Final answer:
The War on Terror has changed the 4th Amendment's protection from searches, allowing for certain warrantless searches and surveillance activities. The usage of video and GPS by the government to monitor citizens is subject to legal scrutiny, with some instances found to violate the 4th Amendment. However, debates persist regarding the balance between security and privacy.
Step-by-step explanation:
The War on Terror has had a significant impact on the 4th Amendment's protection from searches. The government has argued that national security concerns justify certain warrantless searches and surveillance activities. For example, the USA PATRIOT Act expanded the government's authority to conduct searches and wiretaps without a warrant in cases related to terrorism. This has blurred the line between protecting national security and infringing upon individual privacy rights.
Regarding the usage of video and global positioning systems (GPS) by the government to monitor citizens, opinions within society and groups may vary. From a legal perspective, the Supreme Court has ruled that certain forms of surveillance may be constitutional under the 4th Amendment if they meet specific requirements. For example, in United States v. Jones (2012), the Court held that prolonged GPS monitoring of a suspect's vehicle without a warrant violated the 4th Amendment. However, security concerns and technological advancements may continually challenge the boundaries of privacy rights.
Overall, the War on Terror has led to shifts in the interpretation and application of the 4th Amendment's protection from searches. It has raised debates about the balance between national security and individual privacy, as well as the potential for 4th Amendment infringements through surveillance practices.
Learn more about War on Terror and the 4th Amendment