September 11, 2001 our nation fell under attack to Al Qaeda, a Middle Eastern terrorist group. Hundreds of thousands of Americans lost their loved ones that day, and September 11th would be deemed a day of patriotism and remembrance from there on.  After this tragic event, Americans questioned how the government would step in to combat our attackers, and prevent an attack similar to this from reoccurring. During the months following the attack many were in favor of the government limiting their rights if it meant it would help protect our nation (Doherty). However, now over a decade later many are opposed to the government having access to this information. In 2013, Edward Snowden revealed to the public the extent to which the National Security Agency was monitoring their lives. These statements caused outrage among the public and led to the debate, over whether the government should have access to our cyber footprints, phone records, locations and more if it will result in saving our country from a national attack? In this paper, I will address the two most popular opinions in this debate and possible solutions our government should consider to ensure Americans’ lives and privacies are protected. 

The revelation that caused the most unsettledness among the American population was the release that the NSA was monitoring our phones and emails. To many this seemed to be a direct violation of our Fourth Amendment. Our Fourth Amendment guarantees citizens the right to deny law enforcement and government officials the right to search or seize any of their private property without a warrant issued by a judge or probable cause (History). Whether the government was justified to make these searches without notifying the citizens nor having probable cause is what is most concerning to many, while others view this as an effective and necessary way to prevent our nation from attack.  

This debate is largely impacted by the aspect of time. As time has passed, many have become less in favor of the government monitoring our lives, especially because terrorism is viewed as less of a threat to our country and their lives as it was 16 years prior. Also, technology is advancing faster than ever before giving the government easier access to an abundance of our personal information. In addition, time has impacted the interpretation of our 200-year-old constitution and its relevance to current technology and events. The Government has put our Fourth Amendment, our right to object unreasonable search and seizure, at significant risk. Though the government was justified to violate our Fourth Amendment to protect our country, it is still important to understand why many may oppose these actions by the government and feel they actions were not justified regardless of the rise in terrorism. 

The opposing viewpoint feels as though nothing, not even the protection of our country, can justify the suspension of our Fourth Amendment by the government. In their eyes, Edward Snowden’s actions were heroic and in no way harmed the country but rather bettered it by forcing the government to become transparent. John Cassidy, an author for The New Yorker, stated “That’s the valuable role that whistle-blowers play in a free society, and it’s one that, in each individual case, should be weighed against the breach of trust they commit, and the potential harm their revelations can cause”(Cassidy). Many also feel as though when the National Security Agency and government carried out these operations they stripped American’s of their freedom. In their opinion, the government is growing in power and is therefore causing destruction to our democracy. While much of these opinions may be valid, the nation’s security holds priority over the guarantee of citizen’s freedoms. 

Carroll Doherty, a political researcher at the Pew Research Center, expressed the concerns of many Americans who were against the installation of programs that monitored their phone records and emails. Between 2001 and 2011 the percent of Americans who felt it was unnecessary to give up our liberties to curb terrorism jumped from 35% to 54% (Doherty). 

Many of those opposing the government having access to our personal phone records and emails fear that over time, this power will only grow until all our rights are violated. John Whitehead, an author for The Huffington Post and a constitutional attorney, expressed his concerns that through this access, the government will be able to criminalize nearly all Americans. The most disturbing of all the technologies mentioned are “drones that can listen in on your phone calls, see through the walls of your home, scan your biometrics, photograph you and track your movements, and even corral you with sophisticated weaponry” (Whitehead). This rightfully installs fear in American citizens, however it is doubtful the government will use this technology to spy on Americans who are not seen as a threat to national security. 

After taking all the opposing viewpoint’s information into consideration it makes one wonder how far the government will go in violating our Fourth Amendment. The fear that the government will grow power hungry and violate our rights even further raises the question where is the line drawn that restricts the government from completely obliterating our rights. Even after extensive research this line is blurred as the Supreme Court has been inconsistent in their rulings as to what constitutes a just search and seizure by the United States Government (law.justia.com). These changes in the definition of a search and seizure cause much of the fuss over which viewpoint is constitutionally justified. According to Law Firms, “in spite of protections provided in the fourth amendment, law enforcement officers (noted in actual wording as “government officials”) are reserved the right to conduct searches under the grounds of probable cause” (Illegal Search and Seizure). This requires government officials to have a warrant, and if one is not granted, the search is illegal. However, if the citizen freely agrees to allow the official to continue the search, it is legal. In addition, the plain sight doctrine allows an officer to conduct a search or seizure if the officer can see or detect evidence without searching the property (Illegal Search and Seizure). It’s a matter of fact that when the NSA conducted their searches of our private lives, they did not have probable cause or the right to declare the plain sight warrant. As Snowden once said in an interview, "All of your private communications, all of your transactions, all of your associations, who you talk to, who you love, what you buy, what you read, all of these things can be seized and then held by the government and then searched later for any reason, hardly without any justification, without any reason, without any real oversight, without any real accountability for those who do wrong,"(Whitney).  The problem is, were their actions justified in protecting our country? 

In the few years to follow the attacks on September 11th, 55% percent of Americans were in favor of the government violating our civil liberties to combat terrorism and protect our country (Doherty). Over the past 16 years, these opinions have shifted as many see terrorism as a smaller threat to our nation and to their lives. However, in 2011 only 32% of American citizens felt as though the government had restricted too many civil liberties, whereas 47% felt as though they had not gone far enough (Doherty). When considering these statistics, it is important to remember that the only reason we could lessen the chances of a terrorist attack and decrease citizens’ fear of terrorism is due to the spy technologies that were used to prevent these attacks before they impacted our nation forever. Many of the Americans who are dissatisfied with the measures taken by the National Security Agency feel as though the agency’s actions were unjust because they are unaware of the threats still being made to our nation. If the public was made more aware of the large threat terrorism has to the lives of American citizens, they would be more likely to favor the programs. 

The National Security Agency and United States Government showed very little regret when addressing these actions as both viewed them as necessary operations. During a TED talk, Richard Ledgett, Deputy Director of the National Security Agency, addressed the accusations made by Edward Snowden, and gives reasoning for these intrusions of the United States’ citizens privacy: 

“I know there's been a lot of talk in public by Mr. Snowden and some of the journalists that say that the things that have been disclosed have not put national security and people at risk, and that is categorically not true. They actually do. I think there's also an amazing arrogance to the idea that he knows better than the framers of the Constitution in how the government should be designed and work for separation of powers and the fact that the executive and the legislative branch have to work together and they have checks and balances on each other, and then the judicial branch, which oversees the entire process” (Ledgett).

 He stresses the importance of these operations maintaining secret as it gave them the upper hand in their operations to abolish threats to our nation’s security. In doing so, he refers to Snowden as an enemy to our country as he put the nation at risk by releasing this information. In a separate article written by David Welna, the NSA inspector general, George Ellard, discusses the protocol Edward Snowden should have followed, “He could have come to me, in fact he would have been given some protection” (Welna). Ellard also revealed that Snowden’s claims of attempting to blow the whistle internally are false, as no one within the agency was aware of his concerns.  President Obama apologetically addressed the public, however he too saw the dire need for the National Security Agency to carry out these actions. “We cannot prevent terrorist attacks or cyber threats without some capability to penetrate digital communications… We are expected to protect the American people; that requires us to have capabilities in this field,” (Fidler 323). Obama however also discussed that he was unaware of the extent of some of these operations, including the wiretapping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cell phone (Fidler 8). 

The amount of access the government has to our phone records should not come as a surprise to many considering police can easily access to our phone records. According to an article written by Theodoric Meyer, following the 1979 case of Smith v. Maryland, it is no longer required that police obtain a warrant to have this access, instead they simply need probable cause stating that the request is “relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation”(Meyer). Cell phone carriers have constant access to the location of their customers as cell towers are constantly tracking their locations (Meyer), making them a valuable source in investigations. AT&T alone reported receiving “77,800 requests for location data in 2012” (Meyer), from U.S. law enforcement. Many of these cell phone companies make a profit from these requests, making this a business opportunity rather than a question of morality for many of the businesses. The access to this information however is limited, to obtain access to messages under 180 days old they must have a warrant and notify the cell phone owner of this search (Meyer). The few restrictions preventing law enforcement from receiving this information almost justifies the government’s need to have easy access to all our cell phone records. 

Most important are the Founding Fathers’ intentions when creating the constitution. Many have argued that the NSA’s actions were unjustified because they violated the Fourth Amendment, however the Fourth Amendment is not always completely protected. Once again related to time, the constitution was meant to be interpreted differently in relevance to the period. Specifically, the fourth amendment restricts law enforcement and government officials from unjustly searching our private property without a warrant. When this was written however, it was assumed that this amendment was protected under normal conditions, not under conditions of war. According to Paul Larkin, an author and director of The Heritage Foundation, it was the founding fathers’ intention that “Policies that make the nation more secure, particularly against foreign threats, do not necessarily undermine its people’s liberty” (Larkin). This proves that the intention of our founders was to ensure these rights when our nation is protected, however in times of war it is up to the government to determine the interpretations of our rights. This further justifies the National Security Agency’s decision to monitor citizen’s phone records, cyber footprint, and locations to protect our nation at a time of high security risk.

Even though Snowden’s leaks took place almost four years ago, the debate they sparked is ongoing. Every year more information is leaked revealing the newest spy technologies and their impacts on citizens’ privacy, and once again the question reoccurs, should citizens’ freedoms or the nation’s protection take precedence? To solve the debate, the government should come together to form a definition as to what constitutes a “threatened state” that allows the government to have complete control over our rights, and how to notify the public that their rights have the potential to be restricted. In addition to this the government should also form a law that defines which parts of our rights the government will not be allowed to restrict under any circumstance. By taking these actions the government would be able to successfully ease tensions with the public. Many citizens would be able to invest more trust in the government if they were to become more transparent about their operations. Although it is necessary to national protection that some operations stay secretive, the government should announce the technologies being used. These ideas seem out of reach, however, they may be the only plausible solution to ease the public’s distrust of the government. Until one of these measures is taken, the nation will remain divided.

September 11th changed the way national security will be run forever. Advances in technology gave rise to new spying abilities, even spying on their own citizens. In this day and age even some American citizens are threats to our nation’s security. Currently, we are accepting that our rights no longer take priority over the nation’s security, especially since terrorism is such a high risk to our protection. Many Americans struggle to see the risk posed by terrorism because of the efficiency of our nation’s security programs. Snowden’s revelations, though they allowed transparency between the government and its people, posed a further threat to the success of these programs. In the future, the government’s spying technologies will continue to advance and further violate our privacies, we must limit their abilities or create a sense of trust between the government and citizens before it causes outrage. 
