USA PATRIOT Act

USAPATRIOT Act

Securitydepartments have come up with new systems and policies that will beuseful in the fight against terror. The traditional, classified datastrategies have been transformed to adopt new ones that recognizeflexibility and decentralization of networks both in public andprivate sphere from the providers, specialists to the consumers. Theyhave also enacted measures that will maintain privacy and opennessand at the same time access vital information touching on nationalsecurity and terrorism. However, the security agencies have beenaffected by several factors and the policies and the legislationsenacted have resulted in societal implications and concerns that needto be addressed.

SocietalConsequences of Security Policies in the USA

Thecounterterrorism policies have led to criticism from civillibertarians and other social agencies. The critics are not only inthe USA but also in the other nations and raise concerns about the, domestic surveillance without a warrant,extraordinary renditions, cruel detentions and investigativepolicies. Furthermore, they question the creation of a prison camp atGuantanamo Bay, and the attempts by the government to restrict thecourt reviewing of such processes. It is evident that some of theActs enacted, and legislations by the administration on the waragainst terror pose a notable threat to individual rights and thegeneral daily behavior. The United States government has suspendedthe habeas corpus rights, illegalized the political opposition,placed several colored citizens in detention, and instructed thesecurity agencies to carry out campaigns to survey the critics whoare against war and to the extreme blacklisted individuals whoopposed the policies set by the federal government. The governmenthas also taken a stern action against the media.

The has raised contentious debates especially, when itcomes to the aspect of the unwarranted search and monitoring whichhas been a blow to daily activities. In fact, according to Title IIof the Act (Eichenwald, 2016), the government simply needs to certifythat a search is connected to terrorism and the judge will be leftwith no power to go against the order. The same title does notmandate the government to notify the searched parties before theincident and calls for the officials to keep the search confidential.In most cases that the searches have been carried out on theindividual property without their consent, the result has been atotal interruption of the daily activities.

Thestandard running of the financial institutions has also beenaffected. For instance, the banks are strictly censured and requiredto present financial reports for vast sums transactions to cut offfunding of terrorist groups.

Race,Ethnicity, Gender, Age and Religion about the Security Services

September11, 2001, the attack prompted the policymakers in the United Statessecurity services to create new and more innovative techniques tosafeguard the national security and the populations’ safety. Manyof the policies were selectively applicable mainly to thoseindividuals who are not natives of the United States. In theimmigration department particularly, the measures range fromdetention, intelligence collection, expanding the overall criteriaused to deport noncitizens, constricting their bureaucratic rights,making it much strict for them to obtain a visa and other foreignpapers, intensification of trepidations and the surveillance at theports entrances. Apparently, the above policies employ the concept ofprofiling (Johnson et al., 2011). Contextually, the term is used tomean that they selectively target particular individuals withspecific attributes and traits that they believe bear helpfulstatistical correspondences to given types of misbehavior andmisconduct- in this context involvement in terror activities.Profiling has been based on ethnic background, the nationality of theperson, moral stand, gender and the age bracket (Johnson et al.,2011). In practice, individuals who to the security agencies haveappeared to be of Arabic descent, from an Islamic background havebeen thoroughly screened at the borders and any security officials.The situation is even much worse when they are young and male. Thismove has raised questions among humanitarians on the rationality ofthe concept to counter terrorism and their legality. They are totallyagainst on the profiling ideology not only on terror matters but alsoin the domestic security.

Impactof Technology, Globalization and Balancing Human Rights with Security

Oneof the important effects of technology on the public safety is therise of cybercrime. Cybercrime is an offense area that has radicallyspread in the contemporary society. A large number of criminals areexploiting the advancement in technology, speed, and theaccessibility of the internet to venture into unlawful acts. The viceis not limited to physical and virtual boundaries and has alarminglyposed a threat to unsuspecting victims worldwide. The nature of thecyber offense is evolving every day (Leukfeldt, 2014). Initially, itwas mainly carried out by individuals or small sects. Currently,complex networks have been established to bring together people fromdifferent areas in actual time to commit criminal practices on anextraordinary scale.

Globalizationhas resulted to authoritative bodies with the universal bracket whichare attributed to illegal susceptibilities and the rise of violenceand continuing conflicts. This situation has been aggravated by themassive spread of knowledge, the dispersal of technologies and theuncontrolled movement of people. On the other hand, certain Actsprotect individual privacy which in some cases shields potentialcriminals from screening and searches.

Influenceof Terrorism on Security Structure

Oneof the areas that terror attacks have changed is the aspect ofsharing information between the security units and the public.Policymakers are aware of the fact that the policies that were inplace before September 11, 2001, incident, terribly failed to providerelevant information to the right individuals on time. In fact, thecommittee that was formed by the Senate asserted that there was aserious problem regarding sharing of information that persistedbefore the incident between the intelligence agencies and the public.It is this inappropriate communication environment and poorcollaboration that deprived all entities the ability to accesspotentially vital information to counter Bin Laden (Abaas et al.,2014).

Upto date, the administration and the legislators have channeled theirefforts to restructure the federal intelligence mainly to focusprimarily on mitigating the existing barriers in information sharingprocesses (Abaas et al., 2014). In the federal agencies, they haveimproved the national data bank technology abilities and coordinatedthe examination of the federal and the grassroots emergencycommunication systems. At the boundaries, customs officers haveincreased screening of the cargos by the use of radiation sensors andthe x-ray scanners. The immigration department has also advanced thechecks on the foreigners using upgraded databases. Across the nation,joint terrorism structures that have been newly expanded bringtogether the national and the local law enforcers.

References

Abaas,T., Shibghatullah, A. S., Yusof, R., &amp Alaameri, A. (2014).Importance and significance of information sharing in terrorismfield. ScienceInternational,26(5),1713-1718.

Eichenwald,K. (2016). THE PATRIOT ACT. NewsweekGlobal,167(6),12-17.

Johnson,D., Brazier, D., Forrest, K., Ketelhut, C., Mason, D., &ampMitchell, M. (2011). Attitudes toward the Use of Racial/EthnicProfiling to Prevent Crime and Terrorism. CriminalJustice Policy Review,22(4),422-447.

Leukfeldt,E. (2014). Cybercrime and social ties. Trendsin Organized Crime,17(4),231-249