When terrorist attacks wrought the United States on September 11, 2001, a need became evident. If the government had been able to access a broader range of intelligence information before the attacks, the plot could have been uncovered and thwarted, saving thousands of innocent American lives. In response to this need, Congress passed a collection of bills and amendments to existing laws with the goal of stopping terrorism through preventative measures. This collection is called “the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act,” or the “Patriot Act” (“USA Patriot Act” par. 1). Few will argue that preventing terrorism is a worthy goal, yet the lengths to which the government can go to achieve that goal are contested by many. Most arguments in this ever-continual topic of debate share a common thread: personal privacy versus national security. While many in opposition to the Patriot Act are fueled by misconceived notions about what it entails, the surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act and the governmental bodies that employ them respect the Fourth and First Amendments, do not abuse their powers, regulate metadata collection, and are essential in maintaining national security.