A topic that is being debated throughout the United States is whether people should have their personal freedom or the government should take whatever means necessary to protect the country or national security. This debate first opened up after the terrorist attacks on September 11. What this act does is it allows the government access to your accounts made such as: phone records, emails, library records, social media etc. The side of Personal freedom makes more sense but people can see the reason why people would go with the side of national security. The main reason why people would choose the side of personal freedom is because people believe the government is not even attempting to protect the citizens and the people siding with national security are mainly afraid of terrorists.
Personal freedom is in the people's constitutional rights and those are the rights given to the people ever since this country was founded. The government now decides to change that rule because they let their guard down during the attacks of September 11. The majority of people even believe the government does not need to take away the peoples liberties. "54 percent said it wouldn't be necessary to give up liberties, while 40 percent said it would be" (Davis). It was only after when September 11 and the Boston Marathon occurred is when the United States citizens became terrified of terrorism. The public is increasingly growing concerned on the government taking whatever means necessary in order to capture the terrorist(s).
In addition, cell phones and the internet are main objects that are surveillance tools so the government is deciding to track them. The government is not allowed to do this. It is proven when stated by ("Another"), "The government can't follow someone electronically without showing probable cause and obtaining a warrant." Only if a warrant is presented is when the government is allowed to spy on a person but it is even in the Fourth Amendment that what the government is doing is wrong.