Though out-and-out electronic monitoring of private information as evidence in a terrorist-related trial is highly unlikely, it nonetheless puts the average American citizen in a position where his or her privacy is greatly compromised (Soma, Nichols, Rynerson, Maish, and Rogers, 2005).
Another section that deems careful scrutiny is Section 215 of the Patriot Act. This section allows the FBI to demand production of any "tangible things" for terrorism investigations. Vagueness and ambiguity seem to be recurring themes throughout the Patriot Act. Section 215 is exceptionally vague in terms of "what is" and "is not" fair game to FBI acquisitions. It seems that the Patriot Act is written in such a way that "anything" could be conceived as being open in the eyes of investigators, including private and confidential handwritten information, tape recordings, hard drives, and CD-ROM -- simply because they are "tangible things" (USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005).
Interestingly enough, the nation's largest telephone carriers are not protected by the Patriot Act even though the Bush administration contracted them for their domestic spying program. Two separate congressional votes rejected the telephone company's request to be granted retroactive immunity. "Most significantly, the bill does not provide immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the president's warrantless surveillance program. We cannot even consider providing immunity unless we know exactly what we are providing immunity from. And even then, we have to proceed with great caution..." (cited in eWeek, 2007). President Bush requested Congress to offer protection to all carriers that offered to hand over client telephone and e-mail records -- often without a warrant or subpoena -- to government officials. The White House commenced warrantless surveillance activity after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Verizon, at & T, and Qwest Communications International all argue that they thought they were protected under existing federal, state, and local laws. Oddly enough, these carriers are also under a federal court order to neither admit nor refute their involvement in the program. "The full Senate will yet need to resolve the immunity issue. While I appreciate the problems facing the telecommunications companies, the retroactive immunity issue to me is not about...
Passing a law to whitewash the administration's undermining of another law would be a disservice to the American and to the rule of law..." (cited in eWeek, 2007)
People in favor of the Patriot Act argue that if earlier proposed legislation had been enacted before the tragic events of 9/11, this attack might never have happened. People who take this position usually argue that the Act itself does not and will not significantly affect the liberties and privacy of law-abiding citizens and that national security should be the main focus; however, people who harbor concerns with certain components of the Patriot Act are not concerned with overtly violating constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, but that the "balance" between privacy and national security will be in greatly compromised (Soma, Nichols, Rynerson, Maish, and Rogers, 2005). Some argue that the Act unjustly amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act by permitting the issuance of search warrants and wiretaps without probable cause of illegal activity. They speculate that such amendments will result in the government using the less restraining FISA standard to obtain criminal evidence government agencies could not otherwise collect under a "probable cause" criterion (Thornburgh, 2005).
References
Baker, N. (2004). National securities vs. civil liberties. Presidential Studies
Quarterly. 33 (3), 547-568.
Epic, (2005). USA Patriot Act sunset. Retrieved on 17 November 2007 at http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/sunset.html.
Thomson Gale Databases, (2007). House votes for no telco immunity. eWeek.
Soma, J., Nichols, M., Rynerson, S., Maish, L., and Rogers, J., (2005).
Balance of privacy vs. security: A historical perspective of the U.S.A. Patriot Act.
Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, 31(2) 285 (61).
Thornburgh, R. (2005). Balancing civil liberties and homeland security: Does the U.S.A.
Patriot Act avoid Justice Robert H. Jackson's "suicide pact?" Albany Law
Review, 801-814.
USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. Public Law -- 109 -- 177
March 9, 2006. Retrieved on 17 November 2007 at http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/meth/pl109-177.pdf
