Laden was the main person who was recruiting people from all over the world to join his Al-Qaeda terrorist group (Marks). One of his major endeavors was to make America pay for their beliefs. America and Osama Bin Laden have different beliefs, but nobody should want to torture or terrorize an entire country. My wish for America would be to recover from his damage and that the victims of 9/11 and the military families who lost their loved ones to the fight against Osama and people like him have all the justice in the world for what they lost. I am still scared that another person will pop up like Osama Bin Laden, but I know that I and everyone in the United States will be protected the best way possible.

In conclusion, the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, affected the lives of 2,996 people on American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, United Airlines Flight 93, people in the World Trade Center, people in the Pentagon, firefighters, law enforcement officers and all of America (Drew). This led to a massive change in American life. It led to the USA Patriot Act being passed in October of 2011. The USA Patriot Act allowed Americans to feel safer while traveling in airports. It also allowed all of the law enforcement agencies out there to protect the American people more efficiently than before. It makes me feel safe with this act in place because it provides our law enforcement better investigatory tools. Although, the Patriot Act does allow them to the right to search someone or something with enough proof and information on the matter at hand. These events eventually lead to the demise of the ringleader of the terrorist attack by Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda followers which gave America peace of mind. Osama Bin Laden’s death gave me and my family peace because it allowed us not to fear that he would get away with what he did to us and all of America. I am thankful every day that I can enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in America. I would live in fear every day. I know that people do not deserve to be killed, but clearly Osama Bin Laden believed people deserved to die just because of the difference in beliefs. Osama’s death saved America from so much more terror.

Works Cited

1. Angere, Drew, ‘September 11 Attacks,’ History, A&E Television Networks, August 25, 2018, November 6, 2019, https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/9-11-attacks
2. Green, Mathew, ‘How 9/11 Changed America: Four Major Lasting Impacts (with Lesson Plan), KQED News, KQED INC, September 8, 2017, November 6, 2019, https://www.kqed.org/lowdown/14066/13-years-later-four-major-lasting-impacts-of-911
3. History.com, Editors, ‘Patriot Act,’ History, A&E Television Networks, December 19, 2017, November 6, 2019, https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/patriot-act
4. Marks, Julie, ‘How SEAL Team Six Took Out Osama bin Laden,’ History, A&E Television Networks, May 24, 2018, November 7, 2019, https://www.history.com/news/osama-bin-laden-death-seal-team-six
5. McNeill, Jena, ‘The Patriot Act and the Constitution: Five Key Points,’ The Heritage Foundation, The Heritage Foundation, February 10, 2011, November 6, 2019, https://www.heritage.org/homeland-security/report/the-patriot-act-and-the-constitution-five-key-points
6. Santhanam, Laura, ‘9/11 to today: Ways we have changed,’ PBS, NewsHour Productions LLC, September 11, 2018, November 6, 2019, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/9-11-to-today-ways-we-have-changed

The Patriot Act was passed in 2001 to improve the abilities of the U.S. law enforcement to detect and deter terrorism. The act’s official title was Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, or USA-PATRIOT. The Patriot Act was modified in 2015 to help ensure the Constitutional rights of ordinary Americans some distributions of the law remain controversial. President George W. Bush signed on October 26, 2001, into law by, just weeks after September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States. The Patriot Act is a 300-page document passed by the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support. Congress had mainly focused on legislation to prevent international terrorism Prior to the 9/11 attacks. After the April 1995 Oklahoma City bombing which American citizens blew up a federal building, domestic terrorism gained more attention. According to the Department of Justice Details of the Patriot Act simply expanded. The application of tools already being used against drug dealers and organized crime. The act aimed to improve homeland security by the following:

• allowing law enforcement to use surveillance and wiretapping to investigate terror-related crimes
• allowing federal agents to request court permission to use roving wiretaps to track a specific terrorist suspect
• allowing delayed notification search warrants to prevent a terrorist from learning they are a suspect
• allowing federal agents to seek federal court permission to obtain bank records and business records to aid in national security terror investigations and prevent money laundering for terrorism financing
• improving information and intelligence sharing between government agencies providing tougher penalties for convicted terrorists and those who harbor them
• allowing search warrants to be obtained in any district where terror-related activity occurs, no matter where the warrant is executed
• ending the statute of limitations for certain terror-related crimes
• making it harder for aliens involved in terrorist activities to enter the United States
• providing aid to terrorism victims and public safety officers involved in investigating or preventing terrorism or responding to terrorist attack

Many of the Patriot Act’s requirements were to expire in 2005. The renewal of the act was devotedly argued in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. President Bush signed the USA Patriot and Terrorism Reauthorization Act on March 9, 2006. Despite the continued civil liberties and privacy concerns. The Patriot Act may or may not have prevented terrorism. FBI agents can’t point to any major terrorism cases they’ve cracked to the key snooping powers in the Patriot Act. In 2012 a report from the conservative Heritage Foundation states 50 terrorist attacks have been hindered since 9/11. With 47 being the direct result of the work of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. They claim the Patriot Act is essential to helping law enforcement identify leads and prevent attacks.

When it comes to hate, hate itself isn’t a crime however, hate is a special kind of crime. If it was a crime most of us would be in jail a few times a year. When someone creates a crime based on hate, it has broader social ramifications. When someone commits a crime and does it because of their hatred of that person because of their race, religion, or a number of other social attributed. The governments in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia usually punish the perpetrator more harshly. A hate crime is known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime, which is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of their membership or perceived membership in a certain social group or race. Here are a few Examples of such groups which can include, and are almost exclusively limited to: sex, ethnicity, disability, language, nationality, physical appearance, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation. Non-criminal actions that are motivated by these reasons are often called bias incidents generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the social groups listed above, or by bias against their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bulling, harassment, verbal abuses or insult, mate crime or offensive griffins or letters hate mail. A hate crime law is intended to deter bias-motivated violence. Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech. Hate speech laws exist in many countries. In the United States, hate crime laws have been upheld by both the Supreme Court. And lower courts, especially in the case of fighting words. And other violent speech. Some people are in conflict with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech but hate crimes are only regulated through threats of injury or death. Here are two different Hate crimes: A Pennsylvania Man was charged with Federal Hate Crimes for Tree of Life Synagogue Shooting. His name is Robert Bowers he was charged he was charged with 44 federal counts, including obstruction of free exercise of religious beliefs resulting in death for an attack that occurred on the Sabbath at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in October 2018. January 29, 2019, the federal grand jury sat in on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Bowers was charged with additional federal hate crimes and firearms offenses for his conduct during the shootings. His indictment, to shootings occurred on October 27, 2018. Bowers had entered the Tree of Life Synagogue with multiple firearms and stated his desire was to kill Jews. He killed eleven worshippers, and injured two other members of the congregations and five law enforcement officers. He is faced with a maximum possible penalty of life without parole. The additional charges can also result in a sentence to death. If the Attorney General determines the circumstances of these offenses justify seeking the death penalty. The Department of Justice must file a notice with the court at a reasonable time before the trial begins.

“A Charlottesville Rally Participant Pleads Guilty to 29 Federal Hate Crimes for Car Attack. James Alex Fields, Jr., who participated in a white nationalist rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia, had pled guilty to hate crimes charges that resulted in the death of a victim, caused bodily injury, and involved an attempt to kill other people after he drove into a group of counter-protestors. Fields had signed facts that he attended the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, where multiple groups and individuals chanted and expressed white supremacist and anti-Semitic views. Law enforcement had told rally participants to leave. He had admitted to driving into downtown Charlottesville where a racially and ethnically diverse crowd had gathered. Fields proceeded to drive into a crowd of counter-protestors because of their actual and perceived race, color, national origin, and religion. He also admitted that prior to the rally he used social media to express and promote white supremacist views; the social and racial policies of Nazi-era Germany; and violence against groups that he perceived to be non-white.”

No two cases are alike, but investigators share five characteristics needed to function. First is an analytical mind set to consider multiple theories of how a crime occurred, followed by strong communication skills to deal with suspects and witnesses. These qualities are no good without a strong sense of integrity particularly if alternative theories lead cases in a different direction. Alfred Binet stated intelligence is the ability for judgement. Intelligence is defined as one’s capacity to deal effectively with situations. Intelligence is also the ability to adapt to one’s surroundings. The Association of Law Enforcement Intelligence Units is an organization whose mission is to provided leadership and promoting professionalism in the criminal intelligence community in order to protect public safety and constitutional rights. Intelligence information helps the police to solve cases and make arrests that can lead to successful prosecution in court. Sources for intelligence gathering in law enforcement are many. Telephone wire taps and electronic surveillance make for great stories, but in reality, they are few and far between. Interrogation of suspects is one of the most important functions of criminal investigation. Of increasing assistance in criminal investigation is the crime laboratory, equipped to deal with a wide range of physical evidence by means of chemical and other analysis. Interrogation of suspects is one of the most important functions of Interrogation of suspects is one of the most important functions of criminal investigation. There are four main types of investigation performed by digital forensics specialists. The first three are broadly similar in the activities the involve. But differ in the legal terms, restrictions and guidelines imposed as well as the type of digital evidence and form of report. Intelligence information is here to helps police solve cases and make arrests that can lead to successful prosecution in court. Criminal investigation is an applied science that involves the use of facts that are then used to inform criminal trials. A complete criminal investigation can include searching, interviews, interrogations, evidence collection and preservation and various methods of investigation. Criminal Intelligence is information compiled, analyzed, and/or disseminated in an effort to anticipate, prevent, or monitor criminal activity.

The U.S. Army Military Police define criminal intelligence in additional detail; criminal intelligence is info gathered or collated, analyzed, recorded/reported and disseminated by enforcement agencies regarding varieties of crime, known criminals and far-famed or suspected criminal teams. It is notably helpful once handling gangland. Criminal intelligence is developed by using surveillance, informants, interrogation, and research, or may be just picked up on the street by individual police officers. Some larger enforcement agencies have a department, division or section specifically designed to gather disparate pieces of information and develop criminal intelligence. One of the foremost effective ways in which of applying criminal intelligence is 1st to record it, which may be deep-mined sought for specific info. The Intelligence Unit is an elite unit of the Chicago Police Department that investigates and combats the city’s major offenses, including organized crime, drug trafficking, and high-profile murders.

The new world of data society with international networks and Net can inevitably generate a large kind of social, political, and ethical problems. Many issues associated with human relationships and also the communities become apparent, when most human activities are carried on in cyberspace. The study focuses on the moral problems in info technology. Based on the living literature many moral problems like plagiarism, hacking, viruses, data access rights, piracy, ergonomic and health issues amongst others are identified ethical issues related to IT. These issues are being solved partially by using technological approaches such as encryption technique, SSL, digital IDs and computer firewalls. With these protection technologies and legal laws are also needed in cyberspace to address hundreds of countries. Guidelines and methods area unit enforced so international info may be exploited in an exceedingly new socially and ethically sensitive approach for our future profit and applications. Those who study criminal justice nowadays area unit at the forefront of life-saving technology. Here’s a glance at a number of the exciting technologies that area unit enjoying a crucial role within the criminal justice field nowadays.

Technological innovations the growth of terrorism by nonstarter actors, and new legal and ethical approaches are changing the nature of modern warfare. With New technology can offer police with many useful methods for combating criminal activity, with these tools as GPS and advanced communications systems. Technology such as body armor and less-lethal projectiles also improve the safety of both police and the public. Several technological innovations and political developments are changing the nature of warfare today in ways that show complex challenges to the traditional standards that we use. With cutting-edge technology such as drones, cyber weapons, autonomous weapons cab help reduce collateral damage. Other technology can provide early warning of conflict and promote more effective peacekeeping. New technologies also have been developed that can provide early warning of civil conflict and promote more effective peacekeeping operations. On the political side, the growth of terrorism by nonstarter actors, the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and changing doctrines in the United Nations about the responsibility to protect civilians pose new questions about the appropriate legal rules and ethical norms governing decisions to use military force. Professional military lawyers play a growing important role in reviewing targeting policies and rules of engagement, at least in the United States, to ensure that military plans and operations are compliant with the laws of armed conflict. We commonly judge and sometimes punish individuals in the domain of love for infidelity, deceit, and crimes of passion; and we commonly judge and sometimes punish individuals. In the domain of combat for acts of aggression rape and pillage in war, and crimes against humanity. The intense pressure of competition, in both affairs of the heart and the crucible of war, can help explain why unfair, even inhumane, behavior is common, but it does not excuse it. New technologies–including the use of drones, precision-guided weapons, cyber weapons, and autonomous robots–have led both to optimism about the possibility of reducing collateral damage in war and to concerns about whether some states find it too easy to use force today. War crimes tribunals have grown in use, but raise new questions about whether they encourage ruthless leaders to fight to the finish rather than accept resignation and exile.

New knowledge about post conflict medical system failures raises questions about both the best practices to end wars and sustain peace accords and about whether political leaders systematically underestimate the costs of going to war before they make decisions about military interventions. As technology is used to commit more sophisticated crimes, law enforcement officers and those in the legal system are increasingly using tech tools to combat crime. To keep the public safe and protect human life, it’s important that the criminal justice industry use cutting-edge software, tracking systems, and more.

References

1. https://www.justice.gov/
2. https://www.unodc.org/documents/organized-crime/Law-Enforcement/Criminal_Intelligence_for_Analysts.pdf
3. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view
4. https://www.britannica.com/topic/USA-PATRIOT-Act

The second instance of executive power is known as the “Stewardship theory”, made famous by President Theodore Roosevelt. President Roosevelt felt that since he was elected by the people to lead, he reserved freedoms to act as a steward of the people so long as he wasn’t violating the Constitution or any statutory laws. One example was his authorization of an around-the-world training cruise for the U.S. Navy without congressional approval. He prompted Congress that if they were against this, they would have to appropriate funds to return the ships. President Roosevelt felt that “he was free to do as he pleased in that twilight zone lying between the prohibitions of the law and the duties required by specific constitutional or statutory enactments” (Shafritz, 2017, 51). This meant that he was operating in a grey area where he could exercise some benevolent power. The Patriot Act also reflects on this power due to the events leading to its passing. America was in an extremely emotional state during this time and President Bush was attempting to operate within the “twilight zone” although he crossed the line.

The third and most significant instance of executive is the “Prerogative Theory”, made famous by President Abraham Lincoln. President Lincoln felt that he possessed extraordinary power to preserve the nation, which not only exceeds constitutional bounds, but acts against the constitution. This was a very pragmatic approach at policymaking, especially given the events occurring during his time. President Lincoln expressed this in an 1864 letter to which he expresses “was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve the Constitution? By general law, life and limb must be protected, yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life, but a life is never wisely given to save a limb” (Shafritz, 2017, 50). This idea was respected during a time of desperation but has also been rejected when past presidents have tried to assume its privileges. Namely, in the 1974 trial U.S Supreme Court v. Nixon, President Nixon claimed that the Constitution gave him “an absolute and unreviewable executive privilege”, but this was rejected when the Court held that “neither the doctrine of separation of powers nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential immunity from judicial process under all circumstances” (Shafritz, 2017, 50). This was in response to avoiding a subpoena to his secret audio recordings. The prerogative theory is the most relevant to the implementation of the Patriot Act, but not entirely for the purest reasons. The September 11 attacks could’ve been intercepted. “This theory of executive power is quietly reserved to support the efforts of a leader who sees the nation through in a time of crisis, or alternatively, it lurks in the hands of an unprincipled opportunist” (Shafritz, 2017, 50).

The usual framework that the policymaking process was developed with didn’t apply to the Patriot Act. There are four steps to the policymaking process, but prior to that, a new policy proposal is frequently presented to the public as a policy paper. The four steps, agenda setting, decision, implementation and evaluation, all dealt with the Patriot Act in a peculiar manner. The agenda-setting stage occurred in an extremely emotional climate because of the crisis that occurred on September 11. The decision-making process had an incremental approach, but nothing was compromised. The implementation stage did not see much, if any, red tape. The evaluation of the Patriot Act was almost nonexistent since the majority of Americans didn’t know about the policy until the mid-2000s.

The agenda setting stage is “the process by which ideas or issues bubble up through the various political channels to wind up for consideration by a political institution” (Shafritz, 2017, 53). After the events of 9/11, the emotions were so high that this part of the process was not fully recognized. In the issue-attention cycle developed by Anthony Downs, the steps in which agendas develops, namely pre-problem and alarmed discovery, dictate that there would be minimal debate about any policy that would be geared towards thwarting terrorism.

Subject

This briefing paper is going to discuss about personal privacy in the 21st century, the digital age. The purpose of this document is to inform the people about how the technology they are using is being used as a tool to monitor their every move and how they are completely under the control of the government. The report aims to:

• Explain why the government is surveilling its people
• Analyze how the government has been watching its people
• Address the legal aspect of these operations
• What can be done to protect people’s privacy?

2. Background

Six years ago, on June 6, 2013; after evading capture and extradited to the United States,Edward Snowden, a National Security Agency (NSA) contractor, leaked sensitive intelligence documents that indicates the United States Government, apart from gathering intelligence all over the world for potential foreign terror threats against America, were also conducting espionage operations and data gathering on their own backyard, on its own citizens (History.com editors 2018).

It maybe willingly or forcefully, from large players in the digital world to phone companies and Internet Service Providers; they all work with the governments as part of a large-scale surveillance program called PRISM (Sottek, T & Kopfstein, J 2013). It was later revealed that embassies buildings and global leaders were targets of the espionage program which generated international tensions. The main target of these programs: American citizens had also raised their concerns through protests across the nation and even though any acts of reducing, overhauls or decommissioning those programs are unlikely because the government justify that it is a matter of national security to maintain these operations, at least the people are now more aware of what their leaders are doing, to be able to discuss it and possibly even redefining the red line.

3. How the government has been watching you?

Global surveillance has been existing ever since the invention of the telephone, radio and later the Internet which allows the communication to be intercepted and captured by a third-party organization.

In the West, the “UKUSA Agreement” treaty was signed in 1947, between America and Great Britain, later joined by Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The agreement is about creating a joint intelligence gathering effort and surveillance network across the globe (Campbell, D 2000). Following that, the ECHELON surveillance system was created to monitor international communications, mostly the communist states in the Cold War. And later on, the War on Terror, along with the expansion of technology and the Internet, bring your own devices and social media, the government’s effort to expand their surveillance operations are growing larger than ever. Not only ECHELON was not decommissioned, similar projects are developed. For example, PRISM was created to track all communications globally and put a halt to any probable terror activities by gathering user data based on the following information (Rollins, J & Liu, E 2013):

• Mobile phones: phone records including the participants, phone numbers, time and call length
• Social media: chat logs, video call, online activities
• Emails, photos and documents stored online
• Internet browsing history

The data mining is said to be approved by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and notified to Members of Congress before it can be proceeded. As mentioned above, the tech companies play a huge role in this by providing the agencies direct access to their servers and databases to collect and analyze data. After five years, the information must be destroyed.

4. Is the government mass surveillance scheme lawful?

In response to the outrage of the people worldwide, the NSA justified that all data collected are authorized by the court and Congress, all used to monitor any conversations that is deemed relevant to any potential terrorist attacks. Specifically, after the September 11 attacks, the NSA realized that the national security was at stake. Therefore, the US PATRIOT Act was announced not long after, which allows government agencies to have certain powers over certain areas.

Particularly, under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, government agencies can obtain a court order confidently to collect tangible things in order to serve any investigations involving terrorism or foreign espionage operations (Electronic Privacy Information Center 2005). Therefore, they were authorized to collect phone records, emails and browsing histories from business providers. As per the global espionage, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows the targeting of non-US citizens outside American territory, again, to prevent possible terrorism activities and maintain national security. (National Security Agency 2014)

Nevertheless, there are arguments stating that the surveillance programs have violated the 4th amendment: “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, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”. Non-warrant cases are only allowed when there is an exception. Currently, the metadata collection by the NSA was conducted without any warrants from the court under both the PATRIOT Act and FISA, but rather under “special needs” exception. NSA usually pins into the statement saying the need of a warrant would lose them the time factor in collecting information that can put national security at stake. This is acceptable when the target has been colluding with known terrorists or had involved in sabotages in the past. However, millions of law-abiding citizens were part of the surveillance programs for years and since no crimes were involved, a warrant is to be required, which the NSA did not enquire. (Liu, E, Nolan, A & Thompson II, R 2015)

5. What can the people do?

As mentioned above, the majority of the people were furious when they knew that they were being watched at all times and there were some people agree that it was necessary. For those that are concerned, there are certain things they can do to help keeping government surveillance at bay:

5.1 Throw away the digital devices

This can be accomplished by stop using mobile devices, deleting all social media accounts, deleting all email accounts and cloud services. And finally, not using the Internet.

Advantages:

• The government cannot keep tabs on you electronically if there is nothing to keep an eye on.

Disadvantages:

• That individual will have to return to old-fashioned ways of doing things, such as: writing letters, keeping notes and data in a book, going to the library to look for information etc. It will take a lot of time and effort to do what technology can do in a few minutes. Therefore, users are sacrificing convenience for privacy.

5.2 Force the government to decommission the surveillance programs

The people can show their discontent through mass protests, civil strikes or through their votes in the elections. After all, the government are created by the people and for the people.

Advantages:

• The people’s privacy will be secured
• Avoid personal information from falling into the wrong hands due to power abuse

Disadvantages:

• Communications regarding plotting a terror attack can go by unmonitored, resulting casualties and the infliction of fear amongst the people. Officials have stated that due to the surveillance, they have been able to pick up chatter and communications to stop over 50 potential terrorist attacks, saving lives, discovering terrorist cells and arrest them. (Cayford, M & Pieters, W 2018)

6. Conclusion

Despite the global outrage, Snowden’s leaks hardly changed US laws and the Acts are still very much in play. This is due to a fact that the people rely on the government, especially the intelligence community to provide safety and in order to do that, they will have to collect information at any cost. The people do not like being watched and some have changed the way they use technology and what information to keep online; however, it appears that such programs beyond their control and they have to make a choice between freedom and security (Geiger, A 2018). Since the fear of terrorism is far more than the fear of privacy breach, government surveillance will not go away anytime soon.

7. Recommended Actions

As mentioned above, to completely stop the spying programs, the best way would be to not use technology at all. Nevertheless, it is unrealistic to do that as all services are reliant on technology these days, not using it would be extremely inconvenient and in the future, old-school service will not be available anymore so there is no choice but to catch up with technology. That does not mean there is no hope, here are a few things a citizen can do to maximize virtual privacy:

• User encryption services: there are securely encrypted messaging applications and browsers that can hide communication and data between users. The hosting companies does not have the data for the government to collect nor they will be able to hack the encryption to get that information. (Paul, K 2017)
• Cover up the camera: there are reports stating that the NSA and CIA can hack into the camera of every device to watch its users. A patch or duct tape can prevent this. (Paul, K 2017)
• Keep social media activities to a minimal: users should avoid posting too much information that can be used to establish that user’s behavior patterns, leading to other people snooping around. (Paul, K 2017)
• Secure digital devices: almost every device is bugged by the Agency, therefore only purchase a device when it is absolutely crucial, the fewer the less chance of being watched. In addition, turn off the voice feature and location services on the phone. Finally, setup a self-destruct feature in case the phone is stolen to avoid data integrity being compromised.
• Use VPN to connect to the Internet: VPN is a secure connection service that can hide the device’s IP address and encrypt all data transmission through a secure tunnel. This way, even if someone manages to intercept the data, they cannot break the encryption. (Hoffman, C 2019)

Imagine living in a mysterious world where your every move you was being monitored by the speakers of your phone, and everything that requires a connection. A place where it is no secret who you are, where you have went and who you associate with. The word privacy doesn’t exist in such a world like ours and the world everyone is heading to is becoming more secluded from the truth. Although surveillance isn’t different from the practice of people watching, Instead of it being a practice that might occur at a store, or at a sporting event , mass surveillance is sustained through time, and is done on a wide number of individuals. This implemented practice was put in place to pay attention not just to any random person that crosses the streets, but to pay attention to a specific group of targets and for many reasons.

Many precautionary measures are needed to protect any civilized civilization from a chaotic dangerous situation. Due to technological advances mass surveillance has become a very complex matter, both as a social subject and monitoring system. Individuals can be watched without total disclosure due to the relatively small size of mass surveillance device and its invisibility. Anyone can watch a person a far without even being face to face with them.

During these days it is generally unknown the information people willingly give up is being sanctioned by a higher superior. We were to trust any government agencies to keep everyone safe from the evils that are in society. Although we were to believe that there has been many instances were our sense of security has been illegally invaded by agencies who are causing more harm than the common good. The United States government has a long history of such wrongdoing pertaining to the illegal surveillance of its own citizens. Often unwarranted, it violates our rights to unlawful searches without probable cause.

According to the Times magazine, Then President Geroge Bush ,implemented a presidential order in 2002 allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to surveillance without a warrant the international (and sometimes domestic) intercept calls and email messages of hundreds or thousands of American citizens and residents that resides in the United States. (ACLU 2006) No warrants were required, which is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment that prohibits these types of searches without proper warrants or approval by a judge (Constitution of the United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992). When this was exposed and brought to the public’s eye then President George Bush, claimed that” he is not bound by that law is simply astounding. It is a Presidential power grab that poses a challenge in the deepest sense to the integrity of the American system of government (American Civil Liberties Union) (ACLU). President Bush authorized the surveillance of many innocent American citizens when they had no prior’s prior to the illegal unethical searches. How could this act be legal and actually protect the United States from attacks?

Our own Government seeks to harass and violate our constitutional rights by doing these unauthorized searches. Yet the chances of them surveillancing the wrong people is high due to human error brought by the operative. Misunderstandings of the “alarming finds could just be merely a complete out of context. What if the government wrongly arrested the wrong suspect without displaying any type of warrants? These are the risks that many Americans face in order to stay afloat with the nature of the call.

Under The Patriot act congress passed, The Act enacted by the control of U.S. law enforcement agencies to combat terrorism by providing the government the authorization to probe telephone and e-mail. It allowed foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; it also the detainment of non-US citizens suspected of acts that are trying to cause harm to others. Due to this heinous passing the Federal Bureau Investigation unlawfully searched the house of Brandon Mayfiled. A Portland resident who was suspected to be involved in the Madrid train bombing incident in 2004, once challenged the government’s surveillance of his home and law office argued that the Patriot Act wrongfully violated his family’s Fourth Amendment’s protections against unauthorized unreasonable searches and seizures despite being cleared of wrongdoing. With the Patriot act, many people’s rights are being stripped away just because of little to no evidence of wrongdoing.

In recent memory , A case that involved whistleblowing has been the leaks caused by Edward Snowden. Snowden exposed top secret information from the National Security Agency (NSA) while he was a contractor. The information he shown revealed that the communication records of many Americans have been kept, Despite it not of those looked into had been involved with any suspicious or illegal activities. Why would anyone trust something that was meant to keep surveillance of anyone without their consent? Thesee mass surveillance tactics are shown to be illegal in our constitution, your rights were being violated in the name of “protection”.

The potential of losing personal private information can have a psychological effect on individuals. The feeling of being uneasy and paranoid can lead to many issues to the person due to the government searching into their everyday lives just by looking into their computers, phones and lines without even knowing they’re being watched and listened to by government agents. This could be detrimental to anyone’s mental health due to everything that is happening to them. How is it ethical to cause someone to be frightened due to one’s “suspicions”?

The accelerating increasing ability of the government survlancing our lives could lead to a total a society in which there’s no privacy. The United States Government could turn into an authoritarian society like China and many other countries that places an emphasis on surveillancing on its citizens by monitoring and keeping a close visual of them. The United states could develop into that if others don’t stand up for themselves and fall into the traps that can do incriminating measures. Authoritarian governments are known to silence and sensor everyone through hacking and other measures to keep their citizens afloat. How could this be ethical? We are in the risk of a mass scale full surveillance system that will be placed all over just to monitor our every move and whereabouts.

A terrible thing that happens often is that individuals can be charged without even having no prior knowledge of them even participating. . The government processes the information that goes over the internet to see if there is information any self incriminating acts that are being committed . If you mention a politician to a friend in an email or text then that might be enough to take a look into the conversation. Even jokingly about you doing something can get you charged even though there was no intent or real motive in what the individual says. Even though you are being arrested for something you said what would give the government the right to look into your conversations without obtaining no formal warrant from a federal judge?

There are many rebuttals that are for the use of mass surveillance and claims it is beneficial to the safety of Americans and residences. Some say “if you have nothing to hide then show it.” In this instance this is true because if you know you are being honest and open about things it proves that your innocency. Why should someone be afraid if they haven’t done anything illegal? Many counter claimants use this to back these claims.

Surveillance is essential to making people safe to prevent crimes or attacks from happening. It can track phone calls, text messages, and emails of people just to see if they’re involved in ny group that intends to launch attacks. By surveillancing citizens, the government can see who is a law abiding citizen and who poses harm to countless others. This could so many lives from threats and that could create a new sense of “safety” in a post 9-11 world. Would it be worth it just to keep others safe in a world where there’s so much evil and pity for innocent lives?

Mass surveillance does not create a threat of harm on its own entirely. While the government is watching our actions over video, telecommunications lines, and Internet websites. Not a single person is harmed by these activities. Sure, it might be invading your personal activities but it won’t harm you at all. your person. The main objective of this work is to unravvel criminal work and potential terrorism being executed. A large sum of people believe that this is justifiable when it means its going to keep everyone safe from harm.

Mass Surveillance is essential to protecting United States citizens from terrorist attacks. Even though we are giving up our privacy in order to keep the nation safe it still has its disadvantages. If we don’t give it up then were at risk of being attacked by enemies. If it’s to keep us safe then lets give up our rights.

Despite that, it is still unethical to allow anyone to listen to our conversations without the proper authorizations or credentials. If we allow government agencies to disrupt our way of living in the name of “ safety” then why even have a constitution that protects us from unlawful searches? Its going back on what was created to protect others from government snooping and from keeping you from living a life free of being watched. Unfortunately, the government isn’t being held accountable for spying on many Americans without them even being involved in any crime or wrongdoing which is unethical.

In conclusion, despite all of the positives that are being addressed our safety and wellbeing is being jeopardized by the government that people are supposed to trust. No one should ever be monitored unless they have reputable evidence displaying illegal activities or wrongdoing.They are more negatives than positives regarding this matter and our rights are being violated We live in the “land of the free” so we should be free from these illegal searches that are often unwarranted.