Editing Patriot Act (section)

== Controversy ==
{{See also|Controversial invocations of the Patriot Act}}

The USA PATRIOT Act has generated a great deal of controversy since its enactment.

Opponents of the Act have been quite vocal in asserting that it was passed opportunistically after the [[September 11 attacks]], believing that there would have been little debate. They view the Act as one that was hurried through the Senate with little change before it was passed (senators [[Patrick Leahy]] (D-VT) and [[Russ Feingold]] (D-WI) proposed amendments to modify the final revision).<ref>{{CongRec|2001|S10991|October 25, 2001}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|quote=Though the Act made significant amendments to over 15 important statutes, it was introduced with great haste and passed with little debate, and without a House, Senate, or conference report. As a result, it lacks background legislative history that often retrospectively provides necessary statutory interpretation.|url=http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/#introduction|title=History of the Patriot Act|publisher=[[Electronic Privacy Information Center]]|access-date=July 11, 2008|archive-date=July 10, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080710101656/http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/#introduction|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|quote=...it seems clear that the vast majority of the sections included were not carefully studied by Congress, nor was sufficient time taken to debate it or to hear testimony from experts outside of law enforcement in the fields where it makes major changes.|url=https://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php|title=EFF Analysis Of The Provisions Of The USA PATRIOT Act That Relate To Online Activities|date=October 31, 2001|publisher=[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]|access-date=October 12, 2007|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071012032738/http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/20011031_eff_usa_patriot_analysis.php|archive-date=October 12, 2007}}</ref>

The sheer magnitude of the Act itself was noted by [[Michael Moore]] in his controversial film ''[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]''. In one of the scenes of the movie, he records Congressperson [[Jim McDermott]] (D-WA) alleging that no Senator had read the bill<ref>[[Michael Moore]], ''[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]'' (documentary). Timestamp: 01:01:39–01:01:47.</ref> and John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) as saying, "We don't read most of the bills. Do you really know what that would entail if we read every bill that we passed?" Congressperson Conyers answers his own question, saying that if they did read every bill, it would "slow down the legislative process".<ref>[[Michael Moore]], ''[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]'' (documentary). Timestamp: 01:02:02–01:02:15.</ref> As a [[dramatic device]], Moore then hired an [[ice-cream van]] and drove around Washington, D.C., with a loudspeaker, reading out the Act to puzzled passers-by, including a few senators.<ref>[[Michael Moore]], ''[[Fahrenheit 9/11]]'' (documentary). Timestamp: 01:02:35–01:02:43.</ref>

Moore was not the only commentator to notice that not many people had read the Act. When [[Dahlia Lithwick]] and Julia Turne for ''[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]'' asked, "How bad is PATRIOT, anyway?", they decided that it was "hard to tell" and stated:

{{blockquote|The [[American Civil Liberties Union|ACLU]], in a new fact sheet challenging the [[United States Department of Justice|DOJ]] Web site, wants you to believe that the act threatens our most basic civil liberties. Ashcroft and his roadies call the changes in law "modest and incremental." Since almost nobody has read the legislation, much of what we think we know about it comes third-hand and spun. Both advocates and opponents are guilty of fear-mongering and distortion in some instances.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/id/2087984/|title=A Guide to the Patriot Act, Part 1|department=Jurisprudence|first1=Dahlia|last1=Lithwick|first2=Julia|last2=Turner| work=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]]|date=September 8, 2003}}</ref>}}

One prime example of how the Patriot Act has stirred controversy is the case of [[Susan Lindauer]]. Lindauer is a former Congressional staffer and antiwar activist who was charged under the Patriot Act with "acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government," then ruled by a court mentally unfit to stand trial. Lindauer has emphatically denied both on many occasions, saying that she in fact had been a [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] agent serving as a link between the U.S. and Iraqi governments. In 2010 she wrote a book called ''Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover-Ups of 9/11 and Iraq'' to that effect.<ref>{{cite web | first=Susan|last=Lindauer|title=Extreme Prejudice |url=http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com/|access-date=December 1, 2010 }}</ref>{{self-published source|date=October 2022}} The charges were dropped in 2009.

Another example of controversy in the Patriot Act is the 2012 court case ''[[United States v. Jones (2012)|United States v. Antoine Jones]]''. A nightclub owner was linked to a drug trafficking stash house via a law enforcement GPS tracking device attached to his car. It was placed there without a warrant, which caused a serious conviction obstacle for federal prosecutors in court. The case eventually reached the [[Supreme Court of the United States|U.S. Supreme Court]], where the conviction was overturned. The court found that increased monitoring of suspects caused by such legislation like the Patriot Act violated the defendant's constitutional rights.{{citation needed|date=October 2022}}

The [[Electronic Privacy Information Center]] (EPIC) has criticized the law as unconstitutional, especially when "the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might be intercepted incidentally",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/#Analysis|title=Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Expanded Dissemination of Information Obtained in Criminal Investigations|access-date=July 11, 2008|work=Analysis|publisher=[[Electronic Privacy Information Center]]|archive-date=July 10, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080710101656/http://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/#Analysis|url-status=dead}}</ref> while the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] (EFF) held that the lower standard applied to wiretaps "gives the [[Federal Bureau of Investigation|FBI]] a 'blank check' to violate the communications privacy of countless innocent Americans".<ref name="EFFSection206" /> Others do not find the roving wiretap legislation to be as concerning. Professor [[David D. Cole]] of the [[Georgetown University Law Center]], a critic of many of the provisions of the Act, found that though they come at a cost to privacy are a sensible measure<ref>{{Cite journal|first=David|last=Cole|author-link=David D. Cole|url=http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_701713501/Is_the_Patriot_Act_Unconstitutional.html|title=The Patriot Act Violates Our Civil Liberties|journal=Is the Patriot Act Unconstitutional?|publisher=[[Microsoft Encarta]]|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060506231717/http://encarta.msn.com/sidebar_701713501/Is_the_Patriot_Act_Unconstitutional.html|archive-date=May 6, 2006}}</ref> while Paul Rosenzweig, a Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at [[The Heritage Foundation]], argues that roving wiretaps are just a response to rapidly changing communication technology that is not necessarily fixed to a specific location or device.<ref>{{Cite journal|journal=[[Patriot Debates]]|url=http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/206-2#rebuttal|first=Paul|last=Rosenzweig|title=Terrorism is not just a crime|publisher=[[American Bar Association]]|access-date=October 15, 2007|archive-date=December 7, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081207032456/http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/206-2#rebuttal|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The Act also allows access to voicemail through a search warrant rather than through a title III wiretap order.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 209.</ref> James Dempsey, of the [[Center for Democracy and Technology|CDT]], believes that it unnecessarily overlooks the importance of notice under the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]] and under a Title III wiretap,<ref>James X. Dempsey, [http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/209-212-and-220-2#opening "Why Sections 209, 212, and 220 Should be Modified"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081206180654/http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/209-212-and-220-2#opening |date=December 6, 2008 }} (undated). Retrieved October 15, 2007.</ref> and the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation|EFF]] criticizes the provision's lack of notice. However, the EFF's criticism is more extensive—they believe that the amendment "is in possible violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" because previously if the FBI listened to voicemail illegally, it could not use the messages in evidence against the defendant.<ref>''[[Electronic Frontier Foundation|EFF]]'', [https://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/209.php "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT – Section 209: 'Seizure of VoiceMail Messages Pursuant to Warrants'"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070929105412/http://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/209.php |date=September 29, 2007 }}. Retrieved December 29, 2005.</ref> Others disagree with these assessments. Legal Scholar [[Orin Kerr]] believes that the [[Electronic Communications Privacy Act|ECPA]] "adopted a rather strange rule to regulate voicemail stored with service providers" because "under ECPA, if the government knew that there was one copy of an unopened private message in a person's bedroom and another copy on their remotely stored voicemail, it was illegal for the FBI to simply obtain the voicemail; the law actually compelled the police to invade the home and rifle through people's bedrooms so as not to disturb the more private voicemail." In Professor Kerr's opinion, this made little sense and the amendment that was made by the USA PATRIOT Act was reasonable and sensible.<ref>[[Orin Kerr]], [http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/209-212-and-220-2#rebuttal "Why Sections 209, 212, and 220 Should be Modified"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081206180654/http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/209-212-and-220-2#rebuttal |date=December 6, 2008 }} (undated). Retrieved October 12, 2007.</ref><ref name="constitutional1">One prime example of a controversy of the Patriot Act is shown in the recent court case ''[[United States v. Jones (2012)|United States v. Antoine Jones]]''. A nightclub owner was linked to a drug trafficking stash house via a law enforcement GPS tracking device attached to his car. It was placed there without a warrant, which caused a serious conviction obstacle for federal prosecutors in court. Through the years the case has risen to the United States Supreme Court where the conviction was overturned in favor of the defendant. The court found that increased monitoring of suspects caused by such legislation like the Patriot Act directly put the suspects' Constitutional rights in jeopardy.</ref>

The Patriot Act's expansion of court jurisdiction to allow the nationwide service of search warrants proved controversial for the EFF.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 220.</ref> They believe that agencies will be able to "'shop' for judges that have demonstrated a strong bias toward law enforcement with regard to search warrants, using only those judges least likely to say no—even if the warrant doesn't satisfy the strict requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution",<ref name=EFFSection220>''[[Electronic Frontier Foundation|EFF]]'', [https://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/220.php "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT – Section 220: 'Nationwide Service of Search Warrants for Electronic Evidence'"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061211201729/https://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/220.php |date=December 11, 2006 }}. Retrieved October 12, 2007.</ref> and that it reduces the likelihood that smaller [[Internet service provider|ISPs]] or phone companies will try to protect the privacy of their clients by challenging the warrant in court—their reasoning is that "a small San Francisco ISP served with such a warrant is unlikely to have the resources to appear before the New York court that issued it."<ref name="EFFSection220" /> They believe that this is bad because only the communications provider will be able to challenge the warrant as only they will know about it—many warrants are issued ''ex parte'', which means that the target of the order is not present when the order is issued.<ref name=EFFSection220 />

For a time, the USA PATRIOT Act allowed for agents to undertake "sneak and peek" searches.<ref name="Section213" />
Critics such as EPIC and the ACLU strongly criticized the law for violating the Fourth Amendment,<ref>[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/ Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Authority to Conduct Secret Searches ("Sneak and Peek")] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071015172827/http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/ |date=October 15, 2007 }}, [[Electronic Privacy Information Center]]. Accessed December 5, 2005.</ref> with the ACLU going so far as to release an advertisement condemning it and calling for it to be repealed.<ref>{{cite press release|url=https://www.aclu.org/safefree/patriot/16745prs20030903.html|title=Uncle Sam Asks: "What the hell is going on here?" in New ACLU Print and Radio Advertisements|publisher=[[American Civil Liberties Union]]|date=September 10, 2003|access-date=December 4, 2016|archive-date=October 17, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091017173539/http://www.aclu.org/safefree/patriot/16745prs20030903.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.factcheck.org/aclu_ad_on_sneak-and-peek_searches_overblown.html|title=ACLU Ad On "Sneak-and-Peek" Searches: Overblown|publisher=FactCheck.org|date=September 21, 2004|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070714102208/http://www.factcheck.org/aclu_ad_on_sneak-and-peek_searches_overblown.html|archive-date=July 14, 2007}}</ref>

In 2004, FBI agents used this provision to search and secretly examine the home of [[Brandon Mayfield]], who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the [[Madrid train bombings]]. While the U.S. Government did publicly apologize to Mayfield and his family,<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006112901155.html?nav=rss_nation/nationalsecurity|title=Apology Note from the United States Government|date=November 29, 2006}}</ref> Mayfield took it further through the courts. On September 26, 2007, Judge [[Ann Aiken]] found the law was, in fact, unconstitutional as the search was an unreasonable imposition on Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.<ref name="SneakAndPeakStruckDownWired" /><ref name="SneakAndPeakStruckDownNYT" />

Laws governing the material support of terrorism proved contentious. It was criticized by the EFF for infringement of [[freedom of association]]. The EFF argues that had this law been enacted during [[Apartheid]], U.S. citizens would not have been able to support the [[African National Congress]] (ANC) as the EFF believes the ANC would have been classed as a terrorist organization. They also used the example of a humanitarian social worker being unable to train [[Hamas]] members how to care for civilian children orphaned in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, a lawyer being unable to teach [[Provisional Irish Republican Army|IRA]] members about [[international law]], and peace workers being unable to offer training in effective peace negotiations or how to petition the [[United Nations]] regarding human rights abuses.<ref>''[[Electronic Frontier Foundation|EFF]]'', [https://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/201.php "Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT – Section 201: 'Authority to Intercept Wire, Oral, and Electronic Communications Relating to Terrorism,' and Section 805, 'Material Support for Terrorism'"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071009191205/http://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/201.php |date=October 9, 2007 }}. Retrieved October 12, 2007.</ref>

Another group, the [[Humanitarian Law Project]], also objected to the provision prohibiting "expert advise and assistance" to terrorists and filed a suit against the U.S. government to have it declared unconstitutional. In 2004 a Federal District Court struck the provision down as unconstitutionally vague,<ref name="FullRulingSection805" /> but in 2010 the Supreme Court reversed that decision.<ref name=liptak />

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>

[[File:The FBI has not been here.jpg|thumb|right|A [[warrant canary]], posted in a [[Craftsbury, Vermont]] library in 2005: "The FBI has not been here (watch very closely for removal of this sign)". Announcing the receipt of a [[national security letter]] would violate the associated [[gag order]], while removing the sign would not.]]
Another provision of the USA PATRIOT Act has caused a great deal of consternation among librarians. Section 215 allows the FBI to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Among the "tangible things" that could be targeted, it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items".<ref name="Section215" />

Supporters of the provision point out that these records are held by third parties, and therefore are exempt from a citizen's reasonable expectations of privacy and also maintain that the FBI has not abused the provision.<ref>{{cite web|first=Andrew|last=C. McCarthy|author-link=Andrew C. McCarthy|url=http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/214-and-215-2#opening|title=Why Sections 214 and 215 Should be Retained|publisher=[[American Bar Association]]|access-date=July 11, 2008|archive-date=October 12, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081012113428/http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/214-and-215-2#opening|url-status=dead}}</ref> As proof, then Attorney General John Ashcroft released information in 2003 that showed that section 215 orders had never been used.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-patriot-check-out-at-libraries/|title=No Patriot Check Out At Libraries|date=September 18, 2003|publisher=[[CBS News]]|access-date=April 16, 2020|archive-date=November 4, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131104065400/http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/19/national/main569135.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref>

However, the [[American Library Association]] strongly objected to the provision, believing that library records are fundamentally different from ordinary business records, and that the provision would have a [[chilling effect]] on free speech. The association became so concerned that it adopted a resolution condemning the USA PATRIOT Act and urging members to defend free speech and protect patrons' privacy.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=ifresolutions&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11891|title=Resolution on the USA Patriot Act and Related Measures That Infringe on the Rights of Library Users|date=January 29, 2003|publisher=[[American Library Association]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040212223746/https://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=ifresolutions&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=11891|archive-date=February 12, 2004}}</ref>

The association urged librarians to seek legal advice before complying with a search order, and advised its members to keep records only for as long as was legally required.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-16-librarians-usat_x.htm|title=FBI's reading list worries librarians|first=Martin|last=Kasindorf|newspaper=[[USA Today]]|date= December 16, 2003|access-date=July 11, 2008}}</ref> Consequently, reports started filtering in that librarians were shredding records to avoid having to comply with such orders.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/07/us/some-librarians-use-shredder-to-show-opposition-to-new-fbi-powers.html|title= Some Librarians Use Shredder to Show Opposition to New F.B.I. Powers|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|date=April 7, 2003 |first=Dean E.|last= Murphy|access-date=August 2, 2022}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/libraries-rally-against-usa-patriot-act|title=Libraries Rally Against USA Patriot Act|date=May 7, 2003|work=Politics|publisher=[[Fox News Channel]]|access-date=July 11, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080511174401/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,86167,00.html|archive-date=May 11, 2008|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|title=Libraries warning patrons: Federal government may be spying on you.|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|date=April 3, 2003|first=Judith|last=Graham}}</ref>

In 2005, Library Connection, a nonprofit consortium of 27 libraries in Connecticut, known as the [[Connecticut Four]] worked with the ACLU to lift a gag order for library records, challenging the government's power under Section 505 to silence four citizens who wished to contribute to public debate on the PATRIOT Act. This case became known as [[Doe v. Gonzales]]. In May 2006, the government finally gave up its legal battle to maintain the gag order. In a summary of the actions of the Connecticut Four and their challenge to the USA PATRIOT Act, Jones (2009: 223) notes: "Librarians need to understand their country's legal balance between the protection of freedom of expression and the protection of national security. Many librarians believe that the interests of national security, important as they are, have become an excuse for chilling the freedom to read."<ref>Jones, Barbara M. 2009. "Librarians Shushed No More: The USA Patriot Act, the 'Connecticut Four,' and Professional Ethics." Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom 58, no. 6: 195, 221–223.</ref>

Another controversial aspect of the USA PATRIOT Act is the immigration provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of any alien who the Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act.<ref name="Section412" /> Before the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, [[Anita Ramasastry]], an associate professor of law and a director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce, & Technology at the [[University of Washington School of Law]] in [[Seattle]], Washington, accused the Act of depriving basic rights for immigrants to America, including legal permanent residents. She warned that "Indefinite detention upon secret evidence—which the USA PATRIOT Act allows—sounds more like [[Taliban]] justice than ours. Our claim that we are attempting to build an international coalition against terrorism will be severely undermined if we pass legislation allowing even citizens of our allies to be incarcerated without basic U.S. guarantees of fairness and justice."<ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20011005_ramasastry.html|title=Indefinite detention based on suspicion: How The Patriot Act Will Disrupt Many Lawful Immigrants' Lives|date=October 5, 2001|first=Anita|last=Ramasastry|access-date=July 11, 2008|journal=[[FindLaw]]}}</ref>
Many other parties have also been strongly critical of the provision. Russell Feingold, in a Senate floor statement, claimed that the provision "falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness [as it] continues to allow the Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://feingold.senate.gov/speeches/01/10/102501at.html|title=Statement Of U.S. Senator Russ Feingold On The Anti-Terrorism Bill From The Senate Floor|date=October 25, 2001|first=Russell|last=Feingold|author-link=Russell Feingold|access-date=July 11, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080708112202/http://feingold.senate.gov/speeches/01/10/102501at.html|archive-date=July 8, 2008}}</ref>
The [[University of California]] passed a resolution condemning (among other things) the indefinite detention provisions of the Act,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/patriotact0704.pdf|title=Resolution Passed at the May 6, 2004 Special Meeting of the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate|publisher=[[University of California]]|access-date=July 11, 2008|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080625012841/http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/patriotact0704.pdf|archive-date=June 25, 2008}}</ref> while the ACLU has accused the Act of giving the Attorney General "unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants&nbsp;... Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial."<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17326res20030403.html|publisher=[[American Civil Liberties Union]]|title=Surveillance Under the USA PATRIOT Act > Non surveillance provisions|date=April 3, 2003|access-date= July 11, 2008}}</ref>

Another controversial aspect of the USA PATRIOT Act is its effect on the privacy of Canadians living in the province of [[British Columbia]] (B.C.). British Columbia's privacy commissioner raises concerns that the USA PATRIOT Act will allow the United States government to access Canadians' private information, such as personal medical records, that are outsourced to American companies. Although the government of B.C. has taken measures to prevent United States authorities from obtaining information, the widespread powers of the USA PATRIOT Act could overcome legislation that is passed in Canada.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nupge.ca/news_2004/n28oc04d.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041114114045/http://www.nupge.ca/news_2004/n28oc04d.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=November 14, 2004|title=Patriot Act will prevail over B.C. privacy legislation|date=October 29, 2004|access-date=March 6, 2008}}</ref> B.C. Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis stated in a report on the consequences of the USA PATRIOT Act, "once information is sent across borders, it's difficult, if not impossible, to control".<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/usa-patriot-act-comes-under-fire-in-b-c-report-1.487630|title=USA Patriot Act comes under fire in B.C. report|date=October 30, 2004|access-date=March 6, 2008 | work=CBC News}}</ref>

In an effort to maintain their privacy, British Columbia placed amendments on the ''Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act'' (FOIPPA), which was enacted as law on October 21, 2004. These amendments aim to place more firm limitations on "storing, accessing, and disclosing of B.C. public sector data by service providers."<ref name="Osler" /> These laws only pertain to public sector data and do not cover trans-border or private sector data in Canada. The public sector establishments include an estimated 2,000 "government ministries, hospitals, boards of health, universities and colleges, school boards, municipal governments and certain Crown corporations and agencies."<ref name="Osler">{{cite web|url=http://www.osler.com/resources.aspx?id=8241|title=British Columbia Responds to USA Patriot Act with Tough New Rules on How Service Providers Manage Public Sector Data|date=November 11, 2004|access-date=March 6, 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20060506011905/http://www.osler.com/resources.aspx?id=8241 |archive-date = May 6, 2006}}</ref> In response to these laws, many companies are now specifically opting to host their sensitive data outside the United States.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.internetindustrywatch.com/2010/11/hosting-sensitive-data-canada-may-be-the-answer/|title=Hosting Sensitive Data? Canada Maybe the Answer|date=November 25, 2010|access-date=December 7, 2010|work=Internet Industry Watch|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110221090428/http://www.internetindustrywatch.com/2010/11/hosting-sensitive-data-canada-may-be-the-answer/|archive-date=February 21, 2011}}</ref>

Legal action has been taken in [[Nova Scotia]] to protect the province from the USA PATRIOT Act's data collecting methods. On November 15, 2007, the government of Nova Scotia passed legislation aimed to protect Nova Scotians' personal information from being brought forward by the USA PATRIOT Act. The act was entitled "The new ''Personal Information International Disclosure Protection Act''". The goal of the act is to establish requirements to protect personal information from being revealed, as well as punishments for failing to do so. Justice Minister Murray Scott stated, "This legislation will help ensure that Nova Scotians' personal information will be protected. The act outlines the responsibilities of public bodies, municipalities and service providers and the consequences if these responsibilities are not fulfilled."<ref name="constitutional1" /><ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.gov.ns.ca/news/details.asp?id=20061115005|title=Protection of Privacy Legislation Proclaimed|date=November 15, 2006|access-date=March 6, 2008}}</ref> In the 1980s, the Bank of Nova Scotia was the center of an early, pre-Internet data-access case that led to the disclosure of banking records.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Schultheis|first=Ned|date=2015|title=Warrants in the Clouds: How Extraterritorial Application of the Stored Communications Act Threatens the United States Cloud Storage Industry|url=https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1033&context=bjcfcl|journal=Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law|volume=9|issue=2|pages=14}}</ref>

After suspected abuses of the USA PATRIOT Act were brought to light in June 2013 with articles about collection of American call records by the [[National Security Agency|NSA]] and the [[PRISM]] program (see [[Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present)|2013 mass surveillance disclosures]]), Representative [[Sensenbrenner|Jim Sensenbrenner]], Republican of [[Wisconsin]], who introduced the Patriot Act in 2001, said that the National Security Agency overstepped its bounds.<ref name="nyt-prism">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?src=me&ref=general&pagewanted=all|title=President Obama's Dragnet|date=June 6, 2013 |access-date=June 7, 2013|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]}}</ref> He released a statement saying "While I believe the Patriot Act appropriately balanced national security concerns and civil rights, I have always worried about potential abuses." He added: "Seizing phone records of millions of innocent people is excessive and un-American."<ref name="nyt-prism" /><ref>{{cite web|url=http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=337001|title=Author of Patriot Act: FBI's FISA Order is Abuse of Patriot Act|date=June 6, 2013|access-date=June 7, 2013|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130610061511/http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=337001|archive-date=June 10, 2013}}</ref>

=== Sami Al-Arian ===

[[Sami Al-Arian]] was a [[Palestinian people|Palestinian]]-[[Americans|American]] tenured [[computer engineering]] professor at the [[University of South Florida]], who also actively promoted dialogue between the West and the Middle East, especially about the plight of Palestinians. He was indicted in February 2003 on 17 counts under the Patriot Act. A jury acquitted him on 8 counts and deadlocked on the remaining 9 counts.  He later struck a plea bargain and admitted to one of the remaining charges in exchange for being released and deported by April 2007. However, instead of being released, he was held under house arrest in Northern Virginia from 2008 until 2014 when federal prosecutors filed a motion to dismiss charges against him.<ref>Josh Gerstein, [http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/sami-al-arian-prosecution-108404.html#ixzz35uX4KECf Feds drop Sami Al-Arian prosecution], [[Politico.com]], June 27, 2014.</ref> He was deported to [[Turkey]] on February 4, 2015.<ref>Jodie Tillman, [https://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/sami-al-arian-leaves-us-and-goes-to-turkey/2216534/ Ex-USF professor Sami al-Arian deported to Turkey], [[Tampabay.com]], February 5, 2015.</ref>