We are rapidly entering the age of privacy, where everyone is open to surveillance at all times; where there are no secrets from the government. When people fear surveillance, whether it exists or not, they are afraid to freely express their minds and hearts to their government or anyone else. Fundamental constitutional rights that once protected even the weak and powerless are now being eroded in the name of fighting the “war on terrorism”. But is this really a war on terrorism or a war waged against the people of the United States of America by their own government? If anyone has any respect for the very founding principles of this great nation, they will not allow a government to destroy their constitutional freedoms. We have fought numerous wars abroad and sacrificed thousands of our men to “make the world safe for democracy.” As Americans, it is now our duty to make our nation safe for democracy. In one of the most adulated documents in American history, the Declaration of Independence, there is a clause that states “that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.” The people of this great nation should not fear the government, because it is by fearing the government that our ideas and protests are repressed. However, it is our duty to change and limit the capabilities the government has to carry out surveillance on the American people. To quote the great statesman Thomas Jefferson, “When people fear government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is freedom." Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Congress and the President enacted legislation to strengthen the community's ability to gather intelligence to combat domestic terrorism. Entitled “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing the Proper Tools Needed to Intercept and Thwart Terrorism” of 2001 (USA Patriot Act), the legislation's provisions aimed to increase law enforcement's ability to search email and communications telephone numbers as well as medical and financial information. and library documents. (Bamford, 2002) One provision, Section 215, allows law enforcement to gain access to archived voicemails by obtaining a basic search warrant rather than a surveillance warrant. Obtaining a basic search warrant requires a much lower evidentiary showing which essentially allows the government to carry out surveillance work at any level with few or no limitations. A highly controversial provision of the law provides permission for law enforcement to use “intercept warrants.” A sneak-and-peak warrant is a warrant in which law enforcement can delay notifying the property owner that the warrant has been issued. In a federal district court case in Oregon that attracted national attention, Judge Ann Aiken ruled the use of wiretap warrants unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Slobogin, 2007) The Patriot Act also expanded the practice of using National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is an administrative subpoena requiring certain persons, groups, organizations, or companies to provide documents about certain individuals. These documents typically involve telephone, email, and financial records. NSLs also include a gag order, i.ethe person or persons responsible for compliance cannot mention the existence of the NSL. Under provisions of the Patriot Act, law enforcement may use NSLs when investigating U.S. citizens, even when law enforcement does not believe the individual under investigation has committed a crime. The Department of Homeland Security has used NSLs frequently since its inception. By using an NSL, an agency has no responsibility to first obtain a warrant or court order before conducting the records search. As we can see, many of the provisions in the Patriot Act leave a lot of room open for possible corruption or abuse of surveillance tactics. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America provides: "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrant shall be issued, except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." The ultimate goal of this provision is to protect people's right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary government intrusion. However, there is a very relevant and important time in American history where we can see a clear violation of this constitutional freedom and that is during J. Edgar Hoover's tenure as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Logically, our government's ability to collect, store, and share information about its citizens has grown exponentially since the days when J. Edgar Hoover collected files on political leaders and activists to increase his own power and influence in American politics. However, Hoover used means of his time that were illegal and violated the constitutional principles expressed in the Fourth Amendment. Just as muckrakers did nearly a century ago, a handful of activists took it upon themselves to reveal the terrifying truths surrounding the FBI's operations. On March 8, 1971, they broke into the FBI office in Media, Pennsylvania, and made off with volumes of incriminating documents. Over the next few months, they began publishing what they had learned in several newspapers across the country. The program they exposed was called COINTELPRO (short for “counterintelligence program”), known today as the most nefarious of the many infamous covert operations authorized by Hoover. Under COINTELPRO, federal agents engaged in an astonishing array of abuses, not only in widespread surveillance of law-abiding American citizens, but also in active “disruption efforts against political organizations and activist leaders.” (Theoharis & Cox, 1988) Perhaps most famous is the FBI's wiretap of Martin Luther King's hotel rooms, an effort that caught King in a variety of sexually compromising situations. When the press refused to publish the sex stories, the FBI sent King an anonymous note urging him to abandon politics and potentially commit suicide. “You are done,” the letter declared. “There is only one way out for you.” (Theoharis & Cox, 1988) It was also revealed that Hoover kept files on nearly every prominent figure in American politics, including Eleanor Roosevelt, John and Robert Kennedy, and Attorney Generals Harlan Stone and Homer Cummings. (Theoharis & Cox, 1988) In 1925, Hoover secretly began keeping an "obscene file" in the FBI laboratory and two other files in his office that were kept separate from the FBI's central recording system and that recorded reports of activities sexual and harm personal information about dissident activists, leaders and personalities ofprominent people, even presidents and first ladies. Many of Hoover's actions were motivated by his own ambitions rather than national security interests. Additionally, Hoover had his aides give "summary memoranda" on members of Congress, reporting on their "subversive activities" and "immoral conduct." He would later use this information as he pleased and obtain political favors. Hoover also had aides create office files in which memos labeled "Do Not File" detailed illegal intrusions by agents authorized by Hoover. These "dossiers" were also kept separate from the Office's central archives and were regularly destroyed. (Theoharis & Cox, 1988) Having a historical background on what can happen if surveillance is not regulated is very important in making any decision today. If J. Edgar Hoover had been able to accomplish all those extraordinary feats of blackmail and surveillance, one can only imagine what someone as cynical as Hoover might do today. Hoover is the very definition of why we should regulate government surveillance capabilities. Throughout history, a growing question has arisen in American society: Where do we draw the line between national security and intrusion into private lives? individuals? In America's greatness, we have reached a tipping point. The power of the federal government has grown exponentially, not only in spending, but in its reach and involvement in the daily lives of the average citizen. The government meddles in virtually every aspect of our daily lives, from the type of material we are taught in schools, to the fuel mix we put in our cars, to the type of light bulb we may use. The monumental level of US government surveillance of Americans' phone records was laid bare by documents leaked by Edward Snowden as the first hard evidence of a massive data collection program aimed at fighting terrorism under powers granted by Congress in the Patriot Act of the United States. The aggressive nature of the National Security Agency's program represents an unwarranted intrusion into the private lives of Americans. To understand the extent to which the government exercises surveillance, we must first analyze the data exposed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. One of the most controversial programs, XKeyscore, offers analysts the ability to easily search the incredible amount of Internet data collected and stored every day by the NSA. Using XKeyscore, an NSA analyst can simply type in a "target's" email address or IP address and access their emails, search history, websites visited, and even Facebook chats. XKeyscore also has the ability to analyze HTTP data and allows it to see "almost everything a typical user does on the Internet." (Bamford, 2002) Snowden boasts that he “had the authority to wiretap anyone, from you or your accountant, to a federal judge or even the president, if he had a personal email.” A second program known as PRISM uses extensive data mining efforts to gather information and analyze that data for “patterns of terrorism or other potential criminal activity.” “ (Bamford, 2002) A third government surveillance program, FASCIA, works by storing cell phone location data as it is passed along cables connecting different mobile networks. An NSA analyst sitting at a desk in Maryland can then search through this stored data to track the location of a specific phone user. This undermines our very principles of freedom and puts the government in a position where the people are..”