In Our View: Restoring Balance

The most pertinent issue surrounding recent alterations to the Patriot Act is this: Government officials could point to no instances in which the bulk collection of Americans’ phone records prevented a terrorist attack or revealed the planning of one.

That emphasizes the logic behind ending the National Security Agency’s collection of all phone records, yet it does not mitigate the need for continued vigilance in the name of national security. It would be naïve to suggest that terrorist attacks — or attempted attacks — on American soil are a thing of the past; the world remains a dangerous place, and the United States remains a preferred target. The question, however, is how best to balance protection from terrorists with civil liberties.

That question served as the crux of the USA Freedom Act, which was passed last week by the Senate — months after passage by the House of Representatives — and signed into law by President Barack Obama. And while the discussion carried with it a substantive impact, the deepest effect likely is symbolic: With the elimination of metadata collection by the National Security Agency, the United States has moved beyond 9/11. That is not to say that protecting the homeland is now an afterthought. It simply is an acknowledgement that some necessary balance has been restored between security and privacy, and that the liberties upon which this nation was founded can co-exist with modern threats. No longer will the NSA be allowed to continuously spy upon citizens or suggest that placing all under suspicion somehow bolsters our safety.

The agency’s practice of collecting phone records for all Americans and using them to search for possible connections to terrorists had caused that balance to teeter. But while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a strong supporter of renewing the Patriot Act, called his political defeat “a resounding victory for those currently plotting attacks against the homeland,” the facts suggest that such rhetoric does not reflect the reality.

The USA Freedom Act still allows the NSA to collect phone records, provided officials have a court order and a reason to be suspicious. It still allows for security measures, illuminating the difference between probable cause and a governmental fishing expedition. And it retains other, more effective provisions of the Patriot Act, which was enacted following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In the wake of those attacks, Americans were willing to cede some personal liberty in the name of security, but the time has come to scale back some of those concessions.

The congressional fight against blanket renewal of the Patriot Act was led by libertarian Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who is running for president, and it reflected a widespread cultural shift. The fear created by the 9/11 attacks has not dissipated, particularly with the rise of the Islamic State, but the ineffectiveness of metadata collection suggests that more balance was appropriate.

In that regard, the USA Freedom Act is a compromise that joins collective security with individual rights. For most citizens, the notion of the government having access to which phone numbers you contacted, when you contacted them, and how long the call lasted likely is not cause for alarm; if you have nothing to hide, then you don’t mind others peeking behind the curtain. But while security and the government’s ability to keep watch upon those who would do harm to the United States must remain paramount, evidence suggests that the costs of the National Security Agency’s program outweighed its negligible benefits.