With the world rapidly transmuting into a global village, diversity is on the rise, more than ever in human history and with it has popped up problem of intolerance of each other's values, beliefs and principles. When this lack of tolerance augments at an alarming pace, bigger social and cultural issues erupt paving way for greater and deadly consequences. One such consequence was the September 11 incident that completely shook people up, due to mass destruction that it caused and thus compelled both the public sector and the private sector to re-evaluate the nation's homeland security systems and the potential threats to the same. On the same account, the government of the United States of America the SAFETY Act "as part of the Homeland Security Act to encourage potential manufacturers or sellers of anti-terrorism technologies (ATTs) to develop and sell technologies that could reduce the risk or mitigate the effects of large-scale terrorist events by limiting legal liabilities that might otherwise be faced by such developers and sellers for injuries and losses sustained in an act of terrorism" (Slepian). This SAFETY Act however, has caused much turmoil and debate among social strata thereby creating two distinct sides to the Patriot Act, one of the proponents while the other of the opponents. This analytical research paper will throw light upon the Patriot Act in general while highlighting its strengths as well as weaknesses. The Patriot Act can be evaluated in the light of "necessity, productivity and oversight" (Strickland), concepts that can dig into the foundations of the Act.
III. Commenting on Section 202:
Enhanced penalties to the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
A. Although not directly relevant to the war on terrorism, this section has been proved to be extremely useful in launching war against computer-related and e-crimes. Hence, it's both logical and helpful and thus has earned itself the right to stand where it does in the Patriot Act.
IV. Commenting on Section 203:
Sharing of law enforcement information with intelligence officials
A. This provision has again proved to be quite helpful and rational in gathering adequate "law enforcement information" on grounds of "probable cause of criminal action".
B. However, YES the information must NOT be provided to the law-enforcing agencies and other linked authorities simply because it is "required". This is because, this reasoning clearly lacks proof and necessity and instead causes undue suspicion associated with the risk factors. Due to lack of established ground for conducting an intelligence activity with the absence of "probable cause" also generates public opposition, which can prove detrimental to the cause of the Act rather than assisting the government in running security checks.
C. However, with slight reasonable modifications, this section can be made appealing to the masses and less threatening to the public and thus effectively waging a war against terrorism.
V. Commenting on Se