With the recent revelations regarding a controversial NSA spy program, the topic of national security and the legality behind some of these programs, has never been more relevant. Since the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, the U.S. government has taken drastic steps to increase the national security infrastructure, in hopes of foiling future attacks.

These measures have included programs like Operation TIPS, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act and the widely disputed PATRIOT Act. Programs like the PATRIOT Act were passed under the eye of politicians such as Attorney General to George W. Bush, John Ashcroft.

Looking back on the implementation of these programs, Americans find themselves asking whether or not the sacrifice of privacy in favor of security has been worth it. Policies such as the PATRIOT Act have never aimed to invade the privacy of everyday U.S. citizens. The act gives numerous powers to law enforcement agencies to follow and investigate those that are believed to be involved in some kind of terrorist activity.

One of the most debated parts of the act was a part of the law known as the sneak-and-peek provision. This provision gave investigators the ability search someone’s home or business or tap their phone without first gaining the blessing of a judge and obviously without the individual’s consent.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve discussed the PATRIOT Act with peers on campus, and on most occasions these individuals talk as though they are characters in an Orwellian tale. While the act is constitutionally questionable, and both sides can deliver multiple arguments for or against it, I feel as though it’s something that not everyone thinks or worries about until it’s brought up at the dinner table or on a talk show.

How often do you walk to class thinking that the NSA or some other extension of the government is currently combing through your recent library rentals or cell phone calls? The answer to that question for me is zero. The fact is: If you’re not placing long distance calls to Iraq or Somalia, there’s a good chance Big Brother has no interest in you whatsoever.

I understand that the issue is more about the principle behind legislation like the PATRIOT Act; government intrusion on one’s private life is nothing to take lightly. If you allow the government to take part in such activities now, how much power are we going to give them in the future? Personally, I don’t have an answer for that, and your ACLU-member roommate probably can’t answer that question either.

For me, it all comes down to the faith I have in the U.S. government and our system of checks and balances. Although all three branches of the government have their own flaws and always will, I like to believe that one branch will trump the other when it comes to creating some kind of “Fahrenheit 451” dystopian law.

When it comes down to it, I’m willing to trade some of my privacy for greater security. That’s just a sacrifice I am willing to make. Maybe that will change in ten years, or maybe the need for security will increase. Who knows?

On April 16, the UMass Republican Club will bring former Attorney General John Ashcroft, who had a major role in the development of the post-9/11 security state, to speak at the University of Massachusetts campus. Maybe it will be here, at this event, that some of your questions about the PATRIOT Act and this need for increased security will be answered once and for all.

Patrick Dunbar is a member of the UMass Republican Club. He can be reached at [email protected].