Clearly, the United States is in uncharted territory when it comes to fighting terrorism with technology. The founding fathers could not foresee technological advances and the complications that came with them. Understandably, American law enforcement has struggled to balance the constitutional rights afforded to its citizens while protecting them from the threat of terrorism. At first, the government struggled to find this balance. What caused these laws in the first place was the lack of balance; Security dominated privacy during the Vietnam War to an unacceptable extent. Although FISA, in reality, did not do much, it set a precedent for further actions. Its formulation was built over decades, slowly evolving it into something effective. Over time, the technology has further developed. With the creation of the Internet and other technological advancements, previous laws were no longer applicable. People knew this and the government feared that if it didn't put protections in place, the general population wouldn't use the Internet for fear of being spied on. The ECPA was passed and provided Americans' privacy on the Internet; people should not be monitored without cause. However, law enforcement agencies' surveillance technology was not always compatible with new technologies available to the general public. If the technologies were not compatible, monitoring could not be carried out, and this was a huge problem. This resulted in the passage of CALEA, which required any telecommunications operator to ensure that its technology was compatible with government surveillance technology. This ensured that it was possible for the government to monitor suspects. Until middle of paper......their focus on domestic policies. This is when the majority of citizens will support the left wing and demand that previously passed laws, which infringe on their privacy, be repealed or amended. Overall, the law has always been, and always will be, changing and evolving: there will never be any change. just a solution to the problem of balancing privacy and security, but rather a wide range of options. As society evolves, the required laws will also change. No final solution will ever be found to please everyone in the struggle between privacy and security. Instead, society must strive to achieve an acceptable balance, a system in which law enforcement can conduct effective surveillance without completely trampling on the right to privacy. If this common ground is discovered, perhaps both sides will be calmed enough to come to an agreement, and this issue can finally be settled...5