In the ACLU vs. Clapper case, Judge Pauley ruled that it is constitutional to track the phone calls of the people living in the United States. Constitutional issues and principles relevant to this case are the people’s civil liberties and their right to privacy. The program of collecting phone data, launched by the U.S. government, collects information from all people within the state. Pauley’s conclusions suggest that the Fourth Amendment’s protection of phone data privacy is questionable.
Pauley’s ruling is based on weighing the benefits of the national phone data collection program and potential harm from it. Pauley justifies his ruling by arguing that “while Americans depend on technology for the convenience,” Al-Quaeda used this technology against the people (“U.S. District Judge Pauley’s ruling in ACLU vs. Clapper.,” n.d., para. 1). Before the attacks on 11th of September, the analysts working for the National Security Agency (NSA) were able to track phone calls from one of Al-Quaeda’s members. However, “the NSA analysts concluded mistakenly that al-Mihdar was overseas” (“U.S. District Judge Pauley’s ruling,” n.d., para. 2). Therefore, they thought that the terrorists are not a threat to national security when, in reality, al-Mihdar was in the United States and planned a terrorist attack. Moreover, most people voluntarily provide their data to transnational corporations. Hence, considering the potential benefit from this program, it should the NSA should use it.
Based on this commentary, one can conclude that in this ruling, the judge compared the potential of preventing future terrorist attacks and individuals’ rights for privacy. Considering the terror of September 11th, he concluded that it should be legal if phone tracking can prevent similar events. In summary, Judge Pauley’s ruling makes federal phone tracking legal based on the idea that such tracking would prevent the September 11th attacks.
Reference
U.S. District Judge Pauley’s ruling in ACLU vs. Clapper. (n.d.). Web.