
Most high school students are required to read 1984 by George Orwell. While this novel was published in 1949, it foreshadows many of the real political controversies that have resulted since 2001 with regards to U.S. government surveillance. In the novel, the citizens in the dystopian society, Oceania, are constantly watched and listened to in the privacy of their own homes (Orwell). After reading this novel, you may have thought, ‘this could never happen in the United States’. After all, American citizens, under The Constitution, are guaranteed freedoms and privacy rights that would not permit this type of eavesdropping. The novel’s significance in 1949 was unknown; however, today it stands as a great representation of the threat that an unrestricted government could pose. While a reader could not imagine how a government would be allowed such liberties, this unjustified espionage is ongoing in the United States without the knowledge or disclosure by government entities. Unwarranted government surveillance programs advertised as providing protection against domestic and international terrorism have overstepped the boundaries of personal privacy rights guaranteed by The Fourth Amendment. Americans aware of the surveillance being conducted are irresolute with the value of security from these programs and the invasion of privacy that they incur. 

Historical events have shaped national security. Security measures have been modified in reaction to events that tested the government’s ability to protect America. Government surveillance is not a new concept but one that is addressed in The Constitution; however, the magnitude of surveillance has escalated beginning in the 20th century (Suarez). On September 11th, 2001 (9/11) the United States was attacked by Al-Qaeda, leaving almost 3,000 innocent civilians dead and thousands more severely injured. This was the largest international terrorist attack on U.S. soil. Prior to 9/11, restrictions on the U.S. intelligence community, including the NSA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), did not allow the exchange of information regarding security concerns (Suarez). Consequently, suspicious information gathered by each agency could not be linked; thus, investigations concerning terrorist threats could not be substantiated. These concurrent attacks revealed the importance of collected data being consolidated.

Following the attacks, in an effort to calm and relieve panic, President George W. Bush, in a public address to the nation, promised an increase in national security and safety (“Text of Bush’s Address”). Security measures of all types were increased in an effort to eliminate any further threat of attack. These security measures included additional police presence at all airports, public events, and heavily populated areas, increased police force, and intensified technological surveillance. During his address to the nation, President Bush spoke about how the enemy hates our freedoms and liberties in an effort to justify the intensified surveillance (Ludlow). The events of 9/11 led to an increase in the National Security Administration’s (NSA) role in preventing terrorism on U.S. soil. As a result, foreign communications were monitored in an unprecedented manner. The apprehension of Americans resulted in an outward cry for protection and a willingness to accept the new measures that were implemented without fully understanding their ramifications.

As a result of 9/11, a new surveillance plan called the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, also referred to as the USA PATRIOT act, was approved by President Bush. The USA PATRIOT act was designed to focus on enhancing the investigative tools that were available to security agencies for protection of the U.S. The FBI was granted expanded use of National Security Letters for the purpose of searching telephone, email, or financial activity without a court order. Additionally, the NSA was given allowance to operate a mass phone data collection program without requiring a warrant (Suarez). The allowance that granted mass phone data collection was the first contribution in allowing the government to take surveillance measures too far. Furthermore, the mass collection of phone data that was approved under the USA PATRIOT act was in violation of The Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment was created to provide protection against unwarranted entry or seizure of belongings; therefore, collecting phone data from activity conducted inside an individual’s home violates this. The USA PATRIOT act gave the security agencies more freedom to conduct unwarranted surveillance with the intent of aiding in prosecution of terrorists and prevention of terrorism. As the volume of surveillance increased, so did the need for multifaceted programs that could aggregate and sort the collected data.  

The programs that were necessary for managing the metadata were not only complex since they aggregated data from multiple sources, but they were also extremely large in volume. The NSA gained access to data from Verizon Wireless, AT&T, and other service providers and could run a program that would collect the cell phone records and internet activity, also referred to as metadata. This data was then run through a program called PRISM that looked for suspicious patterns of behavior. The metadata was stored and could later be searched using a program called xKEYSCORE (Stray). With the push of a button, government officials could enter a name and all activity, including phone calls, internet searches, and personal information related to that person would become available. While these programs were not publicized, both the Senate and Congress were aware of their existence (Fick). Had civilians known these searches and exchanges were being intercepted and stored without their consent or a warrant, they may have demanded a change in policy. As users of the internet and  cellphones increased exponentially, more data was being exchanged. Internet users were unaware that behind their internet search, U.S. government agencies were linking those searches with searches by cellular contacts and relatives for possible overlaps in interests that could be harmful. The purpose of collecting the data was to look for links that could potentially connect those individuals who were plotting harmful activity.  

Most Americans were unaware of these government surveillance programs being clandestinely conducted on phones and emails. In May of 2013, a former NSA contract employee, Edward Snowden, came forward to the media and divulged the surveillance programs being used. Snowden revealed the illegal data collection being conducted by the NSA (Lyon). Americans would not have learned about the breach of privacy had Snowden not provided specific details as to how the programs linked both data and contacts. This information was the first revelation that the government had overstepped their boundaries under the pretense of security. Additionally, he disclosed that the NSA had tapped the private fiber optic cables of Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft’s inter-datacenter communications without first receiving a warrant (“Highlights” 62).The deceptive activity is why individuals were never asked for permission for this data; furthermore, they were unaware that their internet activity was being recorded. Recording this activity without consent or knowledge was a violation of personal privacy. Additionally, the revelation that the NSA was accessing records without the knowledge of these service providers was an invasion of private business, and posed a huge threat to business being conducted both domestically and internationally. The concern of these businesses was that if the NSA had open access to records being exchanged via the web then the NSA would also have access to their internal documents and data. This breach of trust meant a possible future loss of tens of billions of dollars if foreign investors decided to avoid these companies as a result of this infringement (“Highlights” 63). The NSA relied on the known and unknown cooperation of commercial telephone service providers and internet providers to assist with codes and algorithms to subsidize their surveillance database (Lyon). Programs needed to gather and store this metadata were not only too complicated for the government to create, but also too immense to store alone. The reliance on computer programmers outside the government created another possible opportunity for personal data to get into the wrong hands, as well as, the potential for the data to be used for personal or political gain. Initial defense from President Obama was that the intelligence these surveillance programs offered was necessary to defend the U.S. from acts of terrorism. However, after Snowden’s exposé, Obama advised the Senate to end legislation that allowed mass data surveillance and collection by the government (Baker). In an attempt to settle the concern over the invasion of privacy, the President realized a change to legislation had to occur. A balance would have to be met that allowed for security to continue be carried out and privacy rights to remain constitutional. 

In 2015, as Congress voted on extending the USA PATRIOT act, the balance of privacy and security was heavily debated. Seventy-seven senators voted for a modification to limit the scope (Baker). This shift in the number of officials that approved a new and different version of the act represents the awakening and the call for transparency. The officials who were previously unaware were now having to answer angry constituents who understood the need to limit how far agencies could delve into private lives without the necessary warrants. As Peter Baker, contributor to The New York Times, states, “To libertarians and civil liberties advocates, the shift underscores an evolution in thinking about the risks and trade-off of terrorism, a recognition that perhaps the country went too far out of fear and anxiety” (Baker). Baker’s quote emphasizes the willingness of Americans to take protection in any form without knowing the consequences; however, once the ramifications were known the cooperation was gone. The original USA PATRIOT Act had passed by an overwhelming majority, now legislators were no longer as confident that security was the utmost concern. The surveillance programs had been allowed to operate with freedoms that violated privacy and were based on unwarranted capturing of activity. Members of Congress voting for the new security policy realized limits had to be enforced. Polls conducted in 2015 revealed that citizens were demanding a balance of protection at all costs against terrorism and limits on government invasion of privacy (Baker). The results of the government violating privacy resulted in a demand for a change to policy and a mandate for transparency. 

As a solution to the expiring USA Patriot Act, Congress proposed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring Act, referred to as the USA FREEDOM act. This replacement act was passed under President Obama one day after the USA PATRIOT Act expired (Suarez). President Obama praised the legislation for its work, stating, “Just as important, enactment of this legislation will strengthen civil liberty safeguards and provide greater public confidence in these programs including by prohibiting bulk collection...and by providing the American people with additional transparency measures” (“Statement by the President on the USA FREEDOM Act”). The President wanted to continue to provide security and to ensure that the country was protected while at the same time convincing civilians that there would not be massive data pools. He wanted Americans to have a restored confidence that their personal activity was not being collected. Additionally, he wanted Americans to believe that the government was being open about the surveillance measures being used. The USA FREEDOM Act sets limits on the bulk collection of telecommunication metadata that is stored by government agencies. The act requires for data to be collected and stored for up to five years by the responsible commercial phone and internet service provider, such as Verizon Wireless, Yahoo, Google, and AT&T. The data is then required to be available to the NSA with adequate warrant approval (Suarez). While the President tried to convince both legislators and Americans that their privacy was no longer being violated, this was not the case. The truth was that the data was still being collected and stored. It simply was not being stored by the NSA. The opportunity for personal data to be breached or used in a malicious manner still existed. 

The U.S. government enlists emotional fear as a tactic in persuading Americans that surveillance programs were not designed to be tools for spying but for providing protection against terrorism. Peter Ludlow, contributor for The New York Times, wrote, “Even democracies founded in the principles of liberty and the common good often take the path of more authoritarian states. They don’t work to minimize fear, but use it to exert control over the populace and serve the government’s principal aim: consolidating power” (Ludlow). By fostering a constant state of fear in Americans, a demand for security and safety occurs. Both President Bush in his initial speech to Americans following 9/11 and President Obama have referred to outsiders hating the freedoms of Americans (Ludlow). Both Presidents utilized the emotion of fear to help gain support for their security programs. Once the deception of these programs was exposed by Snowden, Americans were not as willing to tolerate the activity of these programs. 

Now that government surveillance programs have been exposed, Americans have started asking more questions as to the validity of these programs. Surveillance must be defined and differentiated from providing national security. With the increase in technology and the application of “smart” technology, Americans are making their lives more publicly available. Is it a violation of privacy when the government uses this voluntary data? Imagine every internet search you make is linked to determine something about you or your behavior. That behavior is then linked with the behavior of other people that you have had phone conversations with, social media exchanges with, or texts between. For example, when you allow your physician to keep your medical record on the computer and you access your records from home for your convenience, you have just made that data available for surveillance. Perhaps you have been diagnosed with a mental illness, if this information were leaked via internet surveillance, your employer could be informed and your job compromised. This breach of confidential records and knowledge could inadvertently impair an innocent civilian. Additionally, if the NSA profiled someone using this data and there was a mistake in linking, a false positive profile could be created and an innocent person could be erroneously detained. 

There is strong evidence to support that the unwarranted government surveillance programs, advertised as providing protection against terrorism, were not necessary to achieve their promised safeguard. Records shared by The New York Times report that in the 14 years that the USA PATRIOT Act was in operation, there has been no proof of a terrorist attack being prevented (Weisman). Additional data provided by NSA Director, General Alexander, regarding surveillance claims, stated that attacks were thwarted 54 times since 9/11. However, after more intense investigation, Susan Landau finds that each of the specific events used to back the above statistics could also have been uncovered using standard investigation practices. The prevention was not solely the result of metadata collection (“Making Sense” 59-60). Although the terrorist activity was stopped, there is no supporting evidence that the intensive metadata collection programs were essential.  Landau states, “A 2009 report on the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping by the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense, Central Intelligence Agency, FBI, NSA, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence concluded that the tapping generally played a limited role in the FBI’s counterterrorism efforts” (“Making Sense” 60). In summary, in 16 years of surveillance, only 54 cases have been identified, with only 10 having any possible domestic telephone connection (“Making Sense” 60). Clearly, these results contradict the government’s stance in convincing Americans of the efficacy of these security programs. It is hard to succumb to this type of monitoring and not feel violated when the outcomes do not support this invasive and ineffective surveillance. 

Regardless of effectiveness, many Americans oppose unwarranted surveillance claiming it is a violation of their personal privacy as guaranteed under the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment states that, “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” (“Making Sense” 55). While this was written before the advanced technology present today, these protections are still applied to our communication exchanged via mobile devices, WiFi, and the internet. The intent of the Fourth Amendment was to not only provide protection of privacy but also to limit access by the government without probable cause. As an average citizen interpreting this, one would assume a warrant would be required for any government entity to acquire data as relates to a person’s effects (belongings), for example, a cell phone or an email. According to former Vice President, Al Gore, “ ‘[The NSA surveillance] in my view violates the Constitution... The Fourth Amendment language is crystal clear. It isn’t acceptable to have a secret interpretation of a law that goes far beyond any reasonable reading of either the law or the Constitution and then classify as top secret what the actual law is’ ” (“Making Sense” 54). This quote by Gore further supports that the NSA, under its own interpretation of The USA PATRIOT Act, was allowed to go too far with the collection of metadata. The NSA stored this metadata and created search programs without acquiring the required warrants under The Fourth Amendment. In summary, using personal contact links, gathering phone and internet data, and searching email content without warrant or probable cause are all activities that violate the Fourth Amendment. 

While many Americans find surveillance unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, some view surveillance as absolute and necessary. In opposition to the violation of privacy, Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, defended the need for surveillance stating,    “ ‘National security and privacy are not mutually exclusive’ ” (Weisman). Lankford, along with other legislators, claim that the government cannot provide national protection if there are limits on the NSA’s ability to conduct surveillance. However, he also supports that there should be more limitations on how the surveillance is conducted.  It can be argued that if you are not committing a crime then you should not care if they government is monitoring your actions; however, personal information obtained can be used for personal and political gain. 

Security cannot be provided without surveillance, and that surveillance transcends into our private lives. Senator Mitch McConnell believes the USA FREEDOM Act limits the activity of the government in protecting Americans. He was quoted as saying, “ ‘I think Congress is misreading the public mood if they think Americans are concerned about the privacy implications’ ” (Weisman). McConnell believes Americans might be suffering from amnesia if they cannot remember what it felt like to be at Ground Zero following 9/11. While there may not be evidence of any specific thwarted attacks, supporters of less limits on government surveillance argue that metadata programs, “helped flesh out investigations in other ways, and could still prove to be crucial in the future” (Weisman). McConnell is arguing that the use of metadata may not be the case for previous attacks; however, moving forward, this mass data collection and ability to create links in data will be necessary in providing successful security. Furthermore, evidence supports that terrorists move quickly, and change numbers and computer IP addresses just as quickly. Obtaining the necessary warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court requires too much time and is not always possible to obtain fast enough. As technology has advanced, the price and ease in which one can obtain a cell phone, email address, or new computer has become simpler and faster. Thus, supporters want less restrictions on the NSA since obtaining a warrant through a required process is time prohibitive. In evaluating each of these positions, it is clear that none are positioned in favor of protecting the privacy of those who are innocent nor the exposure of personal data.

While the government aims to provide ultimate security for all Americans, surveillance measures are being taken too far and are thus exploiting personal privacy. There is substantial evidence that the programs being implemented by the government violate the Constitution, specifically the Fourth Amendment, and in fact have not been proven to be the only means of stopping terrorism. In reaction to this evidence, Americans are disappointed and frustrated with the U.S. government and the repeated promises by presidents to provide protection. Even with the changes to surveillance laws and the enforcement of transparency, American citizens must take responsibility to protect their privacy. One step towards protection of privacy begins with limiting the amount of information one enters on the internet to access different websites. With the rapid advancement of available technology, government restrictions and guidelines are not keeping pace. Americans must realize that even with laws and regulations in place, the U.S. government still has the capability to violate the boundaries of personal privacy as established under the Constitution. 
