The Patriot Act
...committed and to obtain a warrant from a neutral judge.”(Lithwick) Opponents of the ACT, such as the American Library Association of Research Libraries agree that the legislation threatens the rights of the public and undermines the confidentiality that is crucial for the flow of information needed for the provision of the library services. The Association feels the ACT has threatened the flow of information through the library system. As a result, they believe people will refrain from obtaining information from valuable resources out of fear that each transaction could lead to trouble. “Privacy safe guards established at libraries before September 11, 2001 do protect patrons activities by limiting the amount of data agencies can seize.” (Scheeres) Also, most card catalogs use “software like Epixtech,” that only track library property while it is checked out. (Scheeres) Thus, when the material is returned the record linking the borrower to the book, video, or audiotape is deleted. Additionally, libraries routinely destroy Internet sign up sheets on a daily basis. “The word library does not appear in Section 215, Although, the ACT does grant the government expanded power to monitor our communications as well as leisure-time activities.” (Patrick) For instance, the government monitors what we read and what we view on the Internet. Libraries and telecommunications companies are considered a major resource from which these activities occur, so they fall under the provision of Section 215. Other organizations have also volunteered customer information to government agencies without being asked. According to one telecommunications Attorney Al Girari, whose client list consist of AOL and AT&T wireless, “ The sheer volume of subpoenas has tripled in the last year.”(Scheeres) Another controversial provision of the ACT is section 505. This section pertains to a type of administrative subpoena known as a national security letter that does not require court approval. The major problem with these letters is they can now be distributed to anyone, even U.S. citizens. Prior to the PATRIOT ACT the letters were only issued under reasonable suspicion of espionage. Those that receive these letters are under gag orders, which prohibit companies from revealing demands were ever made. Recently, the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) won what they called a “Landmark Victory.” (Eggen) New York, South District Judge, Victor Marrero, struck down a provision of the Act that authorizes the FBI to force Internet providers and phone companies to turn over certain customer records. In this case, the ACLU won their lawsuit against the FBI. Since these companies are barred from ever disclosing that searches took place, Judge Marrero said that the law “violates first Amendment rights because of its permanent ban on disclosure is a prior restraint of speech.” (Eggen) He added that it also “violates the fourth Amendment because it bars or deters any judicial challenge to government searches.” (Eggen) In addition to the ACLU, a large number of communities, several cities and three states, oppose the PATRIOT ACT. They argue that it threatens rights guaranteed in the fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states “that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” (U.S. Constitution) Those who oppose the ACT have passed resolutions denouncing the Law as an assault on civil liberties. Some members of congress agree and have also introduced legislation that denounces the ACT’s most invasive provisions. In July 2004, “the Otter Amendment,” was passed which de-funded the ACT’s “sneak-and-peek” provision. It passed in the house by a vote of 309-118. (Lithwick) The sneak and peek provision allows the government to peer into the private lives of citizens without notification. And “it makes it easier for the FBI to conduct roving surveillance when people use multiple phones and computers.” (Adair) Nothing in the PATRIOT ACT changes the American standard for search and seizure, wiretaps and searches still need court approval. However, “the problem is the government does not know whom to tap, so they engage in widespread monitoring and collect more information than they can handle. For example, prior to September 11, the government learned of al-Qaida operatives enrolled in U.S. flight schools, and seized a computer from an alleged hijacker. The government simply neglected to investigate these findings any further. Other purposes of the PATRIOT ACT such as section 411 and 412, deal with deportation and detention. Section 411 makes even unknowing association with terrorist a deportable offense. Provision 412 gives the attorney general new authority to detain non-citizens in the event he feels they are a threat to national security. This secti...