Ten years ago, the passage of the Patriot Act fundamentally changed the relationship between Americans and their government. No longer willing to demonstrate probable cause or reasonable suspicion before engaging in intrusive electronic surveillance, the government granted law enforcement agencies broad new power to collect Americans' private information in the name of counterterrorism. If only it stopped there, loosening the standards in place for over 200 years, it'd be alarming enough. But it didn't. Now the government is trying to collect even more electronic information about us, this time in the name of “cybersecurity.”
Our government persists in its misguided belief that the more information it collects, the safer we will be. But there is still no public evidence that the Patriot Act has been useful in thwarting terrorist attacks. So why exactly is law enforcement collecting such massive amounts of information on citizens and when will people stand up and demand an end to the erosion of their privacy?
Instead of feeling safer, many Americans feel like suspects. The government now has easy access to our most personal information — our bank records, our emails, our cell-phone location log, what we buy and what we read. These records can be, and we believe are routinely, handed over to law enforcement with little to no protections in place for our privacy.
The insatiable appetite of the national security state has only grown in the last decade. The Obama administration is proposing a broad new cybersecurity scheme that would allow communication providers to routinely turn over our information to the Department of Homeland Security. This new “information sharing” scheme would trump many privacy laws on the books. Congress may begin debating this proposal as soon as this fall, an opportunity for Americans to question elected officials and candidates for the coming election about where the proper boundaries for privacy should be.
As it stands now, the proposal is written so broadly that anyone who is the victim of a phishing scam or whose computer has been infected with a virus may land in Homeland Security databases. The proposal exempts not only email from privacy protections, but most sensitive data including financial and other online communication records. Every day, we live more and more of our lives online — shopping, balancing our virtual checkbook and communicating with friends, family and work colleagues. This proposal could very easily mean that our online medical records, bank statements and even Amazon purchases could be subject to government collection.
While combating cyber-terrorism is the government's responsibility, we must not — and need not — sacrifice our privacy rights in the process. We certainly shouldn’t do so when there is no evidence the information the government wants to collect is necessary to keep us safe. Our basic constitutional rights should not be so easily overridden.
The legacy of the Patriot Act and the post-9/11 surveillance laws that followed is the now systematic collection of information by our government on wide swaths of innocent people who are not suspected of breaking the law or being involved with terrorism. That legacy must end when Congress considers cybersecurity legislation. We cannot allow those in power to keep ratcheting up our national security laws while the laws governing our privacy remain unaltered. As members of Congress and the administration debate this proposal, for once, our privacy must be considered just as high a priority as our security.
After 9/11 Bush and his cronies rushed through the Patriot Act (2,000 plus pages or so) without giving Congress time to really read it. Of course, anyone who opposed the "Patriot Act" was assuredly not a patriot...right?
This Act was actually on the table in the mid-1990's and Congress would NOT approve it because it had many items in it that were unconstitutional and went against many elements of the 4th amendment.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/PAplndbefore.html
But as soon as 9/11 hit...tear off the cover of the 1996 Antiterrorism Act and call it the "Patriot Act" and send it through Congress late at night when no one really had the opportunity to read it. Yes, BOTH parties failed in their duty to the citizens because they "gave up liberty to get a little safety".
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=728
Maybe it is time that Congress actually READ IT and took out those provisions that take away our 4th amendment rights! If they won't defend our constitutional rights, then perhaps we should elect representatives that defend the rights of ALL citizens, regardless of political persuasion.
E Pluribus Unum...Out of many...ONE!
You're talking about people who think I'm the 1%, and not people who have millions of dollars like their leaders, and not the people who are taking away their rights.
They're betting the farm on easy targets, and ignoring the real causes.
There's no sense, no reason, where's hope coming from?
German history.
A very important article. Thank you, Michelle!
Also worth mentioning, when it was originally passed the Democrats hated it and fought tooth and nail when they couldn't prevent it. Time passed, and the Democrats had the power to stop it, while the Repubicans couldn't...and this time around, Republicans hated it, and Democrats passed it. Still doubt that it's just a one-party agenda with a two-party method of getting things done? Welcome to 1984.
No, this was a bi partisan effort.
126 democrats voted to extend the patriot act in the House.
Your numbers are off about the Senate. Only 9 democrats voted against it.
http://bungalowbillscw.blogspot.com/2011/02/senators-who-voted-to-extend-patriot.html
So it was bipartisan. I stand corrected about that. Both parties are thoroughly corrupt, as those votes show.
For example, if you are a Republican thinking about running for office and a dem despot takes office, they may just want to undermine your plans by knowing more about your campaign strategy. They can snoop on your and use that information to sabotage your plans. Too bad for you if this is accepted as "legal."
Or lets say some government employee wants to stalk an ex who broke up with them and spies on their email and phone calls. Too bad for the ex if this spying is accepted as legal and no judge has to approve a valid reason for government spying.
There is a reason why our Constitution prevents unreasonable searches and seizures and why BEFORE government thinks of invading someone's privacy, the Constitution requires a warrant from a judge agrees there is evidence that strongly suggests the person to be spied upon is doing something illegal.
And it could potentially snuff out a lot of online companies. Just think of the biggies -- Ebay, for example. Wow. How'd ya like to have to collect sales tax on the old vase ya got from Grandma? Or pay it? And what about all the money in online gambling?
I believe cash is/will be involved in this, if the government gets more involved in online behavior.