What is the USA PATRIOT Act?The USA PATRIOT Act was introduced less than a week after September 11, 2001, where USA PATRIOT stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." It was signed into law on October 26, 2001, broadly expanded law enforcement's surveillance and investigative powers, and amended more than 15 different statutes, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Show
Among other things, the USA PATRIOT Act's intent was to update wiretap and surveillance laws for the Internet age, addressing real-time communications and stored communications (email, voice mail), and to give law enforcement greater authority to conduct searches of property. For information on how the USA PATRIOT Act affects intellectual freedom, visit the ALA's Office for Intellectual Freedom back to top Why does it matter to libraries?Libraries provide information on all kinds of subjects and from all perspectives to their communities; this includes access to government information. Libraries also fight for civil liberties, including freedom of expression and privacy. Libraries are key sources of information for their communities. All of these things are threatened by the power that the USA PATRIOT Act gives to law enforcement authorities. back to top Current StatusDecember 20, 2006 The USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized in March 2006. What can you do next? Visit the Bill of Rights Defense Commitee's page on Resources for Defending Civil Liberties for guidelines. The PATRIOT reauthorization legislation signed into law by President Bush on March 9, 2006 contains some changes from the original USA PATRIOT Act. Sunsets: Section 215Standards Under the original PATRIOT Act, the FBI had only to assert that records were “sought’ for an authorized investigation “to obtain foreign intelligence information not concerning a United States person or to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.” Under the new legislation, the FBI can obtain library records of anyone when they present facts showing “reasonable grounds” to believe that the records are “relevant” to an “authorized investigation as described above. Individualized Suspicion The law now says that the records sought will be "presumptively relevant" (i.e., nothing further needed) if the FBI shows that they pertain to:
The reauthorized law also follows the SAFE Act language in requiring records or other things to be described with “sufficient particularity” to allow them to be identified –reducing the danger that the FBI will engage in fishing expeditions in library or bookstore records. It also states that the order “may only require the production of any tangible thing if such thing can be obtained with a subpoena duces tecum ( a writ or process including a clause requiring the witness to bring with him and produce to the court, books, papers, etc., in his hands, tending to elucidate the matter in issue)issued by a court of the United States in aid of a grand jury investigation or with any other order issued by a court of the United States directing the production of records or other tangible things,” again putting some limits on the scope of the order Approval Disclosure Further, there is now no requirement that a recipient of a Section 215 order inform the FBI of the identity of an attorney to whom disclosure was or will be made. But, upon the request of the Director of the FBI, a recipient is required to identify anyone besides an attorney to whom a disclosure is made or will be made. Challenges The reauthorization legislation also allows a Section 215 order recipient to challenge the gag order attached to the subpoena. But recipients may challenge only after one year. And the FISA judge may only overturn the gag if:
The certification of the government to these possibilities is to be taken as conclusive. Minimization Requirements
Reports The reauthorized PATRIOT Act requires that the DOJ submit unclassified reports annually in April to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. These reports will include information on the total number of orders either granted, modified, or denied when the application or order involved the production of library circulation records, library patron lists, book sales records, or book customer lists; as well as firearm sales records; tax return records; educational records; or medical records containing information that would identify a person. It also requires the DOJ to report “to Congress” in April of each year a report on:
Audit Section 505Standards: Disclosure Following the language of the SAFE Act, the law now says that if the Director of the FBI or his designee (in a position not lower than Deputy Assistant Director at the Bureau headquarters or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office designated by the Director), certifies that disclosure of a National Security Letter would harm national security, interfere with an investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger life or physical safety, receipt of the Letter may not be disclosed to other than those persons to whom disclosure is necessary to comply with such order, or to an attorney to obtain legal advice or assistance with respect to the request. Persons to whom disclosure is made are subject to the same non-disclosure provisions. The statute establishes new penalties for “knowingly and with intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial proceeding” by violating the gag order. Penalties include a prison term of up to 5 years. However, language in the original legislation establishing a penalty of up to one year in prison for “knowingly and willfully” violating the gag order was removed . Challenges The statute now allows a challenge to the gag order in a U.S. District Court. However, if the government certifies that a challenge would harm national security, interfere with an investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger life or physical safety, that certification must be treated as “conclusive.” If a year has elapsed since issuance of the order, the issuing official must re-certify--but certification is still conclusive. Enforcement back to top Recent LegislationMarch 7, 2006 See ALAWON Vol. 15 No. 34 for details on the vote. March 2, 2006 The Senators who voted against the flawed reauthorization bill are: March 1, 2006 February 24, 2006 February 16, 2006 Sen. Feingold said of the compromise, " The modifications to the conference report agreed to by the White House do contain one other purported change to one of the NSL statutes. This modification states that the FBI cannot issue an NSL for transactional and subscriber information about telephone and Internet usage to a library unless the library is offering "electronic communication services" as defined in the statute. But that just restates the existing requirements of the NSL statute, which currently applies only to entities - libraries or otherwise - that provide "electronic communication services." So that provision has no real legal effect whatsoever. Perhaps that explains why the American Library Association issued a statement calling this provision a "fig leaf" and expressing disappointment that so many Senators have agreed to this deal." After the cloture vote, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) entered a colloquy with Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) designed to clarify the impact on the NSL requirement on libraries. During the discussion Sen. Sununu said of the requirement, " What we did in this legislation is add clarifying language that states that libraries operating in their traditional functions: lending books, providing access to digital books or periodicals in digital format, and providing basic access to the Internet would not be subject to a national security letter. There is no National Security Letter statute existing in current law that permits the FBI explicitly to obtain library records. But, as was indicated by the Senator from Illinois, librarians have been concerned that existing National Security Letter authority is vague enough so that it could be used to allow the Government to treat libraries as they do communication service providers such as a telephone company or a traditional Internet service provider from whom consumers would go out and get their access to the Internet and send and receive e-mail. Section 5 clarifies, as I indicated, that a library providing basic Internet access would not be subject to a national security letter, simply by virtue of making that access available to the public." Sen. Durbin, pressing for further clarification said, " So a library that has Internet access, where a person can find an Internet e-mail service, is not a communications service provider; therefore, it would not fall under the purview of the NSL provision in 18 U.S.C. 2709. It is a critically important distinction...Libraries are fundamental to America..." Sen. Durbin also thanked librarians for their, "heroic efforts to amend the PATRIOT Act in a responsible way..." ( Congressional Record; February 16, 2006 (Senate) page S1379-S1403.) View the full colloquy (PDF)(Word) February 1, 2006 On February 9th, four Republican Senators (John Sununu – NH. Lisa Murkowski – AK, Chuck Hagel – NE, and Larry Craig – ID), who had joined in the threat to filibuster the House Conference Report on the Reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act, announced a deal they had negotiated with the White House. According to informed sources on the Hill, the White House and Republican leadership now will be able to garner enough votes to ensure passage in the Senate. The specifics include:
ALA opposes this proposal and continues to call on Congress to pass the SAFE Act, which would help cure many of the problems that are left unfixed in this new proposal. ALA Press Release Also available here (PDF) The final day before its 2005 summer recess, the Senate passed S. 1389 (the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005) on unanimous consent (no debate, no amendments, no roll call vote). The bill adds to the USA PATRIOT Act many of the safeguards for library and reader privacy that have been sought by the library community since the passage of the law in 2001, including tougher requirements for searching library records under Section 215. The vote was a surprise, coming just one week after the Senate Judiciary Committee passed the S. 1389 and the House passed H.R. 3199 and just when everyone thought the Senate was rushing out the door for its summer recess. The two bills will now need to be reconciled by a Conference Committee. The Senate conferees have been named; the House conferees have not to date. Conference is expected to begin at the staff level the week of September 26th. Here is a brief comparison of the bills. Sunsets Section 215: Standard for Obtaining Order The Senate bill requires the FBI to give facts showing reason to believe that the records sought are "relevant to" counter terrorism or counter intelligence investigation, AND that items "pertain to" a foreign power, agent of a foreign power, or person in contact with a suspected agent or are "relevant to" the activities of a suspected agent who is the subject of the investigation. It also requires the FISA Court to "find" these facts (i.e., not just rubber-stamp the request). The Senate bill also requires records or other things to be described with "sufficient particularity" to allow them to be identified - reducing the danger that that the FBI will engage in fishing expeditions in library or bookstore records. Required Approval Consulting an Attorney Challenges -- Order Challenges -- Gag Order Reporting Section 505: Challenges -- Letter Challenges -- Gag Order Enforcement back to top Related Web Pages
back to top What can I do?Let your legislators know how you feel! Try out ALA's NEW e-advocacy site! Click here or the logo above to:
U.S. Capitol switchboard 202-225-3121 We invite you to try out our new site today! If you experience problems with or have questions about the new site, please email Andy Bridges or Erin Haggerty. back to top Other InformationCourt Cases September 9, 2005 Letters and Declarations January 25, 2006
Read their "Open Letter to Congress" October 4, 2005 Read their letter here (PDF). August 30, 2005 Read the declaration here (PDF)(Use the password justice). May 23, 2005 Read the letter here (PDF). back to top Related Files USA PATRIOT Issues For Campuses (PDF File) Related LinksCompilation of State Laws Regarding Library Record Confidentiality (12/02) What is the primary purpose of the USA Patriot Act?The purpose of the USA Patriot Act is to deter and punish terrorist acts in the United States and around the world.
What is the purpose of the USA Patriot Act quizlet?The main purpose of the Patriot Act is to combat terrorism by tracing money that funds terrorist groups.
What did the Patriot Act amend?The USA PATRIOT Act modified many major U.S. intelligence, communications, and privacy laws, including: The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (EPCA ), which modifies Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (the Wiretap Act ); the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA); and the ...
|