Reference no: EM131866934

Respond to the following discussions from classmates (X6) Write how you would respond to their discussions) with approximately 100 words or more each. Be thoughtful and insightful and it must demonstrate critical thinking and analysis.

1. The balance between national security and privacy rights is a topic that often has the population divided. To some the old adage "if you don't break the law you have nothing to fear/hide", while to others the shear thought of the violation to our rights given to us by our founding fathers is something that cannot be justified. Benjamin Franklin is quoted as saying "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. " a statement which is still a prevalent issue till this day. After the events of 9/11 our nation changed forever.

The creation of the department of homeland security (DHS) along with a massive overhaul to federal law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies. One massive change to the nation was the passing of the USA PATRIOT Act. Undoubtedly the most controversial part of the PATRIOT Act is title II "Enhanced Surveillance Procedures". This expansion of surveillance and intelligence gathering is one of the most difficult balancing acts to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. With terror cells operating inside the borders of the United States the ability to wiretap phones, track computer internet usage and gather intel can save lives and possibly prevent the next 9/11.

However, this is still an act that is done to an American citizen who should have protection from unreasonable searches covered in the 4th amendment. But this too raises the question of what constitutes "unreasonable". I personally am torn on this topic, I sit on the fence because I know too far in either direction would be incredibly dangerous for our country. I believe the standard of probable cause should always be followed in the case of intelligence gathering from US citizens.

2. The title chosen with the USA PATRIOT ACT that is most controversial is the new powers given by the constitution to the Department of Justice and the National Security Agency about the right of domestic and international surveillance of electronic communications.

Additionally, as Blum (2014) outlines, the new powers removed the legal barriers blocking law enforcement agencies from sharing information on coordinating and gathering efforts against potential terrorist threats creating controversies between citizens and the enforcement agencies.

The mentioned issue does not create a balance in national security and the privacy of individuals as there was a misuse of the law by the government agencies of collecting data about the millions of phone calls, emails and other means of communication.
National security and the American civil liberties is an issue that needs to be balanced. In accordance to Polelle (2016), policies that make the nation more secure needs to be visualised. The policies should be particularly geared towards gathering efforts against foreign threats.

Such kinds of policies do not undermine the liberty of the people by protecting the nation's defence. Additionally, priorities should be made to separate power between the three branches of the federal government. The provision of such arrangement provides the needed flexibility in ensuring security and the necessary restraint in safeguarding this interest. The constitution comes in place in ensuring that the three arms of government work accordingly and independently, hence reinforcing the blessings of liberty to individuals and American's prosperity at large.

3. Do We Still Need the Patriot Act? (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.

In 2001, in the weeks after Sept. 11, the law passed through Congress easily. But has it protected us? Defend your answer

Research the "going dark" issue posed by the FBI. Present a persuasive argument, either for or against, requiring communications providers to assist the government in their counterterrorism and intelligence gathering efforts by redesigning their technology so that it can be accessed by law enforcement with a court order.

4. I would argue against making it a requirement for communication providers to assist the government in their counterterrorism and intelligence gathering efforts by redesigning their technology so that it can be accessed by law enforcement with a court order.

If the government wanted to gather enough evidence to justify probable cause or anything else that would require a warrant, then they should pursue that avenue first. If other correspondence leads investigators to a point where they have to get a warrant for the personal device, so be it. Get a warrant and go through due process.

The last argument I will use is if the communication providers changed the technology so the phones could be accessed with a court order, who's to say that the court order isn't a rubber stamped order that can be obtained without proper justification? This is the kind of thinking that makes the public question the Intelligence Community's integrity.

5. Law enforcement agencies continue to struggle with having to ensure public safety and national security by obtaining electronic information and evidence without having to violate civil liberties, especially in the in the technological age (FBI, 2015).

Even with authorized warrants or court orders issued by a federal judge, law enforcement is unable to recover the content of electronic communications because of certain restrictions such as encryptions because the communications provider has designed those technologies in a way that they can't be accessed by any third party (FBI, 2015).

In my opinion, we all have an individual and collective responsibility to ensure our own protection as well as our countrymen's. I would use a utilitarian and consequentialist approach and allow communication providers to re-design their technology so they can assist the government in retrieving private information as long as law enforcement has a legal basis for such counterterrorism and intelligence efforts.

However, I think that if the customer has not or did not sign to agree with the terms and conditions of the communications provider regarding this necessary process or operation, then the government should respect that person's choices. I really believe in the saying "better safe than sorry", so if you have nothing to hide, you should not worry about the FBI spying on you. Also, it's more important to save the lives of people who may be at risk of a terrorist attack than to save one's own life for the sake of privacy.

6. I understand that everyone wants to feel secure in private environments, communications included, but I think there's a difference between privacy and investigation. I think the issue of "going dark" as it relates to investigations should be rectified.

As stated in the FBI testimony by Sally Yates, before digital communications can be monitored a request must be submitted to a federal district court judge who must be able to determine probable cause of a felony and "That alternative investigative procedures have failed, are unlikely to succeed, or are too dangerous; and that there is probable cause to believe that evidence of the felony will be obtained through the surveillance" (FBI, 2015).

Just like searching house or apartment, a warrant approved by a judge must be obtained first. The same applies to searching digital devices (not just current communications). If the search is being attempted, it's because there is probable cause and because a district judge believes that cause to be valid and that the search will provide valuable evidence.

The issue nowadays is with the advancements in technology even the providers of software and digital devices may not have access. In many cases only the end user has the digital authorization key required to enter the device and obtain the data. As seen in the San Bernadino shooting incident, the FBI was unable to access the data on the shooter's phone and even after obtaining a warrant Apple refused to comply (Selyukh, 2016).

That's pretty much the same as law enforcement officials legally receiving a warrant to search the home of the same shooter after the incident, but finding the door locked. With the shooter dead and key missing, they ask the manufacturer of the lock to provide a key so they can access the home to search for evidence and the manufacturer says no.

I couldn't imagine that hypothetical scenario unfolding. Luckily in that scenario the law enforcement officials could simply breach the door, but electronic devices aren't so simple anymore. My point is that if a warrant is obtained and substantiated by probably cause, then I think the search should be allowed and the manufacturer should comply.