Gjino Trashaj
ENG I
Research Paper
NYPD HOMELAND SECURITY
National security is a vital component to the United States’ core infrastructure. The
National Security Agency works around the clock to protect hundreds of millions of U.S.
inhabitants from foreign and domestic threats. The NSA also works to protect internal
government information that could cripple the country. The 9/11 terrorist attack prompted
the NSA to overhaul its protocols and install a new system which broadened security
guidelines. (DOJ) Subsequently, the NSA has made progress by successfully eliminating real
threats and protecting government information against cyber criminals. However, most U.S.
citizens are unaware of the extent to which the NSA conducts its surveillance. Edward
Snowden, a former NSA agent, leaked classified documentation on surveillance protocol
published by ‘The Guardian.’ The Snowden leaks prompted citizens, Congress, and the
Senate to question the extent of surveillance procedures conducted by the NSA. The NSA
works closely with law enforcement on a local scale since the passing of the patriot act, and
the procedures of law enforcement mirror the tactics of the NSA. (DOJ) In order to grasp
how law enforcement conducts surveillance, it is necessary to scrutinize how the NYPD, the
United States’ largest police force, conducts its homeland security procedures.
The Privacy Act of 1974 was put into legislation following these general guidelines:
“The Privacy Act was passed in 1974 to establish controls over what personal information is
collected, maintained, used and disseminated by agencies in the executive branch of the
Federal government.” (DOJ) The Privacy Act states that there is established control over the
collection of personal information, Including the method of collecting information, the type
of information, and the storage and use of personal information. (DOJ) The Privacy Act is in
place to ensure “individuals are protected against unwarranted invasion of their privacy
resulting from the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of personal information.”
(DOJ) The Privacy Act protects against secret government spying, surveillance targeting, and
unjustified intrusion of privacy. The NSA claims it has respected the Privacy Act of 1974, and
considers individuals’ privacy a constitutional right. (DOJ)
The procedures carried out by the NYPD included undercover infiltration of
mosques, monitoring of websites, and mapping of Muslim communities. (ACLU) The
unwarranted surveillance conducted by the NYPD has infuriated and affected thousands of
innocent Muslims. Hence, the lawsuit “Raza vs. New York” was filed to challenge the NYPD’s
discriminatory and unjustified surveillance of New York Muslims. (ACLU) The lawsuit was
filed by civil liberties unions including the ACLU, NYCLU, and the CLEAR project. The
plaintiffs were American citizens: Asad Dandia, a 21-year-old Muslim living in Brooklyn and
Hamid Hassan Raza, who also lives in Brooklyn, with his wife and daughter. The case is
centered around the NYPD’s undercover infiltration of Masjid Al-Ansar, a Brooklyn mosque
that provides a community of congregants with daily prayer services, counseling, and
religious education. (ACLU) The NYPD surveillance of Masjid Al-Ansar created disparity and
concern amongst the mosques’ congregants. The ACLU states “The NYPD’s warrantless
surveillance of our clients profoundly harmed their religious goals, missions, and practices.
It forced religious leaders to censor what they said to their congregants, limit their religious
counseling, and record their sermons, for fear that their statements could be taken out of
context by police officers or informants. It also diminished attendance at mosques,
prompted distrust of newcomers out of concern they are NYPD informants, and prevented
the mosques from fulfilling their mission of serving as religious sanctuaries.” (ACLU) The
hardships Muslims face due to the discrimination by the NYPD threatens constitutional
rights. The lawsuit charged the NYPD and use of its discriminatory surveillance program,
with the violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights to freely exercise their religious
beliefs, as well as the right to equal protection. (ACLU) The ACLU announced in 2015, two
years after the start of the case, that they reached a settlement under the following
ramifications: “In January 2016, we announced a proposed settlement in the case with
