Internet and Telephone Surveillance After September 11, 2001

Toward the end of the 1990s and in 2000 and early 2001, Internet or online privacy was an issue that was gaining more attention. Privacy in cyberspace was the topic of legislation and discussion, especially as the rate of Internet users grew exponentially. For instance, members of the online industry, including Internet Service Providers (ISPs), were attempting to prevent proposed Internet privacy legislation. Privacy advocates similarly expressed dissatisfaction with such legislation, claiming it violated free speech protections given the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

For many Internet users in the United States, however, Internet privacy became a "back burner" issue after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Governments, in attempt to identify terrorists and prevent terrorist activities, have collected information more aggressively. Governments have enacted laws allowing access to data and information gathered from Internet usage and email accounts. Some commentators have suggested that in the post-September 11th political climate, more people favor increased electronic surveillance, including the monitoring of Internet usage and email messages. Civil rights organizations continue to speak out--arguably more frequently and fervently--against the increased invasion of "online privacy" and the resulting reduction in freedom.

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 said to result in loss of online privacy

Shortly after September 11th, Congress and various federal agencies determined that the resources, laws, and tools available were not adequate to prevent or counter terrorism. On October 26, 2001, Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act). The goal of the USA PATRIOT Act is to correct, expand, and strengthen laws concerning the investigation and prosecution of terrorists, while still recognizing the mandates of the United States Constitution. The anti-terrorism law gives broad new powers to the federal government to more easily search homes and trace email and track Internet usage. Proponents of the USA PATRIOT Act say that the law was needed so that law enforcement officials could keep up with constantly changing technology. Opponents of the law, however, argue that the newly granted powers give the government a license to spy, without the protections of previous laws.

In late September 2004, a federal court ruled that the Internet and telephone surveillance provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act were unconstitutionally broad. Specifically, the federal court rejected the provision that permitted the Federal Bureau of Investigation to demand Internet usage records from ISPs and other communications firms, without first obtaining a warrant issued by a court.

The SAFE Act would restrict some powers granted by the USA PATRIOT Act

Civil liberties organizations have voiced their approval of proposed legislation called the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE Act). The proposed bill had not been passed as of the time of the September 2004 federal court ruling mentioned above. The SAFE Act is a bipartisan measure that would restrict some of the surveillance and monitoring powers granted to the federal government by the USA PATRIOT Act.

If passed and signed into law, the SAFE Act would restrict the situations in which "sneak and peek" warrants could be issued pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act. The SAFE Act would also limit the power of the federal government to search computer usage records kept by ISPs.

Copyright 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc.