Governmental Warrantless Searches

            Following the attacks that occurred on the World Trade Center in 2001 were many new laws and regulations. One of the most prominent was the PATRIOT Act, a clever acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”. This congressional act gave the Federal Bureau of Investigation a multitude of new powers in the guise of combating terrorism. One such power granted to the FBI was their use of national security letters (NSLs) in Section 505 of the act for combating domestic terrorism. These letters “seek customer and consumer transaction information in national security investigations from communications providers, financial institutions and credit agencies” (Gorham-Oscilowski, Jaeger 2008) concerning individuals suspected of engaging in “foreign counterintelligence”. Issue with the NSLs are that they violate the Fourth Amendment.

           

            The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that people have the “right… to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures”. At the heart of the issue is the concept of individual privacy. Justice Louis Brandeis, in a dissenting opinion in Olmstead v. United States, states that “every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment” (Gorham-Oscilowski, Jaeger 2008). The problem arises out of the fact that NSLs are used even when the FBI has no concrete evidence indicating participation in terrorism. This type of eavesdropping is extremely detrimental to the freedom and well-being of American citizens, not to mention unconstitutional.

           

            Research on NSLs show that while Fourth Amendment supporters denounce it completely, Government claims that they are acting within the Constitution when conducting the surveillance. The problem Government must now face is that it has been proved of violating Fourth Amendment rights by the Supreme Court. In Doe v. Ashcroft, the court found that “the Fourth Amendment was violated by the absence of meaningful judicial review” (Sanchez, 2009) in a case where an internet service provider sued the government after receiving a request for an NSL.

             

            The debate concerning individual privacy is as hotly debated now as ever. Government proposes that their warrantless searches are justified in the fight against terror. Individuals feel that the Government is cutting corners on constitutional processes in order to find as many criminals as possible. We would like to believe that the Government is acting justly to protect us, but the reality of the matter is that they have been shown to engage in unconstitutional practices in order to fulfill their own agenda.

Sources

Gorham-Oscilowski, U., Jaeger, P. T. 2008.  “National Security Letters, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the Constitution: The tensions between national security and civil rights”. Government Information Quarterly, Volume 25, Issue 4, October 2008.

Sanchez, J. 2009. “Real Reform for the PATRIOT Act?”. Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10599&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoRecentOpeds+%28Cato+Recent+Op-eds%29

           

FCC Regulation: Net Neutrality

            The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should not adopt the proposed concept of net neutrality. Net neutrality, as described by Tony Lee, “essentially prevent companies that own the broadband infrastructure (of the internet) from interfering with applications and programs even if certain users disproportionately hog and clog the broadband networks and bandwidth.” This means companies like Yahoo and Google, who are considered Content and Application Providers (CAPs), cannot regulate programs such as Netflix or video-chatting programs that clog the internet’s bandwidth (Crocioni, 2011). Currently the CAP’s can alter a programs’ internet streaming capabilities to ensure internet access is not slowed down as a whole. The Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton responded to the neutrality proposal, saying “the FCC’s hostile actions toward innovation, investment and job creation cannot be allowed to stand” (Perine, 2011). Traffic management, as net neutrality supports, sounds like a good idea. In reality, it is just one of many steps government will take in trying to conquer the freedom of the internet.

           

          Over the past decade (2001-2009) the internet business has exploded from an $8 billion enterprise to a $42 billion giant, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. During these years the internet was regulatory-free. Proponents of net neutrality state that regulation would promote faster, more secure internet access for all individuals (Crocioni, 2011). Peter Suderman in his piece “Internet Cop”, however, asserts that “the internet best operates when the government leaves it alone.” Past efforts to expand and expedite the internet gave way to flocks of entrepreneurs looking to make money in the internet field. If regulation were to occur, the internet industry would lose jobs set up to streamline the internet to the government.

           

          The issue of freedom versus regulation of the internet gives way to biases on both sides. The government would like to see regulation fall into their hands because the FCC would grow in size to be able to handle regulatory concerns. Governmental regulatory jobs would increase tenfold. The government would also have control over what is accepted and rejected on the web. Proponents of internet freedom are biased in the sense that they currently use the unregulated internet. In today’s form the internet offers access to just about any site by any individual with a computer. Complete freedom in this magnitude is revered.

             

          The positions on the idea of net neutrality are distinctly drawn. The government proposes that regulation would streamline the internet and essentially clean it up. Proponents of a free internet hold true to the fact that while left on its own the internet has expanded greatly, offering thousands of people with ingenuous solutions to benefit. Internet regulation, net neutrality primarily, is a danger to the ideal of freedom. Internet creation and growth stemmed from people who simply wanted to make the internet better. Some aspects thrived while others died – a characteristic of our free-market economy. Net neutrality gives the government power over how the internet functions on a data-level position. If this ideal were to be supported it would undoubtedly lead to more regulation and censorship by the government, not freedom.

References

Crocioni, Pietro, “Net Neutrality in Europe: Desperately seeking a market failure”,                    Telecommunications policy, Vol 35., Issue 1, February 2011, pages 1-11

Lee, Tony, “FCC: ‘Regulatory Vigilante”, Human Events Online News, January 3, 2011, http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf25_26/pdf/2011/

Perine, Keith, “Top Issues for 2011: Net Neutrality”, CQ Weekly, January 10, 2011, pg. 102, http://library.cqpress.com/cqweekly/document.php?id=weeklyreport112-000003792323&type=toc&num=61&

Suderman, Peter, “Internet Cop”, Internet Freedom Coalition,  http://www.internetfreedomcoalition.com/?p=1690#more-1690