Charlie Beeler Open Letter Assignment Compromises in Privacy Dear Reader, Recently the National Security Agency (N.S.

A), a powerful federal government agency responsible for information and intelligence in the United States has gotten a lot of press due to their alleged spying and keeping records of mass amounts of American citizens. When Edward Snowden, who some call a whistleblower, leaked the N.S.As files and showed the mass data collections of American citizens data Americans were outraged. Americans talked about how they had had their rights violated, specifically their 4th Amendment right regarding the protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. The mass data collection that was done by the N.S.A was both morally wrong and highly illegal according to some peoples interpretation of the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights. After the news broke out of the alleged N.S.A spying and data collection of American citizens personal and private information the N.S.A tried to justify its actions. The N.S.A said that their actions could prevent potential terrorist attacks and could in turn save lives. But regardless,watching over innocent American citizens personal data is wrong. However there is no need to get rid of the federal agency and with a modified system, it can be made right and used in a way where it does not violate the rights or invade the privacy of a majority of American citizens. In 2013 when Edward Snowden leaked that the N.S.A had been illegally snooping in upon Americans, Americans were very angry because of what they were hearing and what they understood from it. Spying and collecting data from American citizens is seen as wrong because

of how powerful the ability to watch over someone can be. As the N.S.A. defended their actions they talked about the benefits of the program where while collecting data without warrant it gave them the chance to prevent potential terrorist attacks. It was explained that the benefits could outweigh the costs, or is it worth sacrificing the constitutional rights of millions of Americans to potentially prevent these attacks. Just setting aside the violations of Americans constitutional rights does most definitely not outweigh the benefits from it. If the N.S.As actions dont really benefit the people like they say then why would it be worth it? According to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board on its address of the N.S.As acts the program has shown minimal value in safeguarding the nation from terrorism." ( Rai, 2013). If the N.S.As mass surveillance didnt yield any direct results to prevent potential terrorist threats then how can the surveillance possibly be justified? When the Patriot Act was instituted after the horrific events of September 11th, 2001. The act offered the United States federal government new powers and abilities, some of which look completely past Americans rights that were instituted to protect the United States people. The goal of the Patriot Act was to make sure that another attack like 9/11 would never happen again. In section 215 of the Patriot Act it states Sec. 215. Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act(Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress, 2001, p. 16) This gives federal agencies the power and ability to request any tangible information from a third party; this includes books, records, papers, documents, and other items (Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress, 2001, p. 16) according to the document. Under the document it describes how the surveillance program is used to prevent terrorist attacks and it definitely gives the potential to. The powers to retrieve any document from a source in a no questions asked

scenario gives federal government agencies such as the National Security Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation the ability to look in and watch over virtually anybody. The Patriot Act gives the United States federal government power that in the eyes of many seems too powerful and infringes on Americans rights. Section 215 of the Patriot Act is seen as a direct violation of the 4th amendment in the Bill of Rights which protects citizens from unreasonable and unwarranted searches and seizures. Section 215 grants federal government agencies the power to completely look past the 4th amendment and look at Americans personal and private data without a search warrant. For Americans this means all of their personal data such as hospital records, insurance information, and travel information etc. is available to the government and anytime. This should be worrisome for Americans because its a major violation of privacy and ones private information. For an everyday average American most would never even think of something such as this to be legal. However benefits of this do outweigh the cost of the violation if used by the N.S.A responsibly and with moderation. With a power such as the one given by section 215 of the Patriot Act it can very easily be abused and when abused it becomes illegal and unconstitutional because it is an unwarranted search. If the a group like the N.S.A or F.B.I did go by section 215 of the Patriot Act and retrieve phone records of someone who has criminal background and distant ties to terrorist organizations it is definitely justified, but doing so to mass groups of Americans with no probable cause is completely wrong and the cost of that would not outweigh the benefit of the act. When is violating ones constitutional amendment worth in terms where it can help them? The N.S.A still can do good and use the technology we have today to fight against terrorism and prevent potential attacks by monitoring certain people. The N.S.A has no right to

illegally collect data from any ordinary American citizen but if someone has reasonable suspicion (ie. prior arrests, suspicious activity, etc.) this could be of benefit to the N.S.A by still taking advantage of our connected world. According to Congressman Peter King "The reality is the NSA has saved thousands of lives, not just in the United States but also in France and Germany and throughout Europe. The French are some ones to talk; the fact is, they've carried out spying operations against the United States, both the government and industry. As far as Germany, that's where the Hamburg plot began, which led to 9/11. They've had dealings with Iran and Iraq, North Korea ..." (King, 2013) With this being said if N.S.A surveillance can be beneficial to not only the United States but the world, it should be taken advantage of with modified measures to still protect the rights of innocent American citizens. With a modified approach the benefits will outweigh the cost as the N.S.As surveillance. Illegal collection of data would not violate the 4th amendment rights of millions of innocent Americans with rights to their own privacy and constitutional protection from unreasonable searches and seizures without warrant. This modified system would have the N.S.A using technology to keep an eye over people who have demonstrated that they may pose a threat to this country via previous records, or criminal history and strong connections to people who may fall under this. Although it may go back to the point that it is violating their 4th amendment rights there is valid reason to further look upon these people as there is history and connections to people who may pose an actual threat to the United States of America opposed to just performing mass surveillance over the country. Constitutional rights are very important to Americans as that was what the country was founded upon and everyone deserves their right to privacy. The National Security Agencies actions of mass surveillance leaked by Edward Snowden were wrong, unjustifiable, and the

benefits did not outweigh the cost of sacrificing millions of Americans privacy. But with careful modifications on the process of the surveillance this now publicly criticised federal agency could be very helpful and beneficial to the safety of American citizens. When the government spies on American citizens it is wrong unless there is legitimate warrant for it and if in the end because of the surveillance the benefits of it outweigh the costs of it.