Patriot Act Enhances Big Brother's Internet Presence

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 was passed soon after September 11, 2001, in an attempt to prevent subsequent terrorist acts. The act is a controversial issue because it requires U.S. citizens to sacrifice privacy and civil liberties for the sake of national security. Some feel that the sacrifices are necessary for preventing further attacks, and others feel that the act violates our constitutional rights and therefore the act should be repealed.

Because of all the controversy surrounding the USA PATRIOT Act, I would like to find out the rationale behind each side of the debate and to try to figure out whether or not the act is in violation of our constitutional rights. What are the actual limitations set out in the act? Are they worth sacrificing civil liberties?

My intended audience is anyone who is concerned about his or her civil liberties and anyone who is uneducated about the PATRIOT Act, and would like to know how he or she will be affected.

The USA PATRIOT Act (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) was passed with the intent of preventing terrorist crimes against Americans. It provides the US Government with more powers with the intent of reaching such ends. The act provides extensive government authority in the realm of the Internet. Countless pieces of information are passed over the Internet each day, and surely some of these e-mails, message board postings, instant messages, and such, may have something to do with terrorism. In the wake of 9/11, President Bush no doubt wanted to investigate such electronic communications to help in intelligence-gathering as a preventive measure against terrorism. The Department of Justice (2003) says that the act updates the law to reflect new technologies and, accordingly, new threats. It portrays the act as highly beneficial to the welfare of the public, providing an example of provisions giving hacking victims the ability to seek law enforcement officials to prevent such crimes. Many concerned citizens, interest groups, and legislative bodies do not see the act in such a positive light.

Those opposing the PATRIOT Act say the act's provisions violate citizens' civil liberties. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF [2001]), which states its mission as "Defending freedom in the digital world," says that the act unfairly takes aim at nonviolent, domestic computer crime, instead of fighting terrorism. The PATRIOT Act dramatically increases the penalties of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, doubling the previous sentences. The EFF sees the act as over-extensive legislation. Beware of what you enter into web searches such as Google, says the EFF(2001), because the government may now spy on Americans' computer activities. "Activities" includes things such as terms entered into search engines like Google or Yahoo. By telling a judge anywhere in the US that the spying could lead to information that is relevant to a criminal investigation, officials may have license to obtain such information. The prospect that the government could be watching what you are looking up on the internet is daunting.

The PATRIOT Act permits "tap and trace" orders for electronic communications, such as email, allowing the government to read and trace all electronic communications it believes could possibly be relevant to an investigation. It also allows for government access to stored email, and permits authorities to intercept communications to and from a trespasser within a computer system. This may cause some to think twice before sending sensitive information that might interest the US Government. The PATRIOT Act's new laws allow Internet service