Impact of the 9/11 attack on US Citizens' Privacy

What are you reseraching?

I am researching about changes to the US policies and laws in the wake of 9/11. I want to find out how these changes have had a disparate impact on certain communities within the United States.This research focuses in our sources about what communities are targeted for surveillance and what that impact of that surveillance has on peoples lives.

What are the major/relevant themes/issues mentioned in what you’ve found?

The major themes that have been present is that the United States Government, for almost any reason, can violate you personal privacy in ways you would not believe. The US Government can see you phone calls, track your location, and make risk assements about you all without your knowledge. The most striking issue throughout the research has been that these policies are racial and ethically discriminatory. Policies and the subsequent carried out surveillance targeted folks who had ties to the Middle East.

Why are you choosing to focus on it in this course?

I am focusing on this issues because I think it is really important to know about how the government can collect our data. For most people in the United States, it is not that big of a deal if the government knows stuff about you. However, there are people in the United States who do have things they want kept private. Additionally, data that is collected by the government will be stored, and future governments may use that information to carry out policies that may impact certain communities. For example, there are a lot of people in the United States who are undocumented, and it is in their own interests to keep that information private and out of the governments hands because of fear of deportation.

Three Questions:

What laws were passed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 that changed society fundamentally? Are these good or bad?

What are the pros and cons of less privacy for US citizens? Are we a safer society now?

Do US citizens have a right to privacy and if they do what should those rights look like, and how has that changed over time?

The 9/11 Attack in a Map

Map created by Leif Larsen

Annotated sources:

Bloss, William "Escalating U.S. Police Surveillance after 9/11: an Examination of Causes and Effects", Surveillance & Society, 2007.

What I learned: William Bloss is a professor in the department of Political Science and Criminal Justice at The Military College of South Carolina. In this paper Bloss argues that there is a correlation between increased police surveillance power in the United States after dramatic events. Through the first part of the article he shares examples of US citizens giving away there privacy freedoms freely to the government when they perceive there to be major threats to their safety. Bloss shares that after the Pearly Harbor attack there was little opposition to the government enacting polices that adversely affected the lives of many Americans. The government was allowed to violating Americans constitutional rights because of a perceived threat. He also points to the large fear that many Americans had that communists were infiltrating our government as another example of when Americans were okay with the government violating individuals constitutional and privacy rights. During the mid 20th century, the government would sedate peoples free speech if they believed it to be communist propaganda, and would search without warrant through peoples private affects to make sure that they were not communist individuals.

In the next section of the article, Bloss explains how just like these examples from history, the 9/11 attacks significantly changed Americans perceptions about their privacy. He discuss american support for the Patriot Act which authorizes the US government to search without warrant anyone who is a suspected terrorist. He argues that when Americans are worried about their safety, they openly give away civil liberties in the government to feel secure. He discusses how the fear of terrorism opened the flood gates to changing laws throughout the country.

Most interestingly, he argues that the courts of the country actually know that a lot of these surveillance programs are unconstitutional, however, he argues that the courts don't block these laws because they are publicly popular. He states that courts are actually influenced by public opinion a lot more then one would think.

How this relates to the topic of the class:

Bloss's article directly relates to this course because he writes about how one attack, on one day, in one city, had global ramification for peoples privacy. His article brings in ideas relating to Geo-politics and how not only the United States, but a lot of the Western world amped up there surveillance in the years following the attack. His article is filled with specific events, and ties together how place and history are related. However, his article is filled with a lot of examples of shifting ideas of privacy policy, but its not filled with a lot of specific examples of that privacy being carried out. He does a great job of articulating what could possibly happen if the policy is carried out, but offered little evidence that the more mundane American citizens privacy is actually being violated. His article was still overall interesting, and provided a lot of good background information for this topic.

Rackow, Sharon, How the USA Patriot Act Will Permit Governmental Infringement Upon the Privacy of American Citizens, Univerity of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 150 No. 5, May, 2002. pp. 1651-1696.

What I learned: Rackow goes deep into depth explaining the legislative history of the Patriot Act and its precursor the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. She then compares and contrasts the two. The Patriot Act which passed in 2001, authorize mass scale surveillance on US citizens, where the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), only allows for surveillance on non-US citizens. She argues however, that the FISA was an important precursor to the Patriot Act, and that when the Patriot Act was authorized, many in the executive branch told congress members that it would be okay to pass the Patriot Act because the FISA was already in place and had been deemed constitional, however, Rackow argues that the Patriot Act actually is not constitutional, and that the Bush administration tricked congress into passing this Act. She argues that this act allows the government to spy on Americans in their homes, on their phones, and anything that they do online, and goes into a lot of depth about what the possible ramifications are for Americans.

How this relates to this class:

Rackow's article relates to this class because it ties together law, culture, and place. She talks about how the US government spies on US citizens and foreign nationals throughout the county. In particular, she talks about how the US government targets people based off Identity. Identity is one of the core concepts of this class, and her article shows how muslim Americans are adversely affected by this policy. She writes about how because of their identity, the US government and police officials are more likely to target in on people who are of muslim background, or have frequent communication with family or friends back in the Middle East. These communications between family members are some of the most looked at things, relating to how the geographic location of peoples families means that they are facing the blunt of the impact of these polices.

Selod, Sarah, Targeting Muslim Americans in the Name of National Security, Scholar Strategy, November 21, 2014.

What I learned: Selod's article focuses in on three main elements of how and why Muslims have been targeted by survillance and privacy violations in the post 9/11 world. First she talks about increased prejudice against muslims in the US post 9/11, and cites a lot of statistics about Americans perceptions. She writes that after 2001, there was a marked shift in favorability of Americans towards the religion of Islam. She also cites a study from 2010 that stated that 45% of Americans believe that you can't be both Islamic and believe in American values. Next she talked about surveillance practices post 9/11, and how they particularly target muslim Americans. As a case study example, she talks about how muslims are targeted in Airports for additional security at much higher rates than non-muslim appearance Americans. She cites examples of muslim Americans being added to a no fly list because of their travel locations.

How this relates to this class:

This article closely relates to this class because it ties together identity and prejudice. Although these muslims are Americans the same as other Americans, due to their identity being a minority in the United States they experience extra prejudice. This relates to the class, because even those these islam practicing folks are living in the United States, a western county, the religion of Islam is not the dominant western religion. This article relates how religion, politics, and geography all relate together, and how because of our differences we experience the world different.

Doherty, Carroll, Balancing Act: National Security and Civil Liberties in Post-9/11 Era, Pew Research Center, June 7, 2013.

What I learned: Doherty's article talks about changing public perceptions a decade after the 9/11 attacks and uses a bevy of statistics to support her argument. She states that there is evidence that more and more Americans are worried about the government encroaching on their civil liberties, despite the lack of care immediately after the 9/11 attacks. She writes that in the wake out the Edward Snowden revelations about phone call records being listened to and recorded without public warrant, Americans perceptions are actually shifting, and that over 50% of Americans believe that the government should not be allowed to spy of them. She also cites evidence that the Americans believe the government is collected to much information about people, however, she writes that Americans still want the government to carry out surveillance but to make more of an effort to only target terrorists, not everyday Americans. In particularly, It was interesting how she highlighted how private business, in addition to the government conducts surveillance on its customers, and that we are actually spied on just as much by private companies as we are by businesses, and that those businesses sometimes share that information with the government and vice versa, and as the years go by, complication the privacy conversation.

How this relates to the class:

This article closely relates to this class because it talks about public perceptions on government surveillance and citizens privacy. This article shows the people element of our culture and laws. If public perception continues to move against privacy, we can start to see a backlash against the policies carried out by our government. Our nation is a nation of people, not the other way around, so when peoples perceptions change, the government, and the rest of the political world can change. Peoples perceptions and identity's in a country impact its policy and place in the world. If people change, the government will change.

Annotated Source: Klein, Mark "How 9/11 Completely Changed Surveillance in U.S."

What I learned: This article shares a really good overview of some of the major changes that have occurred in the realm of surveillance over over the last 2 decades since 9/11. The article discusses how the patriot act completely changed the way the government can gain access to our information. He also touches on some of the legislative history and tensions behind surveillance acts. He shares that both republicans and democrats generally are bi-partisan in their support for surveillance but there are a few loud voices on the fringes of both parties. He points out that in general, most Americans worry about there own privacy being violated, but in reality much of the NSA's surveillance takes place abroad. In the article he shares this image that I shared above. He shares this image and says that each one of those cites with an icon on it represents significant surveillance information points in the North Africa.

How this relates to the class: This article closely relates to the class because it focuses on the global reach of regionally specific polices. It shows how that the impact of US western policies can impact people who are not in western countries. This article relates to the class because it shows that there is not really a Western world or a non-western world. Things that happen anywhere in the world can have an impact everywhere.

Annotated Source: Shamsi, Hina "Privacy and Surveillance Post-9/11" 01/01/2011. American Bar Association.

What I learned: This article shares a lot about the work on the legal battles and fights over privacy in the Untied States. Shamsi's shares a lot about the work that lawyers and legal minds are doing to support and to try and dismantle various privacy laws around the country. She shares that much of the work is still being fought out in appeal level court fights. The author shares legal opinions from both sides of the aisle in an effort to show the pros and cons of surveillance and how that can fit into our constitution. The pro surveillance side makes arguments in favor for safety reasons, and the con side shares arguments in the ways the surveillance could negatively impact certain minority communities.

How this relates to the class:

This article closet relates to the class because it shows how law and policy and geography are connected. Geography is not just about places, its about people, culture, and society. This article shows all of that is connected, and that additionally, issues surroundings geography and culture can have people with strong opinions on both sides.

Having completed your research, what have you learned?

Throughout my research I learned that the United States government has a lot more tools than I previously believed to conduct mass surveillance on US citizens. Additionally, I learned that even through citizens have legal safeguards, it easy for the government to bypass them. Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States passed the Patriot Act which basically allows the government to pass through the normal legal channels that used to be required to conduct surveillance. I also learned that the surveillance that is conducted has a disparate impact on minorities. People of Middle Eastern descent are much more likely to be surveilled, and face potential ramifications as result.

What does what you’ve learned have to do with themes, concepts or issues we’ve covered in class?

Privacy has a lot to do with the themes, concepts, and issues that we have covered in class. For the first 5 weeks of class we covered major geography themes such as identity, geo-politics, economy, population, and migration. What I learned had a lot to deal with peoples identity. People in the United States have lots of different identities, and policies that are carried out by our government affect people in different ways based off of those identities. Even though the United States is a large political boundary and we are a political state. The county can feel like a different place for different people depending on their ethnic background. Overall, I learned how within a political state, there are many different subgroups of people.

What claims can you make about your topic and the Geographies of the Western World more generally?

Mass Surveillance will be carried out by the United States government in a pervasive way. However, this surveillance is discriminate and targets people of color more than white people. Additionally, this mass surveillance did not happen until 9/11, which served as a catalyst for the surveillance that we now see in all aspects of our life. Throughout my research I learned that there are policies that the government could adopt that could safeguard people from surveillance, however, it will not stop that government from gathering data.

In regards to the larger context of the Geographies of the Western World I learned that surveillance in some contexts is required as we move more and more into a global world. The world itself has changed where there largest threats to nations security is not other governments, but terrorists. As long as we live in a world where random individuals can carry out massive attacks on citizens, surveillance will be a part of our lives.