The Patriot Act and Modern Government Surveillance
Is it okay to lie to somebody, or hurt somebody, if it will save many more people? Is it true that
the freedoms of one must sometimes be sacrificed for the safety of many? This is a timeless argument
that has been debated for quite a long time. It is also one of the main defenses for the Patriot Act. The
USA PATRIOT Act, an Act of Congress passed by the House of Representatives on October 24th, 2001
and signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26th, 2001 (Patriot Act, 2001), was created
in the wake of the September 11th terrorist attacks (ACLU, 2010). USA PATRIOT is an acronym
for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and
Obstruct Terrorism. The purpose of the act, as its name would imply, was to better enable government
agencies to prevent such attacks, as the one that happened at the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon
on September 11th, 2001. At the time of its passing, the country was in such a state of shock, that many
did not question the content of the act, as long as it would help to prevent future tragedies. However, as
time wore on, people began to question whether or not all the facets of the law were really necessary, or
even constitutional.
One of the major arguments against the Patriot Act is that it violates the fourth and first
amendments in several ways. Many of these violations come from Section 215, which refers to access
to records and other items under the Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA). This section of the
law violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution by eliminating the need for probable cause to
obtain records from third parties (ACLU, 2010). It also violates the First Amendment, by prohibiting
those parties from telling others about the search for those records (ACLU, 2010). Also, the law would
allow federal agencies to begin investigations based on a person exercising their freedom of speech,
once again violating the right guaranteed by the First Amendment (ACLU, 2010). Clearly, there are
many ethical dilemmas involved with the Patriot Act, and the surveillance of American citizens.
There are many ways to analyze any issue to determine the overall ethicality of it. From a
deontological standpoint, this is undoubtedly and unequivocally an unethical practice. Deontologists,
such as philosopher Immanuel Kant, believe that whether an idea or action is ethical depends entirely on
the inherent idea or action itself (Baase 2013). Therefore, the fact that the government is essentially
stripping the constitutional rights bestowed upon all citizens is unethical. Regardless of the reasons for
doing so, the idea of oppressing some citizens is unethical and just flat out wrong. However, if one was
to analyze this as a utilitarian, the ethicality becomes a little more complex. Utilitarianism is a
consequentialist theory, meaning that you cannot simply view the act or the idea to determine if it is just,
you must also examine the consequences of such an action or idea (Baase 2013). In the context of the
Patriot Act, the act of taking away certain freedoms, or suspending them, the consequence of potentially
making our country safe from future attacks could be deemed a worthy cause. It is a similar idea to
what Niccolo Machiavelli explained in Il Principe, that the ends justify the means when it comes to the
security of a state (Machiavelli, 1532). While this is not as black and white as the deontological view
point, it can be a very useful theory to apply, because despite its complexity, it allows for a greater
leniency in what may be considered ethical.
Another set of theories when it comes to breaking down an issue such as this, is the negative
rights theory and the positive rights theory. Negative rights theory refers to the liberties that a person is
born with (Baase 2013), the natural rights that a person is entitled to, and the same rights that were
spoken about the Declaration of Independence. In the view of a person’s negative rights, the Patriot Act
is a direct violation of those rights. People have the liberty to speak freely and to not be investigated by
any government agencies without probable cause. Once again, there is another, opposing theory to this.
Positive rights refer to the obligations that a person or body has (Baase 2013). For instance, our
government’s obligation to keep us safe, as well as ensure the safety of the country is a positive right
that we as citizens have. From this standpoint, the Patriot act is not only justifiable, but a necessary tool
of the government to enforce that obligation to the people.
When it comes down to the bare ideas of the issue at hand, the only people who should be
worrying about these changes in the law are criminals. Someone who has not committed any crimes
should not need to be worried about the FBI searching their home with a blank warrant, or tapping their
phone calls without probable cause. I suppose the thing that does tend to worry people is that the way
our legal system operates now is more to keep innocent people from being convicted, not as much to
convict guilty people. Therefore, too many changes to the way the justice departments in our country
operate might cause innocent people to be imprisoned due to information obtained by the tapping of
phones, or seizing of records and property without cause.
Ultimately, I believe that while at times the government should be able to take certain liberties
with the way it operates, the Patriot Act goes far beyond the bounds of what is just, and what is
constitutional. And by that logic alone this act is entirely unethical. While many people might argue
that the greater good is more important than the rights of a few individuals, the idea is that the
suspension of a few rights to a few people now, might lead to the suspension of many rights of many
people in the future. Another point to be made, I think, is that defending America is essentially
defending our way of life, not just our borders and buildings. So if in seeking to protect ourselves from
our enemies we gut the freedoms that define us as Americans then we have done to ourselves what no
rival could have.
Works Cited
Baase, Sara. 2013. A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computing Technology.
4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Print.
Patriot Act. 2001. "EPIC - USA PATRIOT Act (H.R. 3162)." EPIC - Electronic Privacy
Information Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.
<http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html>.
Machiavelli, Niccolo. 1532. Il Principe. Florence, Italy: Antonio Blado d'Asola., Print.
ACLU 2010, "Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act | American Civil Liberties Union."
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). N.p., 10 Dec. 2010. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.
<http://www.aclu.org/national-security/surveillance-under-usa-patriot-act>.