Electronic Chip Surveillance - Essay Example

Electronic Chip SurveillanceIn September 2011, the US experienced a sequence of four successive synchronized terrorist attacks believed to have been set by the Islamic terror group al-Qaeda. The areas affected by the attack were in New York City and the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area. This attack left 3000 people dead and several injured, destruction of properties worth billions of dollars among other loses. Also in this attack, four passenger airlines were hijacked by these terrorists with the aim of using them in suicide attacks.

It was, therefore, at the awakening of these attacks that the US government passed several antiterrorism legislation meant to fight terrorism. This legislation aimed at coordinate the combating of terrorism activities. One of this legislation was the Terrorist Surveillance Program, electronic monitoring system established by the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States. This system’s main function was to interpret al-Qaeda communications. The electronic chip surveillance involved electronic monitoring of people’s movements and actions through an electronic device that had a connection to a given tag embedded within their bodies and having all the crucial details about them (Thompson).

The Real Id Act of 2005 then followed this, which was legislation mandating electronic chip surveillance (RFID) in all drivers' licenses and state IDs. The electronic chip was a wireless transmission of frequencies that allowed data transfer in order to automatically identify and track objects. This act was meant to govern the issuance of the national Identity cards and state driving license together with several other immigration matters related to terrorism. The law establishes certain requirement for them to obtain a driving license and ID cards that are acceptable in the federal government.

This was as stipulated by homeland security, which is an American universal team explaining the force applied by the nation in controlling terrorism attacks in the United States and its environs. The real act was meant to lay down confederate standards for the driver license remitted by the state and other licenses that are not for driving. According to this act, the state retained the freedom to give out other licenses that do not comply to the Act and IDs. The only thing to be noted in this case, however, was to ensure that there was a clear indication that the federal government for identification did not recognize these documents.

The syndicate security identification had the task of doing the security maintenance. People without the complying travel documents could not travel in the passenger aircraft unless they went through a thorough scrutinization. In the case of US v. Jones, the government, placed a GPS device on Jones’ car and tracked him for a period of one month without obtaining a warrant for the exercise. They then charged and convicted the defendant based on information gathered from this surveillance (United States v. Jones ). Consequently, Jones appealed by arguing that the law enforcement officers obtained the information illegally since they did not have a warrant.

Therefore, based on majority opinion, the Supreme Court should uphold that the search on Jones was unconstitutional since the government did not have a warrant to do so. However, the Police Department had a warrant to legitimize the search, it was only effective within 10 days, but they installed the chip on the 11th day. This brings in the issue of the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unwarranted searches and seizures. The government argued that the Fourth Amendment should not be applied in the case since the defendant was travelling on public streets.

Nevertheless, the technology was of an intrusive nature and tracking a person over a period revealed a lot of personal information; thus, violated the defendant’s right to privacy. Moreover, the search was unconstitutional because such devices invade the privacy of a person. Like in the dog-sniff case of Florida v. Jardines, the act was unconstitutional because it invaded the privacy of Jardines (Florida v. Jardines). Nevertheless, the case opens the door for reforming the Fourth Amendment doctrine especially on understanding the level of privacy provided for by the law.

For instance, the government argued that jones already revealed or exposed this information to the public; thus, they should not be considered anymore. On the other, the current digital era also presents a challenge because there are so many channels through which personal information is bound to go out, even without revealing it yourself. So long as one has sufficient legal and physical barrier on personal information, the government should not conduct unwarranted searches. Hence, it means that the majority opinion of the Supreme Court judges bases their decision on property law, which protects the citizens against seizure and searches that are unconstitutional.

Therefore, the law enforcers had no right to conduct the exercise without a warrant, as it violates the Fourth Amendment. Work CitedFlorida v. Jardines. No. 569 U.S. Supreme Court. 2013. Web.Thompson, Richard M. "United States v. Jones: GPS MOnitoring, Property, and Privacy." CRS Report for Congress. 2012. Print.United States v. Jones . No. 615 F. 3d 544. The Supreme Court. 23 January 2012. Web.