A Brief Rant

***Warning: reading or commenting on this post may result in a bunch of FBI guys showing up at your house with a warrant they don't have to tell you about, that you therefore can't complain about.***

I had to write a paper for my "Management Applications of Information Technology" class; something dealing with IT & ethics. I opted to write about the USA PATRIOT Act & the ethical dilemmas it creates. It's a 7-page paper, so I don't want to post it all, but I'm proud of it & want to share the intro & conclusion with you:

Adopted by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787; the United States Constitution was established, “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, ” and today remains the oldest working federal constitution. The first ten amendments to the Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, protect the people’s rights by expressly limiting the powers of the government. Among the rights guaranteed are:

. . . freedom of speech . . . right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances . . . The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizure . . . [and assurance 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 .

Also described in the Bill of Rights are the rights to due process, trial by jury, and various rights afforded to individuals accused of crimes. The Bill of Rights was adopted because, “a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added ,” suggesting that our forefathers understood the need to regulate the power of government to prevent incursions upon the civil rights of the governed. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence states that the power of Governments is acquired through, “the Consent of the Governed,” and should be used to protect the rights bestowed upon them by their Creator, in the way that “seem[s] most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. ” Thomas Jefferson once said, “The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object, ” and indeed the role and responsibility of Government should be to protect and increase the rights of the people, never to eliminate rights they have already been guaranteed. The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) allows governmental agencies to unethically infringe upon individuals’ Constitutionally guaranteed rights, often using information technology to do so.

...[lots of facts to back up my assertion]...

Ultimately, the ethical dilemma presented by the USA PATRIOT Act is this: we live in an age of unequaled technology, which can be used for positive or negative effect. The USA PATRIOT Act allows our government to utilize this technology to monitor individuals’ actions for the specified purpose of combating terrorism. The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights exist to protect citizens from the misuse of governmental power and infringement upon their rights as individuals. In the struggle to protect citizens from acts of terrorism, those in power must weigh the need to protect the civil rights of both U.S. citizens and non-citizens. Questions must be raised regarding who is responsible for all aspects of data collection and usage; and how these individuals and organizations will be held accountable for their use of the data. When the data is incorrect, or is used wrongly, systems must be put in place to determine who is liable for the damage that may be caused. To quote David A. Keene, Chairman of the American Conservation Union, “the line should not be drawn at 'what is helpful for law enforcement,' but at what is needed to protect us while preserving the proper balance between preserving civil liberties and our nation's national security needs. " Ultimately, society must decide what uses of this information are ethical; however, when information is gathered and used without public knowledge, questions must be raised to determine if the ends justify the means. Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, ” and citizens who willingly allow their government to use information technology to trample the civil rights of others should not be surprised when they find their own freedoms at risk.

Feel free to comment, or write your Congresspeople, or research.