
On October 26th, 2001, just five weeks after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, President George W. Bush signed the United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, also known as the Patriot Act (107th Congress). The Act has been widely criticized as taking for granted the privacy of the American people and "[reducing] judicial checks and balances that were put into place by this country's founding fathers" (Beischel, Metz, Rathbone). On the other hand, advocates of the Act state that law enforcement agencies do not have a blank check and that the courts are still involved in the process of surveillance (107th). The Patriot Act has sparked nation-wide debate over what the Act really allows and also over its Constitutionality, making it a tedious and often frustrating topic of discussion.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither," and critics of the Patriot Act are united by one common factor: the act strips people of their personal right to privacy and has, "deprived ... citizens of some of the basic rights ... that were promised in the Constitution" (Beischel). To their credit, critics are aware that terrorism is a problem in today's world and realize that the Homeland does need to be protected from all enemies, foreign and domestic (Beischel). However, when a supporter of the act and a critic of the act debate on whether or not it should exist, there is always a stale mate because the critic says it is too overbearing and the supporter says that it keeps us safe. While the supporter will most likely admit that the government is watching its people and surveilling them, they will also claim that is a necessary evil in a world filled with dangers at every turn. The critic, however, will say that the world is indeed dangerous and that the country is in need of protection but the act currently in place deprives us of our basic rights. This is why it is so difficult to have a productive conversation about the Patriot Act. The Act makes significant changes to four sections that the government had in place for pre-9/11 surveilling (Beischel). Critics argue that section 213, "expands the government's ability to conduct secret searches" and that the government/law enforcement agency is not required to notify them immediately (Beischel). The expansion of Section 214 makes it so the government only needs to show distinct facts that give reason to believe that certain files and records are important to a criminal investigation (Beischel). Thirdly, section 215 gives government, "the ability to look at personal records held by a third party" which essentially gives government a license to view anything that the third party has on file (Beischel). Lastly, section 218 loosens up some restraints on foreign surveilling and "lowers the bar for launching foreign intelligence wiretaps" (Beischel). Critics claim that there has to be a line drawn when surveillance becomes overbearing and unethical (Beischel).

Supporters of The Patriot Act and domestic and foreign surveillance believe that the Act is not stripping away our privacy and that this is something that must be in place to protect America. For example, one article brings up the notion of a potential cyber-attack on the United States and that to have a national cyber defense there would have to be, "automated access to ... computer pathways to detect" irregular activity (Van Cleave). The author then poses the question, "if ... privately owned and [managed] networks [need to be] monitored to enable ... protection," then does that classify as an, "intrusion into their customers' [freedom]," or rather is it something that the government must do to "provide for the common defense?" (Van Cleave). This single question of how to go about protecting the people of the country who consider it a violation of privacy to be protected is what is so difficult about domestic and foreign surveillance. As the critics claim that the Patriot Act removes most of the checks and balances of the government, the supporters claim that systems designed to prevent cyber-attacks on a mass scale are "subject to careful internal checks as well as ... congressional oversight to [safeguard]" the system from creating a society like that depicted in George Orwell's famous novel 1984 (Van Cleave). Supporters of surveillance, as a means to protect the people of this country, believe that is a "responsibility of the US government," because the first duty of government should be to protect the citizens (Van Cleave). The NSA has recently come under scrutiny because of what was exposed when Edward Snowden stole and then sold classified government materials. Critics say that the public has a right to know what Snowden leaked and that he did the right thing, however, NSA employees and advocates of government surveillance say otherwise. They say that because of the world-wide exposure given to the NSA because of Snowden's actions, the way terrorist groups, like Al-Qaeda, communicate have changed significantly because the terrorists now know how they are being watched and what to do to avoid the eye of the NSA (Van Cleave). What infuriates employees of the NSA is the citizens of America, including Edward Snowden, want to be protected but when they find out how it is being done, they begin leaking it to blow the whistle which causes problems with how well the NSA can do its job (Van Cleave). These supporters and critics will most likely not see the end of this debate for some time, as it only continues to get more and more tedious, day after day.

The Patriot Act was passed roughly a month and a half after 9/11 with the intention of making it easier for law enforcement agencies to prevent future terrorist plots, and to track and capture known terrorists around the world. As the public continues to find out more and more about what surveillance is actually going on, they begin to scrutinize and thus makes it harder for the government to protect the people. The Patriot Act and all other forms of surveillance will continue to be debated for years to come. All of these aspects add up to make it one of the most controversial, peculiar, and nuanced topics of discussion.

