NSA 1

Brandon Atkinson Leslie Vaca Government Per.1 Dr. Weatherford September 8, 2013 NSA Brief Bill Ragavan was making international calls which we picked up on and we began to monitor his emails and Internet activity. We began to monitoring his emails because he was sending emails to someone in Yemen who we suspected was connected with Al Queda terrorists. Due to this we had reason to believe that something bad was going to happen so we intervened in order to prevent any disaster from happening in our home the USA. Many have challenged us by saying that we are violating the fourth amendment now I see where they might thing that but due to the fact that metadata and Internet activity are publics records Mr. Ragavan's case lacks foundation. When we detected suspicions activity we were allowed to search Mr. Ragavan's Internet activity and emails. When doing this we found out that he in fact had in his possession had illegal drugs which he was dealing as well. When finding this out we turned over the information to the Drug Enforcement Agency. The NSA was created in order to prevent any national security threat before bad things happen. The way we do this is by monitoring people's Internet activity and calls they are making. Now because the Internet is a public place we are allowed to know what people are looking at and were emails are headed. Yes we are monitoring phone calls but only metadata. Metadata only tells us who you called, the time you called them, and the duration of the call. We are not allowed to listen into conversations. According to the Patriot Act under the business section it says that we are allowed to collect any tangible business data with little judicial oversight. It's us why we are allowed to look at metadata because they are business records. We want to remind

NSA 2

you that the number you have are not your property it is the private companies property you only rent the number. Bill was sending emails to someone in Yemen, which is where many of Al Quedas terrorists are, this made us very suspicious. In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court allowed Marylands cops to use Smiths call history in court due to the fact that this made his a suspect of the robbery. Because the court allowed Maryland cops to use Smiths call history to prove that he was guilty, in our case, we are allowed to give his email history to the DEA because this shows us that he is guilty of illegal drug possession. The NSAs authority and ability to have access to the metadata that all major phone companies gather is essential to the success of achieving national safety. While this seems like a major over haul of power, this power not only succeeds in stopping acts of national terrorism, but also is able to assist in the solving of smaller crimes. A prime example of this is involved with the case of Smith vs. Maryland where the plaintiff, Smith, was found guilty of theft and burglary after the use of his metadata was used to find him guilty, proving to be condemning evidence. In fact, the case itself was brought to court because Smith felt like the evidence that ultimately proved him guilty was illegally obtained, however the court ruled that this was false and in fact the police system used a third party to attain the needed meta data and was not infringing upon his rights. Relating this to the Ragavan case, the information acquired by the NSA and that was given to the DEA wasnt illegally obtained either because the phone company played a third party role again. This time the information was given to a different organization before being used to incriminate the criminal. Therefore, the acquisition of the information was legal and wasnt an infringement of his rights, the same as the ruling of Smith vs. Maryland.

NSA 3

Also the NSAs ability to have access and a warrant to search the metadata of large phone companies is legal and just because even though the warrants seem large and too broad to be constitutional, the public can bypass this supposed invasion of their privacy by simply skipping the phone process entirely and can talk to however they please, digital eavesdroppers free face to face. The entire option to use a phone is optional and no one ever demanded that one has to use a phone and pay a phone company monthly bills just as one doesnt have to use a car to get around and one doesnt have to watch television and pay cable bills. All of these are luxuries that people often mistake for a right, however there is no amendment giving one the right to have phone calls. Relating to the Ragavan case, the metadata was once again not taken and used against him illegally because he never had to use a phone, regardless of who he was calling, even if his grandmother lives in another country. The original paper mail service system doesnt have as nearly as large of a privacy infringement debate and is perfectly suitable for his situation with contacting his grandmother. In conclusion, the court for the Ragavan case should be decided in favor of the NSA and rule that the ability for the NSA to be able to view phone companys meta data should be defended because the reason for justification to have access to the meta data was justified through his suspicious activities of constant and repetitive international calls, the NSAs power is justified through its success in the criminal justice field as shown through the case of Smith vs. Maryland, and lastly because Mr. Ragavan never had to use the phone to contact his grandmother and always couldve used the postal service as a substitute. Thus, the court should ensure the NSAs right to metadata and end the long debate on whether or not this was constitutional.