The USA PATRIOT Act and its implications

USA PATRIOT Act: Discussion Questions

The USA PATRIOT Act, as the Department of Justice (2014) points out was enacted by Congress with an aim of equipping those charged with the enhancement of law and order with new tools to not only combat but also prevent acts of terror. An acronym, the PATRIOT Act, in the words of Ronczkowski (2006, p. 64), is "formally known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001."

Societal implications of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act and related legislation limiting daily behaviors

Since its enactment, the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act has triggered significant controversy -- particularly with regard to its impact on civil liberties and freedoms. For instance, Title II of the act permits enhanced surveillance of individuals suspected of spying or perpetrating acts of terror against the United States. There are those who are concerned that this could create grounds for the impingement of citizen rights. As per the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the government, in the course of criminal investigations, has to obtain a warrant before embarking on searches. Thanks to Title II of the PATRIOT Act, a judge has no option but to authorize search applications, if the government certifies that the said search is terror related. This leaves the citizens of this great nation exposed to possibly unreasonable searches on their private properties -- particularly taking into consideration the fact that each and every individual ought to feel secure in his or her own 'castle.'

As Chang (as cited in White, 2013, p. 396) points out, the PATRIOT Act offers the government of the day "increased ability to look into the affairs of its own citizens, " thereby trampling "on reasonable expectations of privacy." Thanks to the Act, individuals can no longer conduct business, relate with peers etc., with a reasonable expectation of privacy. In addition to granting federal security agencies the power to monitor the search queries of individuals browsing the internet, the Act also compels ISPs to hand over information to designated federal agencies, on demand.

Concerns related to race, ethnicity, gender, age, and religion as they relate to law enforcement and security services

Concerns relating to race, religion, ethnicity, gender, etc., as they relate to security services and law enforcement are nothing new. There are well documented cases of alleged racial and ethnic profiling in which case law enforcement agents have been accused of making use of race and ethnicity as a factor in deciding those to arrest or investigate. Those who have, over time, been disproportionately targeted are minorities - with Blacks and Hispanics having, specifically, fallen victim to profiling in relation to drug and immigration related cases.

In the age of terrorism, national origin, religion, as well as ethnicity have been used as key factors, often informing the direction of investigations. As a matter of fact, following the September 2001 attacks, the Department of State, as Curtis (2010) points out, slowed the processing of visas for those (particularly men) from Muslim and Arab countries. Critics of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, as Curtis (2010, p. 605) further points out, have also been quick to add that "the government's focus on Middle Eastern and other Muslim males over other absconders was clear evidence of racial and religious profiling and bias."

The impact of technology and globalization and the balance of individual rights against public safety

The U.S. PATRIOT Act has many implications for technology -- and hence users and vendors of the same. It is important to note that thanks to technology, the world is increasingly becoming a global village. Technology has also made our lives easier, meaning that we can now conduct business and undertake various duties in a more efficient manner. However, technology has also been seen as an aid to crime, particularly terrorism. This is particularly the case given that modern information communication technologies are vital and could be used as vital tools for the exchange of information leading to attacks and other criminal acts. As per the provisions of the Act, federal law enforcement agencies are permitted to not only "conduct roving wiretaps without probable cause" but also to "monitor Internet searches and to keep tabs on individual queries" (White, 2013, p. 396). Many view this provision as being largely unacceptable. However, there are those who, like me, wonder: where does the line really lie with regard to individual rights and public safety?

To perhaps shed more light on this particular issue, it would be appropriate to cite one recent example. When Edward Snowden leaked critical information with regard to the so-called PRISM program, many were divided on whether or not he had done the right thing. While Snowden maintained that his actions were informed by the need to uphold the Fourth Amendment -- given that the government had infringed on the citizenry's right of privacy; the government was adamant that Snowden's move to leak this critical information put the American public at great risk -- particularly given that the leaked program revealed the government's information-gathering approaches. Whose view was correct?

In my opinion, in seeking to strike the right balance between public safety and individual rights, the relevance of examining each incident on its merit cannot be overstated - it is the tension between the two extremes that should be scrutinized. No simple black-and-white solution can be found on this front.