Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping Violates Privacy

Warrantless domestic wiretapping in the U.S. was publicly revealed in 2005. Needless to say, millions of Americans suspected that their private communications through phones and e-mails were illegally monitored. This resulted into filing of lawsuits against telecommunications companies by about forty groups and individuals.

In 2008, amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Act of 1978 were passed. In principle, it attempted to give balance between two important considerations. These were privacy rights and the government’s effort to protect citizens against terrorism.

Still haunted by the 9/11 experience, government needed to strengthen its laws and foil any plans of another attack. There was pressure on the government to shield the whole country by all means and in any way possible.

Privacy issues got into the picture because of at least two effects of these amendments:

First, it granted immunity to telecommunications companies against lawsuits. According to critics, this would further aggravate abuses of power and illegal activities against privacy. Actually, even before the September 11 attack, they contended that such activities had been going on.

Second, it allowed government to conduct warrantless surveillance. Again, criticisms were directed to further violations of privacy.

For up to one week or 160 hours, any suspected individual could be put under surveillance. This was an increase from the former 48 hours only. The only provision required was that FISA should be notified at the time the surveillance begins.

On a much larger scale, it appeared that government was given more leeway to conduct mass untargeted surveillance. Anyone could be wiretapped just with the simple reason of not losing important intelligence. Imagine how the privacy of millions of Americans would be invaded. Overseas communications by Americans would not be adequately protected. Even without court approval, government could tap foreigner’s calls. It is clear that the likelihood of invading private conversations is possible.

As more and more laws and protocols are passed to thwart terrorism plans, privacy is even more compromised. Mere allegation of intent even without the presence of fact could put one under surveillance. Come to think of better ways of fighting terrorism without so much violation of privacy.