We are rapidly entering the era of no privacy, where everyone is open to surveillance at any time; where there are no secrets from the government. When people fear surveillance, whether it exists or not, they are afraid to freely speak their minds and thoughts to their government or anyone else. Fundamental constitutional rights that once protected even the most fragile and weak are now being eroded in the name of the “war on terror.” But is this really a war on terror, or is it a war being waged against the people of the United States of America by their own government? If anyone respects the fundamental principles of this great nation, they will not allow any government to destroy their constitutional freedoms. We have fought many wars abroad and sacrificed thousands of our men in order to “make the world safe for democracy.” As Americans, it is now our duty to make our country safe for democracy. In one of the most revered documents in American history, the Declaration of Independence, there is a clause which states "that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these purposes, the people have the right to modify or abolish it. The people of this great nation should not fear the government, for it is by fearing the government that our ideas and our protests are suppressed. However, it is our duty to modify and limit the government's ability to exercise surveillance over the American people. To quote the great statesman Thomas Jefferson, “When the people fear government, it is tyranny.” When the government is afraid of the people, there is freedom. » Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on "Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned"? Get the original essay After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress and the president passed legislation aimed at strengthen the community’s intelligence-gathering capacity. to combat domestic terrorism. Titled the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" (USA Patriot Act), the provisions of the legislation were intended to increase the ability of law enforcement to search electronic and telephone communications in plus medical and financial information. , and the library archives. (Bamford, 2002) One provision, Section 215, allows law enforcement to access stored voice messages by obtaining a basic search warrant rather than a surveillance warrant. Obtaining a basic search warrant requires much less evidence, essentially allowing the government to conduct surveillance work at any level with few or no limitations. A highly controversial provision of the law allows law enforcement to use “stealth warrants.” A stealth warrant is one in which law enforcement can delay notifying the owner that the warrant has been issued. In a federal district court case in Oregon that attracted national attention, Judge Ann Aiken struck down the use of stealth warrants, calling it unconstitutional and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Slobogin, 2007) The Patriot Act also expanded the practice of using National Security Letters (NSL). An NSL is an administrative subpoena that requires certain individuals, groups, organizations, or businesses to provide records about certain individuals. TheseDocuments typically involve telephone, electronic and financial records. NSLs are also subject to an order of silence, meaning that the person(s) responsible for complying with them cannot mention the existence of the NSL. Under provisions of the Patriot Act, law enforcement may use NSLs when investigating U.S. citizens, even if law enforcement does not believe that the individual being investigated committed a crime. The Department of Homeland Security has used NSLs frequently since its inception. When using an NSL, an agency has no responsibility to first obtain a warrant or court order before conducting its records search. As we can see, many of the provisions stipulated in the Patriot Act leave a lot of room for possible corruption or abuse of surveillance tactics. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America provides: "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be infringed, and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people's rights to privacy and liberty from arbitrary government intrusions. However, there is a very relevant and important moment in American history where we can see a clear violation of this constitutional freedom: it was during J. Edgar Hoover's tenure as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). ). Logically, our government's ability to gather, preserve, and share information about its citizens has grown exponentially since the days when J. Edgar Hoover collected files on political leaders and activists to increase his own power and its influence on American politics. Nevertheless, Hoover used means of his time that were both illegal and violated the constitutional principles expressed in the Fourth Amendment. Just as the muckrakers did nearly a century ago, a handful of activists have taken it upon themselves to expose the chilling truths about the FBI's operations. On March 8, 1971, they broke into the FBI field office in Media, Pennsylvania, and left with numerous incriminating documents. Over the next few months, they began publishing what they learned in several newspapers across the country. The program they exposed was called COINTELPRO (short for “counterespionage program”), known today as the most nefarious of the many notorious covert operations authorized by Hoover. Under COINTELPRO, federal agents engaged in a stunning range of abuses, not only in large-scale surveillance of law-abiding U.S. citizens, but also in “active disruption efforts against political organizations and activist leaders.” (Theoharis & Cox, 1988) Perhaps most famous was the FBI's wiretapping of Martin Luther King's hotel rooms, an attempt that captured King in various sexually compromising situations. When the press refused to publish the sexual stories, the FBI sent King an anonymous note urging him to abandon politics and potentially commit suicide. “You are done,” the letter declared. “There is only one way out for you.” (Theoharis & Cox, 1988) It was also revealed that Hoover kept files on almost every prominent figure in American politics, including Eleanor Roosevelt, John andRobert Kennedy, as well as Attorney General Harlan Stone and Homer Cummings. (Theoharis & Cox, 1988) In 1925, Hoover began secretly maintaining an "obscene file" in the FBI laboratory and two other files in his office that were separate from the FBI's central records system and which recorded accounts of sexual activities and harm. personal information about dissident activists, prominent leaders and figures, even presidents and first ladies. Many of Hoover's actions were motivated by his own ambitions rather than national security interests. In addition, Hoover had his aides keep "brief notes" on members of Congress, reporting their "subversive activities" and "immoral conduct." He will later use this information at his convenience and obtain political favors. Hoover also had his aides create office files in which memoranda titled “Do Not File” detailed illegal break-ins committed by agents authorized by Hoover. These “files” were also kept separate from the Bureau's central archives and were regularly destroyed. (Theoharis & Cox, 1988) Having historical context on what can happen if surveillance is not regulated is very important in decision making today. If J. Edgar Hoover were capable of accomplishing all of these remarkable feats of blackmail and surveillance, one can only imagine what someone as cynical as Hoover could do today. Hoover is the very definition of why we should regulate the government's surveillance capabilities. Throughout history, a question has increasingly arisen in American society: where should we draw the line between national security and intrusion into the lives of individuals? individuals? In America's greatness, we have reached a tipping point. The power of the federal government has grown exponentially, not only in terms of spending, but also in terms of its reach and involvement in the daily lives of average citizens. The government interferes in virtually every aspect of our daily lives, from the type of material taught in schools to the fuel mix we put in our cars to the type of light bulb we can use. The monumental degree of U.S. government surveillance of Americans' phone records has been laid bare by Edward Snowden's leaked documents, the first concrete evidence of a massive data collection program aimed at fighting terrorism under the powers-that-be. granted by Congress in the American Patriot Act. The aggressive nature of the National Security Agency's program represents an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of Americans. To understand the extent to which the government carries out surveillance, we must first analyze the data exposed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. One of the most controversial programs, XKeyscore, gives analysts the ability to easily search the staggering amount of Internet data collected and stored every day by the NSA. Using XKeyscore, an NSA analyst can simply enter a "target's" email address or IP address and access their emails, search history, visited websites, and even discussions on Facebook. XKeyscore also has the ability to analyze HTTP data, allowing it to see "almost everything a typical user does on the Internet." (Bamford, 2002) Snowden boasts that he "had the power to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant to a..”