Overall, those in the United States appear to exercise less scrutiny of state surveillance than in the United Kingdom, which may be due to limited intelligence oversight in general. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, ushered in major extensions of domestic power in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Legislation governing stop, search, surveillance, arrest, detention, and charge was strengthened and policies governing data collection and exchange were expanded. Despite these recent expansions, the author argues that the exercise of state power has proceeded in a manner that is constrained, contradictory, and sometimes ineffective. In the case of the United States, the author argues that the Patriot Act actually conforms to a pattern of expanded state power in other non-terrorist domains. Expanded surveillance powers had already been authorized since the 1960s for organized crime, drugs, and child pornography cases. However, the author points out that state “penetration” in terms of developing information gathering and security policies has increased since the terrorist attacks of 2001. In the case of the United Kingdom, legislation stemming from the September 11th attacks has provided police with additional powers that include expanded surveillance and data sharing capacity that have resulted in an unsuccessfully opposed identification card proposal and the de facto creation of a national DNA database. In the United States, civil society groups have taken the lead in ensuring the accountability of the state in the face of its expanded powers whereas the higher courts in the United Kingdom have assumed a prominent role in ensuring state accountability. 104 notes