Patriot Act: Difference between revisions

Perhaps one of the biggest controversies involved the use of [[National Security Letter]]s (NSLs) by the FBI. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a [[court order]], they were criticized by many parties, including the [[American Civil Liberties Union]]. Although FBI officials have a series of internal "checks and balances" that must be met before the issue of an NSL, Federal Judge Victor Marrero ruled the NSL provisions unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/index.html |title=National Security Letters|website=American Civil Liberties Union |date=September 2007 |access-date=October 13, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071018175523/http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/index.html |archive-date=October 18, 2007}}</ref><ref name="ACLU-NSLs" /><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/505.php|title=Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT Section 505 – National Security Letters (NSLs)|publisher=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]|access-date=October 13, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012100041/http://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/505.php|archive-date=October 12, 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.epic.org/privacy/nsl/|publisher=[[Electronic Privacy Information Center]]|title=EPIC: National Security Letters (NSLs)|access-date=July 11, 2008}}</ref> In November 2005, ''[[BusinessWeek]]'' reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted [[Las Vegas Valley|Las Vegas]] businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions".<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2005/nf20051110_9709_db016.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051124173403/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/nov2005/nf20051110_9709_db016.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=November 24, 2005|magazine=[[BusinessWeek]]|title=The Patriot Act: Business Balks|first=Richard S.|last=Dunham|date=November 10, 2005|access-date=July 11, 2008}}</ref> Before this was revealed, however, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April 2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown [[internet service provider]] who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In ''[[American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft|ACLU v. DoJ]]'', the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the USA PATRIOT Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional.<ref name="ACLUvDoJ" /> Congress later tried to remedy this in a reauthorization Act, but because they did not remove the non-disclosure provision a Federal court again found NSLs to be unconstitutional because they prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review.<ref name="ACLU-NSLs">{{cite press release|url=https://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/31580prs20070906.html|title=Federal Court Strikes Down National Security Letter Provision of Patriot Act|publisher=[[American Civil Liberties Union]]|date=September 6, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071106074840/http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/31580prs20070906.html |archive-date=November 6, 2007|quote=NEW YORK – A federal court today struck down the amended Patriot Act's National Security Letter (NSL) provision. The law has permitted the FBI to issue NSLs demanding private information about people within the United States without court approval, and to gag those who receive NSLs from discussing them. The court found that the gag power was unconstitutional and that because the statute prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review of gags, it violated the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html|title=Judge Invalidates Patriot Act Provisions|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|first=Dan|last=Eggen|date=September 7, 2007|page=A01}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/uslatest/story/0,,-6903200,00.html |title=Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act |first=Larry |last=Neumeister |date=September 7, 2007 |newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|location=London |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080127235629/http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0%2C%2C-6903200%2C00.html |archive-date=January 27, 2008 |url-status=dead }}</ref>