In the days and weeks immediately following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, some political leaders claimed that “extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures”; in times of war, basic civil liberties and freedoms, such as privacy, need to be severely restricted for the sake of national security and safety. Perhaps, as a nation, the value that we have traditionally attached to privacy has diminished significantly since then. Consider that the majority of American citizens strongly supported the USA (United and Strengthening America) PATRIOT (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act, which passed by an overwhelming margin in both houses of Congress and was enacted into law on October 21, 2001. Privacy advocates have since expressed their concerns about this act, noting that it might have gone too far in eroding basic civil liberties. Some critics also fear that certain provisions included in the act could easily be abused; for example, those in power could use those provisions to achieve controversial political ends under the convenient guise of national defense. Examine some of the details of USA PATRIOT Act (go to http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html). (a) Determine whether its measures are as extreme as its critics suggest. (b) Are those measures consistent with the value of privacy, which Americans claim to embrace? (c) Do privacy interests need to be reassessed, and possibly recalibrated, in light of recent attacks by and ongoing threats from terrorists? (d) What similar acts or laws exist in the United Kingdom? Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your “theoretical” rationale in support of your responses. (comprehension)Sample Solution
