• PC World
• » Security

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Reports that Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) wants to permanently extend the Patriot Act beyond its 2005 expiration date appear to have sparked a debate among civil libertarians and others.

The act, passed shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, broadens the surveillance powers of the government to allow easier monitoring of e-mail and telephone communications and Web site visits. Hatch representatives declined to comment on the possibility of extending the act.

Weighing In

Department of Justice spokesperson Mark Corallo would not comment on the Hatch proposal, but says that when the law expires in two years, "it is possible that we would seek reauthorization" just as Congress often reauthorizes "many laws that have sunset provisions."

The act itself has come under fire from some lawmakers and privacy groups. The American Civil Liberties Union has sued for details on how its provisions are being applied. In addition to Hatch's apparent proposal, the Justice Department is reportedly working on a broader successor, called Patriot II.

Beth Givens, director of the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, a nonprofit privacy advocacy group, says she opposes extending the act.

"I think it would be a significant deterioration of Americans' civil liberties with the permanent extension," she says. "There must be a sunset so that the impacts of the provisions are evaluated in terms of our constitutional rights."

In a press release, Timothy Edgar, ACLU legislative counsel, expresses similar concerns.

"The USA Patriot Act went too far and passed too quickly," he writes. "It was an extreme measure justified by its supporters by extraordinary circumstances. In the interest of both our safety and our freedom, it needs to be assessed and reformed by cooler heads. Removing the sunsets would prevent such action."

Application Debated

Corallo disagrees that the law steps on the rights of ordinary Americans.

"The Patriot Act has protections written into the law that provide for strengthening civil liberties," he says. "For instance, when we talk about the Patriot Act allowing law enforcement to intercept and read [e-mail messages], that's not true."

Instead, pen register techniques permitted under the act to track the e-mail of suspected terrorists "only reveal the fact that a message has been sent. They do not reveal content," he says.

Attorney Deborah Pierce, executive director of the nonprofit group Privacy Activism, questions "whether or not the heading of an e-mail or the URL is content. Someone from the Justice Department could argue that that's not content, that that's similar to the number dialed."

However, even e-mail message headings could contain personal information, such as dinner plans, Web sites visited, or organization membership, she says. "It's much more descriptive than just [a dialed] number," she notes. Pierce also says it's hard to identify law enforcement's targets.

Corallo likens e-mail monitoring to pre-Internet age registers of mobsters' phone calls. He cautions against "the inference ... that there's this big eye in the sky looking at you and me and everyone else."

"A roving wiretap is simply a provision that allows the FBI to get a warrant from a judge to do surveillance on a person instead of a phone number," he says. "That provision of the Patriot Act brought federal law enforcement into the 21st century. The old laws were written in the analog age."

• See more like this:
• patriot act,
• surveillance,
• security,
• terrorism,
• justice department,
• department of justice,
• orrin hatch,
• Privacy Rights Clearinghouse,
• ACLU,
• legislation,
• congress