Justifiable and Unjustifiable Government Interference

Since the patriot passage was enacted after phratry 11, 2001. There has been an ongoing argument about the well-groundedity of the Patriot correspond and whether or not it is a violation of civil rights. The question is how furthest is too far? How much intrusion leave Ameri stinkers every last(predicate)ow into their lives for the rice beer of interior(a) security?The Patriot Act was signed into righteousness on October 26, 2001. The Patriot Act has 16 eatable that give the government surveillance and legal designers to use against terrorists. Since 9/11, in that respect have been no former(a) terror attacks on American soil. Since this clip has passed with no other attacks, pot ar starting to question whether the Patriot Act should be scale back or whether we even consider it at all. The Patriot Act addresses several new argonas in surveillance. I will touch on a couple of those new provisions and what they mean. Pen Register or Trap and Trace OrdersCurrently, la w enforcement agencies involved in intelligence investigations can grow a pen register or trap and attribute ensnare under which they can have access to numbers dialed and certain by a particular phone. In order to obtain a pen/trap order, law enforcement mustiness show that the development they are seeking is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation and that the suspicious that they are tracking is in communication with someone involved in transnational terrorism or intelligence activities. This is a much lower example than the probable cause standard used in criminal investigations. The Patriot Act reduces this standard even further, eliminating the in communication with requirement. Law enforcement officials must simply show that the information they are seeking is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. Under this provision, when law enforcement requests a pen/trap order from a judge, he must return key it. The judge has no airiness to refuse, even if he/s he views it as unnecessary or unjust.These are the types of provisions that concern opponents to the Patriot Act and those who think our privacy is universe threatened. Although, it this whitethorn help in the fight against terrorists, opponents contend that it could be used against all citizens. I have a hard time believing that law enforcement is going to be wasting their time with plurality that are not involved in some type of terrorist or criminal activity. This doesnt mean that the powers could not be abused or that mistakes could not be made. Just that in the grand scheme of things, these instances are unlikely. And if they do happen, the consequences in relation to the issue of national security is not likely to be all that great.The PA also extends the scope of information that can be obtained apply a pen/trap order. Law enforcement may immediately have access to dialing, routing, and signaling information where in the past it could scarce be used to obtain telephone n umbers dialed and received. The reference to routing information refer specifically to lucre use either for email or browsing. The PA expressly states that the hearts of communications may not be obtained with trap/trace orders, but the PA does not define the term.The FBI began using a new tool called Carnivore to monitor email and instant messages. They occupy it will be very effective against terrorists. Opponents claim it can be used against any citizen. Carnivore lets them monitor everyone who uses the same internet provider that the suspect uses, whether they are under investigation or not. The argument is that new rules need to be put into place to prevent innocent people from being tracked instead of relying on the FBI to filter out any non-relevant information.Because content cannot advantageously be separated from internet routing information, in order to obtain an email address, law enforcement must be given access to the completed email packet and then is entrusted to only viewing the address and deleting the content without viewing it. With internet browsing, content cannot be easily separated from internet routing information either. This is different from telephone calls where the numbers dialed and received can easily be separated from the content of the phone call.The PA increases the scope of subpoenas. In the past, the government could use a subpoena to compel an ISP or website to free the following information about their subscribers customers get a line, address, length of service, and regularity of payment. The government could not get credit cards numbers, bank broadsheet numbers or other more specific indentifying information. PA right a trend authorizes the government to obtain credit card numbers and bank tale numbers through subpoenas. Law enforcement argues that this is essential information as many an(prenominal) people register with websites using false names and this is the only way to get a positive ID. There is no judicial redirect examination involved in the subpoena process and therefore no slow down to make sure law enforcement has the proper grounds.As you can see, the PA has given much broader authority to law enforcement personnel. This increase in power has raised alarms from opponents of the PA. Civil libertarians fear that concerns about national security will erode civil liberties.The key is to try and find some test of balance. The problem is that both sides continue to argue for their point of view. Can there be a balance when youre talking about our national security? Which is more in-chief(postnominal)? Are civil liberties more important than the national security of our country? I personally dont see how you can prioritize civil liberties over our national security. history shows that we have underestimated dangers many times in the past. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Cold War espionage, Cuban missile crisis, the Tet Offensive to name a few. There are even theories o ut there that we had supercharge haveledge of 9/11. Perhaps we tend to overreact. But we cannot underestimate the greatness of national security. We already know that there are plenty of people out there that want to see our destruction. It doesnt matter what we do, what we say, how we treat things. They want us destroyed no matter what, so this tout ensemble theory of trying to figure out what we did wrong or wherefore they hate us is a complete waste of time. Because they dont care. They have one objective only.I dont know that well ever be able to strike a balance that is pleasant to both sides. I understand the need to protect civil liberties. The issue I have is that situations sometimes dictate what needs to be done. I dont think the fears that well lose our civil liberties is a valid one. This idea that theyll take a little at a time and pretty soon well have none. I just dont buy it. Not in this Country. Its too strong, theres too much individualism in America. The pe ople would never allot it. There would be a revolt before it would ever happen. I guess since I have nothing to hide, I dont mind that the government has certain powers or takes certain steps to batten the security of our nation.