1. Rowan Beer
Professor Terri Toles-Patkin
Com 300
22 October 2013
My “Big Brother” is a Bully
We’ve all had the feeling that no one knows who we are. We’ve all felt as if nothing that
we do matters. The truth is, we’re all dead wrong. Big brother has been watching us, as well as
monitoring our emails, phone calls, text messages and much more. Government surveillance
couldn’t be a hotter topic in today’s society. The United States Government monitors
approximately two billion phone calls and emails every day. This is all imaginable due to the
“Patriot Act”, ratified October 26th, 2001 by George W. Bush. This document resulted from an
act of desperation directly after the events of September 11, 2001. When looking at the title
page of the bill one can read, “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” (USA PATRIOT ACT Of 2001). There are
a few court case rulings that provide more than enough evidence to suggest that our first
amendment right of freedom of speech may cost us. There are numerous legal documents such as
the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
and the National Security Act (NSA) that were put in place for the government to utilize its very
prevalent magnifying glass to peep into your daily life. You might ask you self how the

2. government can legally spy on its citizens. There really is no unpretentious answer to this
popular thought had by millions of Americans. Astonishingly, the Patriot Act, does in fact,
impede on our Constitutional rights.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is –a national organization that advocates
for the rights of Americans by litigating, legislating, and educating the public on a broad array of
issues affecting individual freedom in the United States (“aclu.org”). The ACLU defines itself as
the nation’s “Guardian of Liberty”. The ACLU will defend an American’s rights related to the
First Amendment, equal protection under law, due process, and privacy. Most of the law suits
involving the Patriot Act are backed or supported by the American Civil Liberties Union because
they can be considered contradictory of the First Amendment. The whole mentality behind the
formation of the ACLU can be best described by a quote from the founder of the group that goes
as follows:
The U.S. Supreme Court had yet to uphold a single free speech
claim when Roger Baldwin, Crystal Eastman, Albert DeSilver and
others formed the ACLU in 1920. Activists languished in jail for
distributing anti-war literature. State sanctioned violence against
African Americans was routine. Women won the right to vote only
in August of that year. Constitutional rights for lesbians and gays,
bisexual and transgender people in those days were unthinkable.
The USA Patriot Act of 2001, more commonly referred to as “The Patriot Act” was put
together and enacted in October of 2001 under the administration of George W. Bush. This deed

3. was put together as part of a legislative step in the direction of preventing forthcoming terrorist
attacks against the United States of America. It was also proposed as a means to legally increase
the government’s methods of reconnaissance capabilities in the hopes to find those responsible
for the ruthless terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Many of the cosmetics included in
Patriot Act were restored in 2005 with the passing of the USA Patriot Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005 under President Barack Obama.
Three divisions of the Patriot Act of 2001 that are highly controversial are sections 215,
802 and 805. These precise sections have become most noted for being defined as
unconstitutional.
Section 215 sanctions the government to go through bookstores and library records to
investigate what books somebody may have purchased or checked out. This provision also
permits the government to go through any library computer that someone has used, to track the
individuals activities performed on those computers. “Under this division of the act, freedom of
speech is forbidden for the book sellers or library staff from informing the person of interest
about the investigation” (“First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion and Assembly”).
Nicholas Merrill is the founder of a company called Calyx Internet Access and the Calyx
Institute. The Calyx Institute –Is a non-profit education and research organization that studies,
tests and develops privacy technology and tools that promote freedom of speech and expression
(Calyx Institute, 2013). In October of 2004, Nicholas Merrill received a National Security Letter
dealing with one of his clients, while also forbidding him to voice the letter to anyone. National
Security Letters (NSL’s) are letters drafted by the Federal Bureau of Investigations demanding

4. information regarding national security. Rather than complying with the Gag order (legal order
given by a court or government restricting information from being made public) , Merrill
became one of the first of hundreds of thousands, to file a constitutional challenge against the
National Security Letter statute falling under the Patriot Act of 2001. Merrill immediately
contacted an attorney with the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) about the letter and filed
for a lawsuit under the false name of “John Doe”.
“ACLU v. Ashcroft” was filed April 9, 2004 on behalf of “John Doe”, who would later
become officially recognized as Nicholas Merrill. The ACLU argues that the National Security
Letters statute did not comply with the first amendment of the United States constitution. ACLU
pointed out:
Provision 2709 of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of
1986 failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or
internet company could try to oppose an (NSL) subpoena in court,
and Section 2709 prohibited the recipient of an NSL subpoena
from disclosing that he had received such a request from the FBI,
and outweighs the FBI’s need for secrecy in counter-terrorism
investigations (ACLU v. Ashcroft).
The first part of this declaration would end up violating the sixth amendment, while the
second half of the squabble violates the first amendment. The court in fact, did not find section
2709 of the Electronic Communications act of 1986 was unconstitutional. It was also concluded
that the provision in question failed to imply the person who received the subpoena in court to
challenge it in court as required by the United States Constitution.

5. In October 2011, The EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) sued the Department of
Justice in the search of answers regarding the “secret interpretation” in section 215 of the Patriot
Act. –On September 10, 2013 the Supreme Court ordered the Department of Justice to release
the documents that were used to advise the Federal Bureau of Investigations on when it can seek
records from nongovernmental companies, including telephone companies (McAfee). When the
United States government rejected the EFF this information (which they are legally entitled to
per, the Freedom of Information Act), the law suit began.
The Freedom of information act was enacted by the federal government under the
Lyndon B. Johnson administration, which would take action the following year. The Freedom of
Information Act, according to FOIA.gov, is interpreted by the federal government as follows:
The FOIA is a law that gives you the right to access information
from the federal government. It is often described as the law that
keeps citizens in the know about their government. Under the
FOIA, agencies must disclose any information that is requested –
unless that information is protected from public disclosure. The
FOIA also requires that agencies automatically disclose certain
information, including frequently requested records. As Congress,
the President, and the Supreme Court have all recognized, the
FOIA is a vital part of our democracy (foia.gov).
Due to the ruling of the EFF v. Department of Justice, the government was forced to
release hundreds of pages of once secret, Federal Intelligence Security Agency documents. The
Supreme Court decided that the “once secret” document stating that the NSA had been

6. continuing to misuse their mass surveillance database. More recently, in October 2013, the
government released more information about the NSA locating and utilizing several cell sites
without the approval of their oversight committees in congress, or the FISC (Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court). This lawsuit was in pursuance to a rejected appeal submitted by the EFF to
the federal government for the interpretation of section 215 in the Patriot Act.
The EFF had every right to acquire the “secret interpretation” documents concerning
section 215 as a result of the Freedom of Information Act. The federal government failed to
comply, and was mandated to divulge the documents when the Supreme Court ruled the
department of Justice to do so in September, 2013 (“U.S.C. § 552, VOL.XVII”, 104-231).
In 2011, the Electronic Privacy Intelligence Committee (EPIC) released a document
drafted by the department Homeland Security. This document included several pages of words
that can trigger surveillance if used during any form of electronic communication. The document
released is called “Analyst Desktop Binder”. This document categorizes words into sections.
Category titles include DHS and other agencies, Domestic Security, Hazmat and Nuclear, Health
Concern+ H1N1, Infrastructure Security, Southwest Border Violence, Terrorism and finally,
Weather/Disaster/Emergency. Each of these sections has several trigger words that correspond to
the carefully chosen category.
“Analyst Desktop Binder” was officially released in result of EPIC’s lawsuit against the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The lawsuit was ignited when EPIC filed a claim
through the Freedom of Information Act, to obtain the exact document explaining a detailed
surveillance system that would be used to monitor the social media. As a result of EPIC v. DHS,

7. the federal government was forced to release the three-hundred page document. Some of the
words release include collapse, smart, power, San Diego, plot, and watch. These words are
commonly used in everyday conversations, and seem to be vague words the government came up
with for an excuse to broaden their search (“Analyst’s Desktop Binder”, 20-23).
Although the actual budget of the NSA is classified, many specialists believe that our
government spends over 10 billion dollars a year on spying on us (CNN Money). That’s 14
percent of the entire government’s intelligence budget. The NSA budget falls into the category
of “Black”. All classified programs receive a “Black” budget which is decided by a very
insignificant amount of people. Hundreds of millions of dollars are funded to telecommunication
companies a year. These companies are utilized for sorting data, and filtering substantial
amounts of data traffic. The companies involved are able to quickly sweep emails, texts, phone
calls and documents that are sent anywhere, at any time.
A couple of programs used by the NSA to collect data are BLARNEY, OAKSTAR,
FAIRVIEW, and STORMBREW. These programs operate by gathering information while
sweeping up and down through fiber-optic connections. Companies that are asked to assist are
expected to comply with current surveillance laws, however Craig Timberg of the Washington
Post points out “privacy advocates say the multimillion-dollar payments could create a profit
motive to offer more than the required assistance” (Timberg/WP, 2013).
There seems to be many issues when the government running anything, especially when
trying to spy on their own people. Don’t get me wrong, if the government wants to beef up
security and try to prevent future attacks on the United States, I am all for it. My suggestion

8. would be not to be so shady about it. Many Americans can probably agree that we would all love
the added security of being safe and free of espionage, especially from our own government.
The majority of the actions taken by the government are extremely secretive and
unconstitutional. One of the bottom lines is that if the people want information regarding what
our government is doing; they are legally entitled to it. Citizens of this country should not be
denied information, nor should they be hassled when trying to obtain it. Collectively, the
documents our past leaders have enacted, allow us to exercise our rights and freedoms to the
fullest extent. The Freedom of Information Act was designed as a tool for the American people
to obtain detailed information about what the people we elect are doing. American Civil
Liberties Union is actively trying to help protect our citizens by representing them in court when
we have been wrongly accused or miss-treated by the federal government. I believe that we past
incidences and events as a means to educate ourselves. Curiosity is a part of human nature, and
should be utilized when the common people have serious questions about what our country is
doing at any given moment. When seeking these documents that explain to us what is going on,
we should not be rejected for the information, as well as the information should be provided in a
timely manner.
With more people like Nicholas Merrill, EFF, and those represented by the ACLU, who
were wronged by the government, standing up for themselves and refusing to be treated like a
dunce; we can stand up as a whole and successfully seek answers related to our privacy and
freedom of speech.
A simple solution to the problem that is only growing larger would be to amend the
Patriot Act further. This is a time for some serious revising to one of the most controversial

9. documents ever drafted by a presidential administration. We should not wait for problems to
arise before we try and prevent them. Should we stop surveillance of the country? No, we should
not. Should we pry a little less into the homes of millions of Americans? Yes, the American
people have put up with being silenced for too long. If the government wants to silence us via
National Security Letter without saying why, or allowing us to discuss the matter with a lawyer,
we shouldn’t have to accept that. It’s time to do what Americans do best, and that is stand up and
fully utilize the rights we all fully deserve as citizens. Some examples of action that can be taken
are to write a congressman, or even make a request for documents regarding secret spying by the
federal government.
Let’s take off our muzzles and take off the shock collars that the government has slapped
onto us. The time to take action is now.