Introduction
Currently, a substantive study of the implementation and protection of the right to privacy in the US has shown that it is subject to numerous violations and restrictions. The practical civil law protection of this right is not sufficiently effective. It is due to the historical tradition and a relatively insignificant period of legislative recognition of the law in question in the US. In addition, the lack of a unified approach to considering the complex concept of the right to privacy and the natural vulnerability of the private sphere are the facilitators of the issue. The introduction of restrictions for public security, shortcomings, and gaps of the American legislation in this area leads to the lack of a relevant theoretical base and judicial practice of protection of this right. The combination of the increased public distress with terrorist acts and legislative abuse causes heavy civic monitoring. Due to this fact, the U.S. government uses a variety of surveillance methods to invade the privacy of citizens.
Surveillance
It is highly important to identify the monitoring tools and the legislative instruments allowing the privacy invasion to happen. At present, information about many citizens is contained in at least six databases: the passport system, databases of tax authorities, lists of social and medical welfare agencies, education, and lists of election commissions (Lippert and Walby, p. 331). In addition, there are data from the census, databases of military service citizens and motorists, and others. Today, the concept of privacy on the Internet has long become an anachronism. By tracking the history of visits to web pages, browsers, and its derivatives, anyone can determine the person’s addictions, interests, or a terrorist attack preparation. It also allows the possibility of determining the location of a person on calls from a mobile phone.
Prism and ICREACH
The Prism data collection and ICREACH search engine database contain billions of metadata records relating to private communication sessions of foreign nationals and millions of documents about US citizens for which no charges have been brought. The metadata that the search engine gives you access to includes phone numbers, unique SIM card numbers, and email addresses. Prism information can be used to track the movements of people, compile a list of their friends, relatives, and acquaintances, predict future actions, find out their religious affiliation and political preferences. Using unique pointers, system users can search for information related to specific people. For example, a list of telephone numbers for which a certain person called in the last month (Passini, p. 548). The system has the simplest interface with a search line and displays the results on a separate page.
The test launch took place in 2007 under the leadership of former NSA director Keith Alexander. The annual maintenance budget was determined in the range of $ 2.5-4.5 million. However, it is assumed that ultimately, the NSA managed to overfulfill the plan and collect over 850 billion metadata records, which were mentioned initially. The 2010 report reported that ICREACH had become the main tool for data exchange among the special services (Passini, p. 541). In addition to the security forces of the United States, access to ICREACH had the partner countries in the Five Eyes group: Canada, UK, New Zealand, and Australia.
Media monitoring and MAINWAY
Internet monitoring and MAINWAY are surveillance tools used to scan and analyze the private information of citizens. Internet monitoring allows for tracking website history, webpages, and browsers. MAINWAY is an instrument, which is used to collect and form a database of all phone calls conducted in the USA. Both of these surveillance tools allow having access to unprotected and private data of US citizens.
Legislative basis
There is a diversity of approaches to the understanding of the mechanism for the implementation of human rights. Most scientists in this concept include the process of its practical application, a system of guarantees, and the conditions and factors affecting this mechanism (Stoycheff et al, p., 617). It is important to clarify that privacy belongs to personal human rights. Therefore, a person deliberately does not commit voluntary actions that are directly aimed at the exercise of the given right, since he/she is the bearer of this good, enshrined in the law.
First Amendment
The First Amendment is one of the most important amendments in the US Constitution, which guarantees the rights that are considered to be inalienable attributes of liberal democracy. It includes freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the press, the right to assemble and appeal to the government peacefully. It is an essential part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment, ratified in 1791, was intended to reassure those citizens who were alarmed by the possible prospect of a strong central government (Simon, p. 4). In the XX century. The Supreme Court, referring to the formulation of the due process rule contained in the Fourteenth Amendment, indicated that the freedoms declared by the First Amendment are also protected from infringement by state authorities. Thus, it ensures that surveillance cannot hinder or diminish the freedom of American citizens.
Fourth Amendment
The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights allows US citizens to possess the certainty that their protection and safety. It gives people the right to defend personal belonging, including information, properties, documents from unreasonable searches and confiscations (Simon 5). A sufficient basis should be provided beforehand, which must be backed with evidence and proof of its legality and plausibility. Both the 1st and 4th Amendments ensure citizens that nothing can diminish their freedom and right to privacy. Thus, mass surveillance instruments are at high risk of violating the law by not justifying data gathering and monitoring.
Privacy Invasion
Terrorism Monitoring
The Freedom Act takes into account that terrorists can use various methods of communication, encrypt, change SIM cards, and negotiate under fictitious names. In each of these cases, the order can only give a general description: the known name of the person, his nickname, the geography of his location, and the place of the rented apartment (Lippert and Walby, p. 349). In case of any general doubts about the legality of the observation, the judge may appoint an expert who is known for his accomplishments in the protection of the right to privacy. The expert, in turn, presents his conclusion, which either supports the requestor indicates its shortcomings. The term of the court order is limited. If the observation is carried out about a foreign organization or a foreign citizen, the warrant may be issued for one year.
Freedom Act
Moreover, the Freedom Act is a very voluminous document, containing in itself point changes of previously existing regulations. Due to the inclusion of various detailed refinements, a general attempt was made to create a background for the reform of special services. However, given that the representatives of the FBI and the National Security Agency themselves called for its early adoption, there is considerable doubt about the sincerity of the developers of the Act. Firstly, law enforcement agencies are not willing to reduce their powers in a period that can hardly be described as calm in terms of the activity of foreign intelligence services and destructive organizations. Secondly, the author of the Freedom Act was a congressman who introduced the Act of Patriotism to Parliament. It is unlikely that his views have changed drastically; therefore, political statements about the abuse of law enforcement are more plausible.
There were several attempts to restore privacy protection rights, therefore, some points of the Freedom Act deserve attention. It is necessary to recognize that the fight against terrorism becomes effective when the special services operate one step ahead (Gürses et al, p. 589). It allows to prevent terrorist acts, and not to react to the tragic events that have happened. By taking into account Internet technologies and activity in this segment of extremist organizations, it is difficult to achieve a meaningful result without certain control. Interference in private life is the inevitable effect of the expansion of the powers of law enforcement agencies to prevent criminal activity.
Patriot Act
The Patriot Act is a law passed by the US Congress and signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001. Due to this law, the powers of the special services in the field of anti-terrorism activities were significantly expanded. The effect of this law also extended to the financial sector (Passini, p. 539). The Minister of Finance received expanded powers to carry out regulatory activities and supervise commercial operations, especially those carried out by foreign private and legal entities.
The keynote of criticism of the new law is that it confers overly broad powers to the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of the state, put in place at their discretion and that such permits can be used against non-terrorist citizens simply to establish more thorough control over society to the detriment of constitutional rights and freedoms of US citizens. Against the backdrop of massive use of the Internet and e-mail, critics of the law point out that the new law enforcement powers of operational monitoring of the Internet can be used to detect crimes and criminals (Passini, p. 537). It also allows to control information flows and unjustifiably invade citizens’ privacy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there are several ways for the government to conduct mass surveillance practices without acquiring citizens’ approval. The main instruments include ICREACH, Prism, MAINWAY, and media monitoring. Nevertheless, the 1st and 4th Amendments in the Bill of Rights ensure that the US citizens possess full rights to have the safety of freedom and privacy. It also mandates special forces to have a significant basis for the surveillance. Due to the rise of terrorism, the recent legislative measures, such as the Patriot Act and Freedom Act enables the government to be able to invade the citizen’s private life. These technological developments and jurisdictional permits allow the government to be exceedingly powerful without being responsible. It can lead to highly negative consequences for society, such as social distress. Therefore, the main solution would be to make mass surveillance procedures more targeted and specific, and less invasive. It can be achieved by using the Amendments in the Bill of Rights as significant legislative protection.
Works Cited
- Gürses, Seda, et al. “Crypto and Empire: The Contradictions of Counter-Surveillance Advocacy.” Media, Culture & Society, vol. 38, no. 4, 2016, pp. 576–590.
- Lippert, Randy K., and Kevin Walby. “Governing Through Privacy: Authoritarian Liberalism, Law, and Privacy Knowledge.” Law, Culture and the Humanities, vol. 12, no. 2, 2016, pp. 329–352.
- Passini, Stefano. “Freedom, Democracy, and Values: Perception of Freedom of Choice and Readiness to Protest.” Culture & Psychology, vol. 23, no. 4, 2017, pp. 534–550.
- Simon, William H. “Justice and Accountability: Activist Judging in the Light of Democratic Constitutionalism and Democratic Experimentalism.” Law, Culture and the Humanities, vol. 1, no. 1, 2016, pp. 2-6.
- Stoycheff, Elizabeth, et al. “Privacy and the Panopticon: Online Mass Surveillance’s Deterrence and Chilling Effects.” New Media & Society, vol. 21, no. 3, 2019, pp. 602–619.