Arguments Against The Fourth Amendment

Is it acceptable for the government to search if it has no reason to suspect a person has done something wrong? Today’s application of the Fourth Amendment would surprise those who drafted it and not just because they could not imagine technologies like the Internet and drones. In the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, policing consisted of citizen patrols or a loose collection of sheriffs and constables, who lacked the tools to maintain order as the police do today. That said, to determine if the right to privacy is a threat to our national security, I reviewed the Fourth Amendment, the government’s use of surveillance, and arguments for as well as against its use.
The Fourth Amendment provides that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. Its purpose to ensure each search or seizure be cleared in advance by a judge and that to get a warrant the government must show “probable cause”, a certain level of suspicion of criminal activity, to justify the search or seizure.
Nowadays, surveillance technology, like airport security, is used to deter crimes and detect
criminals. We accept that it is okay for the government to screen people getting on airplanes, even though the idea is as much to deter people from bringing weapons as it is to catch them because there is no “cause,” probable or otherwise, to think anyone has done anything wrong. And the same holds true with regard to the use of closed circuit television (CCTV) to monitor traffic or license plate-reading cameras to reduce crime. But when we use technology at home or in private, the idea of the government monitoring our usage seems intrusive. Because it is done in secret and, as such, we are unaware the government is scrutinizing our intellectual activities, including potentially the people we call, the web sites we visit, and even the terms we enter into a search engine. Though we value national security and expect our government to protect us against censorship, cyber wars, and terrorism, we are unhappy if gaining that protection involves sacrificing too much of our Fourth Amendment right to personal privacy. Since we allow or, at least, tolerate service providers like Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, etc. use of our data, to target us for marketing purposes, the same rules should apply to the government’s use for the sake of national security, right?
On June 18, 2013, ABC News reported that General Keith B.
Alexander, then director of the National Security Agency (NSA), told Congress more than 50 potential terrorist attacks had been thwarted by two controversial programs tracking more than a billion phone calls and vast swaths of Internet data each day. Additionally, the attacks on would-be targets such as the New York Stock Exchange were prevented by consuming telephone and Internet information from millions of Americans since September 11, 2001. In testimony, General Alexander said, "In recent years, these programs, together with other intelligence, have protected the U.S and our allies from terrorist threats across the globe to include helping prevent the potential terrorist events over 50 times since
9/11."
Opponents, like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), believe that secret surveillance will fundamentally change the way we live in our democracy because when people think the government is or might be watching them, they become reluctant to exercise democratic freedoms. For instance, they may be discouraged from visiting officially disfavored Web sites, joining controversial political groups, attending political rallies, or criticizing government policy. Many fear the effect of secret surveillance could make our public debates narrower and more inhibited and our democracy less vital or that the government will use information to undermine democracy like to blackmail, harass, or embarrass. According to the ACLU, the government’s collection of sensitive information is itself an invasion of privacy. “But its use of this data is also rife with abuse. Innocuous data is fed into bloated watchlists, with severe consequences—innocent individuals have found themselves unable to board planes, barred from certain types of jobs, shut out of their bank accounts, and repeatedly questioned by authorities. Once information is in the government’s hands, it can be shared widely and retained for years, and the rules about access and use can be changed entirely in secret without the public ever knowing.”
While technology has enhanced our lives, it is extremely vulnerable to cyber attacks and other acts of terrorism. Since one of the primary responsibilities of the government is to protect its citizens and resources against the threat of terrorism, it has implemented several surveillance measures to gather information. Without these defensive measures to improve national security, offensive actions against terrorists would not be possible. Even though there are concerns over the government’s ability to “snoop” into the private lives of its citizens, there is no steadfast proof that it has or will. The Fourth Amendment is meant to protect the right of the people to be secure, so the government should be able to adapt it to current day and do what is needed to keep us safe.