Question

The USA PATRIOT Act was enacted in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The act allows law enforcement officials to listen to phone conversations or view emails to investigate a potential threat of terrorism. Some believe this power is an invasion of privacy, especially when the country is not in a heightened state of security.

There is a tremendous amount of debate over whether the USA PATRIOT Act and similar laws should be effective only when the country is in a heightened state of terrorism alert.

• How well does the USA Patriot Act balance the interests of law enforcement versus individual rights to free speech and privacy. Does the terrorism threat level affect your views? Explain and give examples where appropriate.
• Perform a web search to identify a law or regulation meant to protect against terrorism or similar security threats in a country other than the U.S. How does this law or regulation affect individual free speech or privacy when using a phone, sending e-mails, or surfing the web? Do you think this is appropriate? Explain.

Answer 1

The USA PATRIOT Act national security strives for national security. However, the individuals' rights, privacy, free speech, anonymity, confidentiality, simply put, in a way, their security is jeopardized. The act does not balance it.

Yes, the terrorism threat level does affect my views. In fact, such a law should not be enacted in any country. The act does totally invade people's privacy, especially when the country is not in a heightened state of security.

However, no one cannot know when and where a terrorist attack could be, who would be indulging in such attacks, expect the attackers themselves would know it. This does not mean, any government should doubt everyone in the country. It is the matter of one's actions, and it can definitely be known only when they have done it, not likely before that. However, yes, potential attacks and actions can be detected and doubted of certain people doing it, but there is a way how to do it. Certainly, this is not the way how it should be done. If the act allows law enforcement officials to listen to phone conversations or view emails to investigate a potential threat of terrorism, then it must do it to all 100% of its citizens or any and everyone (citizens of other countries living in the US). Or, simply do not tap wires, monitor emails, do surveillances on anybody. The US government should figure out other ways to find out the culprits. In order to catch only a few potential attackers or culprits, the government would simply be compromising millions of people's privacy, rights, and free speech.

What the act can bring into effect, is to scan or monitor the operations, activities, jobs in people's life to detect and determine "only" those bad, illegal, and criminal activities, upon confirmed pieces of evidence and proofs of they indulging in such actions, and based on that, investigate them accordingly. The way, how this security can be implemented in general, is by either, stopping the attacks from arising at the "start" point, uprooting it, or go secure the systems, nation, or people who are at the "end" point.

There are many examples of false negatives and false positives. The act, not only would doubt innocent people for any potential threats, but also, on the other hand, can or may fail to determine the actual attacker, terrorist, criminal, or a culprit. There should have been many such cases proving both, already in the US by now.

In India, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA) and its updated law- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act (UAPA) were enacted with the intention and goal to strengthen the nation's anti-terrorism operations.

The law or regulation does not affect individual free speech or privacy when using a phone, sending e-mails, or surfing the web. Yes, it is appropriate. The systems, technologies, and security personnel used are only for physical scanning, and monitoring of only the suspicious activities, events, or incidents based on confirmed and verified threats. To make sure discretionary powers that were granted to the investigating agencies, officers, and other security personnel and departments, were not misused and human rights (privacy, free speech, etc) violations were not committed, and specific safeguards and protection

The act is appropriate, as it not only safeguards the nation and its citizens, but also does not affect people's rights, privacy, and their other operations, activities, etc.