The USA Patriot Act: overview and implications

Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism is the extended terminology that refers to the U.S.A. Patriot Act which, following the events of 9/11 was passed by the Senate immediately and almost unanimously. When the Pentagon and the World Trade Center were attacked in 2001, concerns over national security and America's susceptibility to terrorist threats emerged more so as the country remained baffled at what had just happened. Governmental figures needed to address people's concerns and overall, the issue of law enforcement being able to prevent such attacks from ever happening again. With Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh having authored the act shortly after the events and upon reviewing existing practices and methodologies, Jim Sensenbrenner, member of the Republican Party, presented it to Congress. It should be noted that, generally, the Patriot Act is embedded in America's history of electronic surveillance that emerged along with improved technologies. Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 permitted wiretapping under certain regulatory conditions. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 was meant to ?update and clarify Federal privacy protections and standards in light of dramatic changes in new computer and telecommunications technologies. (as cited in Roundy, 2006, p. 413) Furthermore, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) was passed to ?preserve the government's ability…to intercept communications involving advanced technologies while protecting the privacy of communications and without impending the introduction of new technologies. (as cited in Henderson, 2002, p. 184) While these acts concerned surveillance in relation to criminal issues, national security was particularly addressed in terms of electronic surveillance by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. However, no legal changes were made in regards to electronic surveillance since either the passing of CALEA or the 1978 act until the Patriot Act.

The Senate and the House of Representatives were presented with separate versions of the law. While the former was passed immediately, the second version was delayed to be drafted in compatibility with the Senate's. Eventually, the final edited version was sent to the President and was signed into law on October 26, 2001. Within the next following years, expressed opinions increased as to the violation of privacy and unconstitutional premises as a result of modified legalities of electronic surveillance. In 2005, certain provisions of the Act expired and reauthorization was needed to reinstate the document and permit enforcement of provisions. However, Democrats had started to oppose the Act by 2005 and proceeded with delaying the process. A year later nevertheless, the Patriot Act was granted full support and was authorized with only three provisions being subject to expiring while most provisions were made permanent. Certain civil liberties assurances were introduced with the reauthorization in 2006.

While sections in the Patriot Act have neither been criticized nor ostracized, some are controversial. The most debatable of sections do appear to be the three expiring provisions that are now due in 2015. As such, section 206 acknowledges ?roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. (USA Patriot Act, 2001) This is to say that law agencies have the liberty to survey over non-specific targets, being persons or locations. Section 215 grants ?access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. (USA Patriot Act, 2001) Section implies that no reasoning or causal factors are required to allow surveillance in cases of terrorism investigation. Lastly, section 6001(a) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 allows for the surveillance of individuals outside of U.S. upon whom no existing evidence of terrorist ties is available. The controversial elements surrounding the three sections have sprung due to explicit beliefs that the Patriot Act inhibits most peoples' constitutional liberties in regards to privacy. Whereas in the past, intercept orders were required to establish surveillance, the three expiring sections lead to the evident conclusion that the U.S. government has enforced law agencies with legal rights over any individuals' data storage. Furthermore, law agencies are not required to present evidence in supporting allegations but can establish electronic surveillance more freely than ever before. Indeed, criticism has arisen because the Patriot Act ?makes it easier for the government to skirt what are supposed to be limitations on permissible domestic surveillance. (Henderson, 2002, p. 195) Moreover, it is believed that ?the seizure of electronic communications and private records under the Patriot Act today is no less an assault on the ideas they contain than seizure of books during a less technologically advanced era. (American Civil Liberties Union, 2009 p. 9) From such perspectives, the American nation is believed to return to a state of censorship and strain embedded in a cloth of democratic concern due to the enactment of the 2001 law. However, law officials claim that applying provisions is ?essential, given the technology and the growth of technology that we've had. (as cited in Democratic Policy Committee, 2011, ?Roving Wiretaps?) Also, as the three expiring provision are said to be a violation of the rights included in the Fourth Amendment, there are opinions that the latter does not in fact guarantee or address privacy issues. As such, ?Fourth Amendment limits on government authority are most likely not exceeded, because the threat to privacy…appears to be outweighed by the government's duty to protect national security. (Henderson, 2002, p. 198). Nevertheless, the Act continues to stir debates and nurture opposition which makes it difficult to asses whether or not it has been beneficial. And with abuses by various law agencies being revealed, it would appear that, while it might serve law enforcement, the Patriot Act is in the detriments of regular citizens. On the other hand, as many as 310 defenses were made in merely 2004 (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004, p. 4) as a result of Patriot Act enforcement which goes to show more benefits exist.