Over the last several years, cyber attacks have been continually rising. This is in response to emerging threats from rogue nations and terrorist groups. They are increasing their attacks on government, military and civilian installations. According to James Clapper (the Director of National Intelligence) these threats have become so severe. It is surpassing terrorism as the greatest challenge facing the nation. In response, the National Security Agency (NSA) began conducting surveillance on those who are involved in these activities and others which are threat to US national security interests. This program became so broad; it started continually collecting phone records and emails on ordinary Americans. This angered many, who felt that the US was acting in a way that circumvented established legal guidelines and procedures. To fully understand what is taking place requires focusing on the event, the government’s response and the ways it did / did not meet our national security goals. Together, these different elements will illustrate what occurred and the lasting impacts on everyone. (Greenwald 2014)

The NSA program on surveillance began in 2001. This is when Congress authorized government officials to listen in on the phone calls and emails of those individuals suspected of engaging in terrorist activities (via the USA Patriot Act). It is designed to ensure that the intelligence community and law enforcement have the tools they need to track / monitor those suspected of engaging in terrorism activities. The most notable include: enhancing domestic security against terrorism, improved surveillance, anti money laundering procedures, border security, removing obstacles for investigating terrorism, enhanced intelligence gathering and the ability to share information between various agencies. The combination of these factors is helping to identify and prevent terrorist related activities early. Over the course of time, the program was expanded to search a variety of keywords, phrases and conversations. The result is that the federal government began spying on ordinary Americans in order to achieve these larger objectives. (Greenwald 2014)

In response, the federal government justified these actions. They believe the program is effective in collecting critical information on those that are planning and conducting terrorist attacks. However, it became clear that they were circumventing the law by monitoring individuals who had nothing to do with terrorism or national security. This led to Congress allowing the program to continue with added checks and balances (via the Foreign Intelligence Courts). These are secret courts where officials can talk about the legality of these actions and avoiding the disclosure of classified information.

However, in 2013 Edward Snowden revealed that the programs was spying on ordinary people, allies and international leaders. This created controversy as to if the program went too far. He was seen as hero by many who felt that he was uncovering injustices that were occurring. A good example of this can be seen with insights from Greenwald (2014) who said, “None of the whistleblowers persecuted by the Obama administration as part of its unprecedented attack on whistleblowers has done any of that: not one of them. Nor have those who are responsible for these current disclosures. They could easily enrich themselves by selling those documents for huge sums of money to foreign intelligence services. They could seek to harm the US government by acting at the direction of a foreign adversary and covertly pass those secrets to them. They could gratuitously expose the identity of covert agents. None of the whistleblowers persecuted by the Obama administration as part of its unprecedented attack on whistleblowers has done any of that: not one of them. Nor have those who are responsible for these current disclosures. They did not act with any self-interest in mind. The opposite is true: they undertook great personal risk and sacrifice for one overarching reason: to make their fellow citizens aware of what their government is doing in the dark. Their objective is to educate, to democratize, to create accountability for those in power.” (Greenwald 2014) These insights are showing that Snowden is seen as hero who never secretly passed information to foreign governments. Instead, he chose to disclose the secret program to the world and suffer any consequences because of these actions.

The search and seizure requirements are covered by the Fourth Amendment. This states that the police must obtain a search warrant to go into the private residence of someone or their personal papers. During the process, law enforcement will present evidence to a judge demonstrating how a crime is occurring or was committed. This is based upon probable cause. Probable cause is a principle which states the officer must believe that a crime is taking place or just recently occurred. This allows them to present evidence showing how a warrant must be issued to enforce the law. The law specifically requires obtaining a warrant based upon probable cause. Previous case precedent has concluded that there are specific circumstances when the police do not need to have a warrant to conduct a search. These include: in motor vehicles, boats, when consent is given, the evidence is in plain sight, at the border and in extreme circumstances. (Stephens 2014)

In general, a warrant is necessary during times when the police believe that crime is about to or in the process of being committed. They have to present their evidence to a judge showing this. It is at this point, they will provide law enforcement with a written document allowing them to go into the property. This is to prevent the police from raiding anyone’s house or place of business based upon uncorroborated reports. Instead, they must demonstrate why they want to go into the location and how is it relevant to their investigation. (Stephens 2014)

After the September 11th terrorist attacks, the USA Patriot Act was passed. This is designed to ensure that the intelligence community and law enforcement have the tools they to track / monitor those suspected of engaging in terrorism activities. The most notable include: enhancing domestic security against terrorism, improved surveillance, anti money laundering procedures, border security, removing obstacles for investigating terrorism, enhanced intelligence gathering and the ability to share information between various agencies. This was designed to give agencies such as the NSA the ability to use information that was critical the nation’s security. (Ewing 2005)

Proponents will argue that the program is necessary to prevent possible abuses and future attacks. In many cases, they will cite how it has enables them to effectively track and prevent terrorist attacks before they occur. Moreover, many proponents will point to the fact that the law has been effective in preventing terrorist attacks from occurring. For instance, one of the most notable cases was the arrest of Jose Padilla in 2002. He is an American citizen who was planning on conducting a dirty bomb attack in downtown Chicago. The information from the Patriot Act provided officials with 123 different phone records indicating their plans. During his trial, this information was introduced as evidence to convict him and other members of his Al Qaeda based cell. This is significant, in showing how the law is leading to improved coordination between government agencies. These shifts are giving them the capacity to track and prevent attacks before they occur. (Cohen 2011)

Opponents will argue that the NSA’s Surveillance program is infringing upon the basic civil liberties of all Americans. They will claim that it gives the government the power to listen into the telephone calls, emails and text messages of anyone suspected of engaging in terrorism without a warrant. This means that officials could claim that someone is involved in these activities. Yet, the reality is they may have no proof or judicial oversight. They will argue that this is violation of the Fourth Amendment. This requires law enforcement, to demonstrate probable cause and evidence of a crime being committed, to ease drop on someone by obtaining a warrant from a judge. The problem is that it allows the government to circumvent these procedures in the name of terrorism and national security. (Woody 2006)

In the case of Edward Snowden, he worked for the National Security Agency (NSA) and released documents about how they collected information on millions of phone / Internet records on ordinary Americans. The NSA claimed that USA Patriot Act and the renewed provisions, gave them the authorization to do so. This is troubling, as many civil rights groups and proponents will argue how the law is allowing the government to go around the basic constitutional protections. (Greenwald 2014)

According to Marcovitz (2008), the law is allowing this to continually occur on a regular basis. In this case, she believes that the act in enabling law enforcement to utilize advanced techniques to collect and monitor data. The result is that the public can no longer feel confident about the safety of their privacy and personal information. The Snowden revelations are problematic, as they are highlighting how the law enables these practices to take place with little to no oversight. Over the course of time, this has the potential to undermine the constitutional protections everyone is entitled to under the law. As a result, they believe that the wireless surveillance program is subverting these provisions. The recent activities by the NSA; are a classic example of the way it is enabling them to spy on innocent people, who are not involved in terrorism. (Marcovitz 2008)

At the heart of these counter claims, is the process of having Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts (FISC) review the evidence and provide a warrant to officials. These were established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. It allows them to handle surveillance requests from the NSA and other law enforcement agencies when they are monitoring of foreign agents (who are operating inside the US). While at the same time, they listened to evidence presented on areas, which are considered to be sensitive to the nation’s national security. Under the USA Patriot Act, the law allows this to serve as a form of oversight for various government agencies. This is illustrating how there are proper checks and balances in place to prevent abuses by various entities. (Marcovitz 2008)

Moreover, the US Supreme Court found in Clapper vs. Amnesty International, that these procedures are considered to be legal. This is because they require the law enforcement and the intelligence community to establish probable cause in order to conduct any kind of electronic surveillance. In many ways, this is supporting the powers given to the federal government under the USA Patriot Act. As a result, the revelations of Edward Snowden are showing the challenges in protecting the nation’s security and respecting the right to privacy. The keys for success, depends on the way the information was collected and if there was proper oversight surrounding its use. (Stephens 2014)