The attacks of September 11, 2001 have left a mark on Western consciousness that eclipses the shells and empty space where once stood the World Trade Center. These attacks ignited worldwide responses in both practical and political realms that reflect concern over loss of life, loss of property and loss of face before the global community from the threat of similar attacks. While related incidents were experienced on a smaller scale in England and Spain in the years following, the wound to a collective identity has been felt most poignantly in the United States, and the response has been unsurprisingly commensurate. The Patriot Act of October 2001 was close to being a knee-jerk reaction, and had the effect of rapidly enlarging the powers of government and law enforcement agencies to detain individuals, conduct searches, and deploy surveillance technologies toward the goals of increased national security and advancing a "war on terror." The controversial "sneak and peek" provisions of that act circumvent the existing safeguards of due process in matters of obtaining warrants and enacting searches under the Fourth Amendment, permitting authorities to conduct covert surveillance but delay notice of a warrant if they can demonstrate reasonable cause to believe that such notice will adversely affect the outcome of an investigation.  Klosek notes that while the Patriot Act was considered controversial by many, some comfort was derived from the understanding that many of the provisions would be of temporary effect. After a massive public relations campaign in favor of the Act's renewal, however, it was permanently signed into law on March 9, 2006.

While the effects of September 11 are experienced by the majority of us in such noticeable inconveniences as enhanced airport security and delays to air travel, a more profound response, but less visible, is the adoption of increased surveillance across a variety of public spaces, including widespread collection and analysis of personal information generated from financial activities and personal correspondence.  The justification for relaxed privacy protections and infringement on individual rights is intuitive, and was publically welcomed in the aftermath of the tragedy. With more observational data in our possession, the story goes, the probability of future attacks is greatly reduced. Terrorists can be identified and dealt with proactively. 

The "unanimism" of the professionals of politics after September 11 created a specific period for the enunciation of a discourse of necessity of war against terrorism and suspicion against foreigners, ethnic and religious minorities, but it was rooted in previous practices. These previous "routines" enable the executive, in so-called time of emergency, to use the justification of prolonged derogatory measures . . . with the argument that it is necessary to act to protect people and to reassure the task of collective survival.

Critics have noted an increase in draconian measures to counteract the threat of terrorism globally, with a commensurate impact on the rights and privacy of the individuals who are being "protected" from the potential threat of another act of super-terrorism.  Lyon notes that cultures of fear, control, suspicion and secrecy are created not simply by the events of September 11 but by the media hype surrounding it. "The 'irrational' attacks, apparently 'from outside,' mean that 'no one is safe.' The endless replays of WTC footage themselves helped foster fear and eroded resistance to new surveillance regimes."  The cultures of fear and control resulting from these events have been used to rationalize and expand the growth of a wide range of surveillance technologies.