On October 26th, 2001, exactly forty-five days after the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, President George W. Bush signed the USA Patriot Act into law (USA Patriot Act). The act's main goal at the time of its implementation was "to improve the capabilities of law enforcement agents," so they could better "investigate and prosecute terrorists," and those who wish to do harm to this country (USA). In the fifteen years since it has been signed into law, the United States has become ground zero for the debate on privacy vs. security. In addition to this, roughly three years ago, the NSA was shaken to its core when Edward Snowden leaked a fury of classified documents to the public, all revealing the foreign and domestic surveillance the NSA had been conducting for nearly ten years. These two incidents have sparked the question: How do we remain as safe as possible and still hold on to our personal privacy? While addressing the criticism of government surveillance, I will argue that government surveillance is a necessary evil in today's world and that government has to stop out sourcing its surveillance capabilities to the private sector who are under no system of checks and balances, unlike the government.

The Patriot Act is an expansion of the former surveillance apparatus that was in place before 9/11 (Beischel). Kim Taipale, a law professor at New York Law School, stated in 2007, that as Congress looks at the NSA's surveillance program, "it needs reminding that the [current devices], [particularly] the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA)," is antiquated and must either be upgraded or replaced entirely. Critics of the Patriot Act normally point their frustration and anger towards sections 213, 214, 215, and 218 because these were the sections expanded to allow government more capabilities (Beischel). Critics argue that section 213 "expands the government's ability to conduct secret searches and seizures," and that government or law enforcement agency does not have to notify the suspect(s) immediately. The government or investigating body should not have to notify a suspected terrorist or criminal when investigating him or her because then he/she, if they are indeed a terrorist, will change the way they behave. The real side of a person is shown when no one is looking or that person thinks no one is looking. In regards to the access of records and files, the expansion of section 214 makes it so the investigating agency only has to show distinct facts that give reason to believe that certain files and records are important to the ongoing investigation (Beischel). This is the section that is should be looked over again and changed. The investigating agency should have to show a certain amount of proof that the suspect is a threat in order to gain access to private files and records. Section 215 gives law enforcement "the ability to look at personal records held by a third party," which essentially gives law enforcement a license to view anything that the third party has on file (Beischel). This is the hardest section to accept because it means that telephone companies and internet companies really do have everyone's information. With that said, however, government and law enforcement agencies have to have access to this information to keep track of suspected terrorists and their movements in the country. The word 'access' is key because it does not mean that these agencies are constantly watching everyone, rather, it means that they have the ability to monitor us if we are a suspected threat or a known threat. Lastly, section 218 loosens up some restraints on foreign surveillance and "lowers the bar for launching foreign intelligence wiretaps" (Beischel). Critics, time and time again, go back to their main point that a line must be drawn in order to stop surveillance from becoming unethical. 

Critics of legislation like the Patriot Act are united by one common factor: the act strips people of their basic right to privacy (Beischel). According to critics, the act has effectively "deprived citizens ... of some of their basic rights that were promised in the Constitution" (Beischel). These concerns are absolutely justified. A report of the President's Review Group on Intelligence and Communications stated that government, in addition to strengthening national security, must also focus on four main points of concern: "Risks to privacy, risks to freedoms and civil liberties, on the internet and elsewhere, risks to our relationships with other nations, and risks to trade and commerce, including international commerce" (Congressional Dijest). Now, obviously, a 1984, George Orwell-like state is absolutely not a free state. This concern that allowing any type surveillance could lead to Big Brother is an important one and we, the citizens of America, can never allow that to happen but in order for us to live a free life here in America, do we not also have to keep ourselves safe from enemies abroad like ISIS, Hezbollah, and Al-Qaeda? Many people against the Patriot Act have also stated that the government does not adhere to its normal use of checks and balances in regards to surveillance (Beischel). David Cole, a writer for The Nation and a critic of domestic surveillance, brings up an interesting point: government has outsourced nearly all of its surveillance capabilities to private companies. This is important to note because while we never "consented" to sharing our personal information, we absolutely agreed to give third party companies like Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram our personal information (Cole). Critics of domestic surveillance are right to argue that the government can be intrusive and abuse its power, however, I believe it to be an exaggeration when they claim the only way to actually remain private is "to live as hermits, cut off from all the forms of communication that dominate modern existence" (Cole). This seems to be an exaggeration because the government is focused on watching only those who are known threats or are who are in contact with a threat to national security. The only plausible option to this is to bring all of the government's surveillance apparatuses back into the government. The government has checks and balances but private companies do not. These checks and balances were put into place for issues like this. The government finding and exploiting a loop hole in the Constitution, however, is call for concern but if only government is responsible, then checks and balances are in place to stop the abuse of our privacy. On top of private companies taking heat recently, the NSA has recently fallen under heavy criticism after the Snowden leaks. 

In 2013, the surveillance community, specifically the NSA, had its world turned upside down when Edward Snowden leaked classified documents to the public. The most damning leak was the classified program, referred to as Big Data or Meta Data, which revealed that for the past ten years the NSA "[had] been collecting telephone [data] ... on virtually every American citizen" (Cole). Big Data is essentially the ability "'to search, aggregate, and cross-reference large data sets,'" that is, the ability to find the data, compile the data, and then check for similarities or discrepancies between the sets of data (Lyon). Telephone metadata is basically with whom a person talks to and for how long they talk with that person (Cole). Politicians, from both isles, began taking sides on the issue but interestingly enough, Snowden was referred to as mainly a traitor by D.C.

 Snowden did, however, receive tremendous support from everyday citizens and also former whistleblowers. In October of 2013, just a few months after the documents had been released, Jesselyn Radack, a former whistleblower, traveled to Russia with three people, one a retired CIA analyst, one a former NSA employee and whistleblower, and one a former FBI agent and whistleblower, to give Snowden the Sam Adams Associates Award for Integrity in Intelligence (Radack). Legally speaking, though, what Snowden did was illegal. He leaked classified documents to the public and the government is "charging him with espionage" because he told "the truth" (Radack). Radack and her partners wanted Snowden to know that "60 percent of young Americans [supported] him." According to Radack, Snowden believes that the government has to have a trust relationship with the people and that is why he leaked those documents. While the trust between a government and its citizens is undoubtedly crucial to the freedom of any state, the people have to understand the threats to this country and that there has to be some form of domestic surveillance to keep the Homeland safe. Michelle Van Cleave, former head of US counterintelligence under President George W. Bush, is someone who understands this. The whole reason the government has these data collecting tools is because the biggest lesson the intelligence community learned from the 9/11 attacks was that the former intelligence apparatus needed to be "retooled ... so it could 'connect the dots' and keep us safe" (Van Cleave). In addition to this, by revealing all of this information to the world, Snowden gave our enemies a handout in how American surveillance 101 and now they can work to start avoiding detection (Van Cleave). Directly after an attack on American soil like the 9/11 attacks or the Boston Marathon bombing, law enforcement agencies like the FBI and the CIA are often "accused of not doing enough to track suspected terrorist[s]" but when Snowden leaked his documents, the absolute polar opposite reaction occurred (Van Cleave). For example, immediately after the Snowden leaks, the New York Times released numerous articles and periodicals "excoriating the "'national surveillance state'" (Goldsmith). During its relentless attack on the NSA, however, the Times suffered an attack on their own system at the hands of Syrian attackers (Goldsmith). Less than a year before this happened, "hackers stole every corporate password for every employee" at the Times so, of course, they brought in the FBI (Goldsmith). The Times Chief Information Officer is quoted as saying "'assaults on American computer networks ... have created an urgent need for safeguards to protect these vital systems'" (Goldsmith). This is proof that even the people who are against surveillance immediately go running to the agencies who conduct it for help when their businesses are attacked. 

 The Snowden documents were also extremely harmful to how the NSA conducts surveillance abroad. The reason that the Snowden leaks were and continue to be so damning is because it shines a spotlight on how the NSA and the United States conducts surveillance around the world. This is a problem because a "significant part of [the NSA's] success depends on a ... lack of awareness," or to put it another way, the terrorists "letting their guard down" (Van Cleave). President Obama, in an address given to the DOJ in 2014, stated that "the whole point of intelligence is to obtain information that is not publically available." When someone is trying to harm another person, or in the case of terrorists, millions of people, they do not advertise that information. That is why the mystique that surrounds the NSA and the CIA is so crucial to its success around the world and here at home. Citizens of our country either have to learn to accept surveillance as a necessary evil for protection or they have to accept that without it, we will be more vulnerable than ever before. 

Supporters of the Patriot Act believe that domestic surveillance is necessary to the protection of the Homeland. Jack Goldsmith, writer of We Need an Invasive NSA, focuses on how government must have strong cyber defense. In doing so, he brings up a crucial reminder to keep all of us in check when people disagree with domestic surveillance: there is little to no debate around foreign surveillance because people realize how dangerous groups like Al-Qaeda are. Unfortunately, terrorist sympathizers do live here in the United States. Realizing that, how are we supposed to safe if we have no idea who they are, where they are, and when they might act? If a team of Al-Qaeda operatives comes into the United States, and there is no apparatus in place to monitor them, a 9/11-like attack will happen all over again and it could be tragically worse. General Keith Alexander, former NSA director to George Bush and Barack Obama, stated that "'I can't defend the country until I'm into all the networks'" (Goldsmith). Our government has to have access to the communication networks to keep us safe from any and all forms of cyber-crime. There is no other way for the government to do this unless it has "powerful intelligence capabilities abroad so that it can learn about planned cyber intrusions" (Goldsmith). While it is clear that there must be intelligence abroad, cyber defense must be stepped up here at home, too. The only way for cyber-defenses to be stepped up at home is for government, "through law or regulation, to improve incentives for [citizens] to use security software," and for companies in the private sector to increase their defenses and "share information with one another" (Goldsmith). Furthermore, there have to be improvements within agencies like the NSA "to prevent inside threats like Edward Snowden" (Goldsmith).  It is also important to note that our cyber networks cover everything from "telecommunications, power generation and distribution, and banking" (Van Cleave). A "national cyber defense would need to include," essentially, automatic entrance into those networks "to detect and warn of anomalous activity" (Van Cleave). Granted, that means monitoring private networks and pathways but providing for the common defense is an "inherent duty of government" (Van Cleave). The Patriot Act was passed fifteen years ago and people knew that its implementation meant there would be government surveillance. People are just using the Snowden leaks as a step stool to debate about whether or not the collection activities "are right, proper, and necessary" (Van Cleave). Determining their constitutionality and necessity has been and always will be up to the courts, the President, and Congress (Van Cleave). 

Our intelligence services in the United Sates are so different from those anywhere else in the world because of the simple fact that we have a Constitution. For example, "the fact that we measure these [apparatuses] against civil liberties, and bring them under ... checks and balances," is what makes them firm in Constitutionality (Van Cleave). Also, the publicity of the surveillance abilities is unique as well (Van Cleave). People that have access to a computer and a connection to the World Wide Web can learn all about the NSA's method of surveillance and the documents that Edward Snowden leaked because it is all on Google. Imagine the surveillance that goes on in China and then think about whether or not their citizens know as much as we do. American citizens have more access to the types of surveillance used by Beijing and Hon Kong than actual Chinese citizens do because google is not accessible in China. Only certain websites approved by the Chinese government that do not disagree or promote change to the current government are accessible. American people take this for granted. Not only does our government provide the necessary safety measures to protect us, but they do not hide it from us. 

Our government must have access to our personal information in order to keep us safe. There is no other way to stay one step ahead of a terrorist in today's world without the secrecy of surveillance and intelligence. Admittedly, the idea of a company keeping personal records and files of everyday people is a hard idea to grapple with, however, take a second and think about what would happen if there was no surveillance. The security of this nation would be more vulnerable than ever before. Imagine an ISIS operative or someone with ties to ISIS coming through the airport and no one, not the NSA, CIA, nor the FBI, having any clue that he or she is here, in America. These surveillance capabilities let us know that, not only, a threat has entered the country, but they give us the ability to track the threat, monitor the threat, and then prevent that person from acting. This is why we must sacrifice just a little of our privacy.  

