Eroding Privacy Rights - Essay Example

Eroding Privacy Rights The right to privacy has been enshrined as a sacred right since the establishment of the American Bill of Rights in 1791. The Bill of Rights explicitly mentions the right of Americans to privacy and successive legislation has further established privacy as an important right exercised by Americans. For more than three centuries, the right to privacy has been an important right protected by legislators and courts throughout the United States. Notions of privacy, however, have changed substantially in the post-9/11 world. The United States of America witnessed terrorism first hand, when on the morning of September 11th, 2001, Islamic terrorists engaged in the most brazen terrorist attack on US soil, culminating in the collapse of the Twin Towers and the deaths of nearly 3,000 Americans that fateful morning in New York. How has the right to privacy changed in the United States following September 11? Seeking to explore the changes to privacy following the attacks of 9/11, this paper will analyze contentious issues including domestic spying, no-fly lists, and the Patriotic Act. An analysis of the issues of warrant-less phone call monitoring, No-Fly lists, and the Automated Targeting System, will educate the reader about the invasive nature of post-9/11 domestic surveillance techniques, authorized and employed by the present Administration in Washington. Timely and topical, this essay will explore the reconfiguration of privacy in the United States and argue that the right to privacy has been trampled on by the US Government in the post-9/11 period. The Patriot Act completely overrides previous privacy legislation and is an invasive and possibly illegal piece of legislation. This essay then concludes with a concise summation of the ramifications of invasive measures on the citizens of the United States. 9/11 and the Patriot Act The attacks on the World Center represented the most serious terrorist act ever carried out on US soil. A watershed moment in world history, the morning of September 11th, 2001 will forever be ingrained in the American national psyche. From a political, social and economic perspective, the hijackings of 9/11 were unparalleled in scope and sheer devastation. In a fascinating article entitled "Measuring the Effects of the September 11 Attack on New York City”, it was estimated that the direct cost of the attack stood at between $33 billion and $36 billion to the city of New York (Bram, Orr & Rappaport 55). In addition to the direct economic costs associated with terrorism and the threat of further terrorism, 9/11 also had important political ramifications. The USA Patriot Act of 2001 (a contrived acronym meaning Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) was established in the aftermath of September 11th to protect Americans from the threat of future terror on American soil. Controversial from the outset, the Patriot Act represented a serious departure from established legal norms and prior American jurisprudence with respect to privacy legislation (ACLU 2008). Created under the pretense of securing the United States against the threat of terror in the wake of 9/11, the Patriot Act of 2001 significantly strengthened the scope of powers afforded to law enforcement agencies while redefining the term terrorism to include domestic terror, i.e. homegrown terror perpetrated by American citizens. This Act increased the powers of law enforcement agencies to gain access to previously protected forms of communication include telephone conversations, email, financial, medical, business and another private recorder. Additional powers relate to the surveillance and detention of immigrants and broad powers of detention are given to law enforcement agencies with respect to immigrants in the United States. Major criticisms of the USA Patriot act are leveled at the fact that this particular piece of legislation tramples over civil liberties and represents an affront to traditional protections offered by American jurisprudence. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a total of six constitutional amendments are abrogated by this controversial law. They are, in ascending order: 1) First Amendment Freedom of religion, speech, assembly and the press. 2) Fourth Amendment Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. 3) Fifth Amendment No person to be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. 4) Sixth Amendment Right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury, right to be informed of the facts of the accusation and right to confront witnesses and have the assistance of counsel. 5) Eighth Amendment No excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishment shall be imposed. 6) Fourteenth Amendment All persons (citizens and non-citizens) within the US are entitled to due process and the equal protection of the laws (ACLU 2008). While the Patriot Act may, in fact, erode the concept of privacy in the United States, in particular with respect to both the First and Fourth Amendments of the US Constitution, what were the precursors to this controversial Act of Congress? Why the Patriot Act? In the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11th, this law was created to deal with the perceived threats posed to American society by terrorists, both at home and abroad. Quite similar to AEDPA (Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act), the Patriot Act was enacted after a major terrorist act on US soil and represented a significant departure from almost all previous jurisprudence and American legal precedent. As with the AEDPA, the Patriot Act significantly reduced the rights of Americans and subsequently faced a plethora of legal challenges. Supporters of the Act argue that circumstances have changed in the post-9/11 period and that restriction of the rights of Americans are necessary in order to safeguard the security of the nation. As we shall see, these arguments are fallacious and Patriot Act represents a wholesale attack on the basic tenants of privacy in the United States of America. The Patriot Act and the Erosion of American Rights Warrant-less wiretapping by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been a contentious issue of late, particularly since 9/11 and the passing of the Patriot Act. Foreign intelligence surveillance has always been on the minds of the FBI and other global security organizations but the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) of 1978 protected communication involving American citizens. After the passage of this bill more than three decades ago, a warrant was required for the interception of international communication by American citizens. With the passage of the Patriot Act, the NSA (National Security Agency) no longer requires a warrant to intercept personal correspondence (phone calls and email) both within the United States as well as abroad. Even more controversially, the major telecommunications companies in the United States (AT&T, MCI, and Verizon) entered into contracts with the FBI for the purpose of releasing private correspondence of American citizens to this intelligence body. For their due diligence in helping trample over the 1st Amendment, these telecom giants were awarded compensation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. By granting the FBI the right to spy without court approval, the Patriot Act ignores important pre-existing privacy legislation and important legal precedent. Accordingly, these major telecommunications companies are effectively colluding with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States government in carrying out illegal surveillance of the American public. Thus, this invasion of the personal privacy of Americans both at home and abroad by the FBI and the National Security Agency would not be possible without the collusion of the major telecommunications giants in the United States, companies which are being financially compensated for their willingness to abrogate the law (Kanstroom 18-23). Airline security became an important issue in the post 9/11 period and the creation of so-called “No-Fly Lists” and the Automated Targeting System represent two contentious issues in the surveillance-obsessed world and the fight against individual privacy Airport security remains an essential concern for travelers, airlines, international aviation bodies and governments around the world. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 brought home just how precarious the security situation at American airports has become and has led to a renewed focus and emphasis on the means through which airport security can be improved, particularly in the post 9/11 world. "No-Fly Lists" prohibit certain passengers from traveling to and from the United States and the Automated Targeting System was enacted by the Department of Homeland Security to secretly monitor millions. This personal information is then made available to organizations at the local, state and federal levels as well as to foreign security agencies. The collection of this information is at issue as well as the dissemination of peoples’ personal and private information. These concerns are especially relevant in a world in which arbitrary rendition is practiced with impunity (Gormely 2002; Landau and Chisholm 2002). Concluding Remarks The erosion of the privacy of Americans has occurred through the collision of a variety of actors including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Security Agency, the Bush Administration, Congress and major telecommunications companies in the United States. Although enshrined in the US Constitution, privacy is under assault from all ends. Wire-tapping, the “No-Fly Lists” and the Automated Targeting System represent an assault on individual privacy and each gained acceptance in the current climate of fear prevalent in the post-9/11 world. The most important way in which the privacy of the American public can be restored is through the complete overhaul of the Patriot Act of 2001. The erosion of the privacy in the United States represents one of the most substantial threats to our liberty. It must be fought judiciously. WORKS CITED American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “The US Patriot Act and Government Action that Threatens our Civil Liberties.” Retrieved July 22, 2009, http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/patriot%20act%20flyer.pdf Bram, J., Orr, J. and Rapaport, C. “Measuring the Effects of the September 11 Attack on New York City.” Economic Policy Review 8.2 (2002): 44-69. Gormley, W. T., Jr.. “Reflections on Terrorism and Public Management”, in Governance and Public Security, edited by A. Roberts, 1-16. New York: Campbell Public Affairs Institute, 2006. Kanstroom, D. Unlawful Combatants in the United States - Drawing the Fine Line between Law and War. Human Rights 30(2002): 18-25. Landau, M. and D. Chisholm. . The Arrogance of Failure: Notes on Failure-Avoidance Management. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 2.2 (1995): 221–27. US Courts (2008). New Antiterrorism Law Contains Habeas Reform and Victim Restitution. Retrieved July 22 2009, from http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/may96/terror.htm. Read More