The USA PATRIOT Act's impact on surveillance, civil liberties, and racial profiling

USA PATRIOT Act Social Impact of the USA Patriot Act and Related Legislation Limiting Daily Behaviors The Act, especially section 215 of the law was the most controversial aspect as it authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect bulks of telephone metadata particular, who called by whom, and when the call was made. In addition, the Act gave the government the power to collect tangible things among them, records, books, documents, papers, and other items regarding any a matter relevant to counter-terrorism. As revealed through the leaks by Snowden, NSA collects phone and internet data from both American users and personal communication from foreign leaders. As a result of this surveillance, most US citizen changed their online behavior and how they used communication technology.

Concerns Related to Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Age, and Religion as They Relate to Law Enforcement and Security Services The USA PATRIOT Act outlays strategies that operate specifically on those who are not American citizens. These measures entail detention, intelligence-gathering, expansion of the substance criteria for the deportation of non-citizens, contraction of noncitizen rights, and restriction of visa policies, and upgrade of points of entry inspections. These measures were primarily focused on Arab and Middle East originating young men who are associated with the Islamic religion. In practice, these measures essentially profiled young men of Arabic ethnicity who are associated with Islam. This is mainly because the perpetrators of the 9/11 terror attack were men of Arab descent who profess to Islamic religion.

The impact of technology and globalization and the balance of individual rights against public safety. From an economic standpoint, technology and globalization have a positive impact, but this expanded market place and easier connectivity among people from different parts of the globe have also meant an increased security threat. In the background of 9/11 terror attack and the USA PATRIOT Act, it is evident that technology and globalization have also had an impact on terror, as the concept “global terrorism” has become a reality and grown. As a result, this has had a negative effect on individual rights, especially concerning Arab men who are profiled based on suspicious of terror. As even though in the recent past the balance between individual rights against public safety has been considerably retained, at the passing of the USA PATRIOT Act, it this balance was significantly skewed in favor of public safety.

The Influence of Domestic and International Terrorism in Relation to Government Agencies and Private Security Domestic and internal terrorism has led to an increased corporation between government and private security agencies. The 9/11 terror attack presented American security agents with peculiar challenges. There arose the realization that to effectively fight terror, there is need for both state and federal government security agencies to work together. The National Counter-Terrorism Center under the FBI and the CIA is the overall body in fighting terror, but state security agencies play a crucial role in neutralizing any threats.

The goals, objectives, and challenges of Criminal Justice Organizations and Private Security Entities While the goals and objectives of criminal justice organizations and private security entities are to promote security through ensuring justice is served and prevention of crime respectively, there is a major hindrance in delivering this mandate. While private security entities play a crucial role in crime prevention and protection of infrastructure, there exists a limiting challenge in that private security agents can not place a suspect under arrest. In addition, they cannot prosecute a criminal in a court of law. Once they arrest a criminal, they can hold him within their facilities and hand him/her to the police.

Criminal Justice Organizations and Private Security Entities: Differing Goals and Objectives of Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Agencies Compare and Contrast
While the goals and objectives of the various law enforcement agencies are to ensure law and order, they differ in their areas of jurisdiction and operations and their leaders, known as directors, are appointed by the leader of the elected arm of the relevant government. Federal law enforcement agencies are part of executive branch of the US Government and independent of all other legislative and judicial agencies. Director of federal law enforcement is appointed by the US president. State law enforcement agencies are statewide authorities e.g., the Texas Rangers and the directors of these agencies are appointed by the state governor. Local law enforcement agencies enforce law in rural and unincorporated regions. These include county and municipal enforcement agencies. Challenges Facing Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Roles of the Federal, State, and Local Court Systems with Respect to Public Safety and Civil Rights The primary challenge facing federal, state, and local enforcement agencies in relation to public safety and civil rights is public trust. Over the years, and mainly as a result of police-related brutality and killing of black men and women, law enforcement agencies have suffered a significant erosion on public trust. The other challenge is recruitment and retention. All law enforcement agencies are facing challenges in hiring and retaining qualified and experienced personnel, which limits public safety. The role of federal, state, and local court system is to ensure fairness and that justice to all, which is the fundamental principle governing public safety and civil rights.

Objectives of Probation, Parole, and Correctional Organizations in Regard to Public Safety and Individual Rights The objective of probation, parole and correctional organizations is to rehabilitate those who have been found guilty of a criminal office. In doing so, these organizations help to promote public safety by restricting or supervising the guilty individual and at the same time, upholds individual rights by ensuring that the rehabilitation facilities and conditions are humane. More specifically, probation and parole offer offenders an opportunity to effect positive change in their lives in an out of jail environment. On the other hand, correctional facilities intent to rehabilitate through training, an offender, before he/she returns to the public and contribute to nation-building.

The Privatization of Government Services with Respect to Policing, Courts, and Corrections Due to limited resources, the government has resulted in privatization of nonessential police services, courts, and correctional services. As such, the contracting private agencies run such service for profit. Even though at the theoretical level privatization of policing, courts, and correctional services might sound viable, practically, it is a recipe for disaster. This is particularly relevant in the court system, as only the government can be trusted to a greater degree to prosecute cases in a fair and just manner. Nevertheless, with the appropriate policy in place, privatization is an effective management tool, especially in the provision of services to cover the gap left due to government insufficiency. An example is on policing where private security firms protect over 85% of critical infrastructure within the USA.