Opposition:
One of the most contested and well-known topics of debate about the Patriot Act is the controversy about bulk phone data collection, or the collection of metadata. This can be greatly attributed to the fact that many people do not know the truth or definition of what “metadata” is and how it is collected, and this misunderstanding scares Americans. Overall, the common misconception is that the government is allowed to monitor the content of all phone calls when, in fact, as Gilbert clarifies, metadata only refers to the phone number, receiving phone number, date, time, and duration of the call (5). Due to this misunderstanding, instead of the controlled and safe system the government has erected, people see a technological equivalent to George Orwell’s “Big Brother” society in 1984. Though, the debate does not only lie in misconceptions. Well-placed concerns over how broad the system of metadata collection reaches have become an issue as well. United States Senator Patrick Leahy notes that, until recently, the Patriot Act allowed the collection anything deemed “relevant to an authorized investigation,” which could be for practically any reason (qtd. in “The Pro and Cons of the NSA's Domestic Surveillance Program” 14). This has made it extremely easy for the government to justify constantly tracking all metadata for all phones. In addition, Leahy comments on his belief that the government’s power is overstepping its boundaries: “...the government’s information-gathering under the telephone metadata program is inconsistent with the very concept of an ‘investigation’” (qtd. in “The Pro and Cons of the NSA's Domestic Surveillance Program” 14). Leahy and his supporters essentially claim that bulk collection has led to an overextension of government powers; however, reforms to the Patriot Act and a thorough understanding of current regulations prove that this is not the case.
Support:
In contrast to the opposition’s view on metadata collection, programs and regulations in this area are highly monitored and censored. According to United States Senator Susan Collins, when a phone call from a known terrorist or terrorist organization is intercepted, the NSA gains authorization from a judge to determine whether the call is being made to a person inside of the United States. As stated by Collins, the team of people who makes this determination is only made up of 34 people who have been selected by the NSA (“The Pro and Cons of the NSA's Domestic Surveillance Program” 13, 15). When this is taken into consideration with the fact that no actual content of the phone is being monitored, there is practically no cause for alarm over the safety of the phone records. In actuality, the phone metadata is safer with the government than with regular service providers, or at least more guarded when in use. Collins emphasizes, “I am truly perplexed that anyone would argue that telephone data are better protected in the hands of 1,400 telecom companies and 160 wireless carriers than in a secure NSA database that only 34 carefully vetted and trained employees are allowed to query under the supervision of a Federal judge” (“The Pro and Cons of the NSA's Domestic Surveillance Program” 15). Americans should truly be concerned about hackers and cybercriminals who are able to abuse this metadata without government intervention; the government only accesses information when there is reasonable suspicion that terrorist activities are involved.
Even with the aforementioned regulations in place, people in opposition would still contend that the area of reach the government maintains to conduct terrorist investigations is too large, but fortunately, the recently passed USA Freedom Act helps refine the area of search. The “Freedom Act,” short for “the Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act,” amends the Patriot Act (Consumer Electronics Association par. 1). These amendments are intended to protect civil liberties in a more secure way. One of the chief goals of the Freedom Act is to end the bulk collection of phone metadata by narrowing the fields of collection for each investigation. According to “5 Things to Know About the USA Freedom Act,” an article from US Official News, this prevents the government from searching an entire city or zipcode for a single number when only a small area is needed (par. 4). Less metadata being collected and sifted through means a lesser chance of that data being abused or exposed, and this can be a comfort to citizens.
Even with the aforementioned regulations in place, people in opposition would still contend that the area of reach the government maintains to conduct terrorist investigations is too large, but fortunately, the recently passed USA Freedom Act helps refine the area of search. The “Freedom Act,” short for “the Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ensuring Effective Discipline Over Monitoring Act,” amends the Patriot Act (Consumer Electronics Association par. 1). These amendments are intended to protect civil liberties in a more secure way. One of the chief goals of the Freedom Act is to end the bulk collection of phone metadata by narrowing the fields of collection for each investigation. According to “5 Things to Know About the USA Freedom Act,” an article from US Official News, this prevents the government from searching an entire city or zipcode for a single number when only a small area is needed (par. 4). Less metadata being collected and sifted through means a lesser chance of that data being abused or exposed, and this can be a comfort to citizens.