Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
diction over the location where the device was to be installed. The Patriot Act extends
the jurisdiction of court-ordered wiretaps to the entire country. A judge in New York
can authorize the installation of a device in California, for example. The act also al-
lows the nationwide application of court-ordered search warrants for terrorist-related
investigations.
The Patriot Act broadened the number of circumstances under which roving
surveillance can take place. Previously, roving surveillance could only be done for the
purpose of law enforcement, and the agency had to demonstrate to the court that the
person under investigation actually used the device to be monitored. The Patriot Act
allows roving surveillance to be performed for the purpose of intelligence, and the gov-
ernment does not have to prove that the person under investigation actually uses the
device to be tapped. Additionally, it does not require that the law enforcement agency
report back to the authorizing judge regarding the number of devices monitored and
the results of the monitoring.
Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement officials wishing to intercept communica-
tions to and from a person who has illegally gained access to a computer system do not
need a court order if they have the permission of the owner of the computer system.
The Patriot Act allows courts to authorize law enforcement officers to search a per-
son's premises without first serving a search warrant when there is “reasonable cause to
believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have
an adverse effect.” Officers may seize property that “constitutes evidence of a criminal
offense in violation of the laws of the United States,” even if that offense is unrelated to
terrorism.
The Patriot Act expanded the use of National Security Letters, making it easier for the
FBI to collect Internet, business, medical, educational, library, and church/mosque/
synagogue records. To obtain a search warrant authorizing the collection of records
about an individual, the FBI merely needs to issue a National Security Letter stating that
the records are related to an ongoing investigation. (The Patriot Act does specifically
prohibit the FBI from investigating citizens solely on the basis of activities protected
by the First Amendment.) A typical National Security Letter contains a gag order that
forbids the letter's recipient from disclosing receipt of the letter. National Security Letters
are controversial because, unlike warrants, they do not require the approval of a judge.
That means there is no need for the FBI to show probable cause. Between 2003 and 2006,
the FBI issued 192,499 National Security Letters [44].
National Security Letters have prompted several legal challenges by the Ameri-
can Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). One of these cases involved the Library Connec-
tion, a consortium of 26 libraries in Connecticut. In July 2005, the FBI sent a Na-
tional Security Letter to the Library Connection, demanding records of a patron who
had used a particular computer. This happened while Congress was debating reau-
thorization of the Patriot Act, and an important point in the debate was whether
