Clearly, the United States is in unfamiliar territory when it comes to fighting counterterrorism with technology. The founding fathers could not foresee the technological advances and complications that came with them. Understandably, US law enforcement is having a difficult time balancing the constitutional rights afforded to its citizens while protecting them from the terrorist threat. Initially, the government struggled with this balance. What led to the adoption of these laws in the first place was a lack of balance; Security dominated privacy during the Vietnam War to an unacceptable degree. While FISA didn't actually do much, it still set a precedent for subsequent actions. Its formulation has been built over decades, slowly evolving into something effective. As time went on, the technology expanded even more. With the creation of the Internet and other technological advances, previous laws no longer applied. People knew this, and the government feared that if they 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 guaranteed privacy to Americans on the Internet; people were not to be monitored unnecessarily. However, law enforcement surveillance technology was not always compatible with new technology available to the general public. If the technologies were not compatible, surveillance could not be conducted, and this would be a huge problem. This led to the approval of CALEA, which required any telecom operator to ensure that its technology was compatible with government surveillance technology. This gave the government the ability to monitor suspects. Until the middle of the document their focus is on internal policies. It is then that the majority of citizens will support the left wing and demand that previously passed laws, which violated their privacy, be repealed or changed. Overall, the law has always been, and always will be, changing and evolving: there will never be just one solution to the problem of balancing privacy and security, but instead a broad set of options. As society changes, the necessary laws will also change. It will never be possible to find a final solution that will satisfy 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 fruitful surveillance without completely trampling on the right to privacy. If this middle ground is discovered, perhaps both sides will be appeased enough to agree, and the matter can finally be resolved..5