Congress voted to pass a bill Tuesday, which gives law enforcement more authority to commit warrantless spying and immunity to pending lawsuits against major communications companies — an action that has received mixed responses.

But, according to Kyle Bullard, a junior in business management, civil disputes against the government on this basis should be handled in court.

“If I were to get my phone tapped and my privacy invaded, then I would only hope that there would be some sort of legal recourse I could take,” he said.

According to Bullard, the bill is adding to damage done by the Patriot Act.

“Before this bill was passed, we had policy under the Patriot Act that allowed law enforcement without a warrant [to] tap into personal information, which is miserable,” he said. “Now… law enforcement has the to power to molest every American in the United States without a warrant, and [there is] no legal discourse to stop it.”

John Newson, a student in lifelong education, also expressed his outrage at the bill’s passage.

“Sept. 11 was seven years ago and we haven’t been attacked since,” Newson said. “Where is the proof that this bill will keep us safer? If law enforcement has enough probable cause to invade somebody’s privacy like that, then they should be able to get a warrant from a judge.”

Wesley Ward, a sophomore in agribusiness management, also agreed.

This new bill is giving courts the excuse to dismiss over 40 lawsuits against major communications companies that who have illegally wiretapped phones and internet use, Ward said.

“It’s been seven years since Sept. 11 and the American people are still being stripped of inalienable constitutional rights,” Ward said.

Newson said he thinks the bill does not benefit anyone.

“I don’t like the idea of law enforcement being the only governmental institution that doesn’t have to work within the sacred system of checks and balances,” he said.

Chase Leblanc, a freshman in fisheries and wildlife sciences, disagreed.

“This bill further promotes national security,” he said. “Eavesdropping only bothers people who are doing something wrong.”

According to LeBlanc, strengthening security is a good reason to forgo more investigation and searches.

“It’s a good thing it got passed,” he said. “Whatever precautions need to be taken to strengthen national security need to be taken. If somebody does oppose it, either they have something to hide or they’re being ignorant of the situation that we need to protect our national security.”