Editing Patriot Act (section)

=== Title II: Enhanced surveillance procedures ===
{{Main|Title II of the Patriot Act}}
Title II is titled "Enhanced Surveillance Procedures" and covers all aspects of the surveillance of suspected terrorists, those suspected of engaging in computer fraud or abuse, and agents of a foreign power who are engaged in clandestine activities. It primarily made amendments to FISA and the ECPA; furthermore, many of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act reside in this title. In particular, the title allows government agencies to gather "foreign intelligence information" from both U.S. and non-U.S. citizens and changed FISA to make gaining foreign intelligence information the significant purpose of FISA-based surveillance, where previously it had been the primary purpose.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 218.</ref> The change in definition was meant to remove a legal "wall" between criminal investigations and surveillance for the purposes of gathering foreign intelligence, which hampered investigations when criminal and foreign surveillance overlapped.<ref>[[Andrew C. McCarthy]], [https://web.archive.org/web/20050408075649/http://www.patriotdebates.com/218-2#opening "Why Section 218 Should be Retained"]. Retrieved January 23, 2006. ''The Patriot Debates''.</ref> However, that this wall even existed was found by the Federal Surveillance Court of Review to have actually been a long-held misinterpretation by government agencies. Also removed was the statutory requirement that the government prove a surveillance target under FISA is a non-U.S. citizen and agent of a foreign power, though it did require that any investigations must not be undertaken on citizens who are carrying out activities protected by the First Amendment.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 214.</ref> The title also expanded the duration of FISA physical search and surveillance orders,<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 207.</ref> and gave authorities the ability to share information gathered before a federal grand jury with other agencies.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 203.</ref>

The scope and availability of wiretapping and surveillance orders were expanded under Title II. Wiretaps were expanded to include addressing and routing information to allow surveillance of [[packet switched network]]s<ref name="Section216">USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 216.</ref>—the [[Electronic Privacy Information Center]] (EPIC) objected to this, arguing that it does not take into account email or web addresses, which often contain content in the address information.<ref>[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/ Analysis of Specific USA PATRIOT Act Provisions: Pen Registers, the Internet and Carnivore] {{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 4, 2005.</ref> The Act allowed any district court judge in the United States to issue such surveillance orders<ref name="Section216" /> and search warrants for terrorism investigations.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 219.</ref> Search warrants were also expanded, with the Act amending Title III of the ''Stored Communications Access Act'' to allow the FBI to gain access to stored voicemail through a search warrant, rather than through the more stringent wiretap laws.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 204 & 209.</ref>

Various provisions allowed for the disclosure of electronic communications to law enforcement agencies. Those who operate or own a "protected computer" can give permission for authorities to intercept communications carried out on the machine, thus bypassing the requirements of the Wiretap statute.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 217.</ref> The definition of a "protected computer" is defined in {{usc-clause|18|1030|(e)(2)}} and broadly encompasses those computers used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including ones located outside the United States. The law governing obligatory and voluntary disclosure of customer communications by [[Cable television|cable]] companies was altered to allow agencies to demand such communications under U.S.C. Title 18 provisions relating to the disclosure of electronic communications (chapter 119), [[pen register]]s and [[trap and trace device]]s (chapter 206) and stored communications (121), though it excluded the disclosure of cable subscriber viewing habits.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 211.</ref> [[Subpoena]]s issued to [[Internet Service Providers]] were expanded to include not only "the name, address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a subscriber" but also session times and durations, types of services used, communication device address information (e.g. [[IP address]]es), payment method and bank account and credit card numbers.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 210.</ref> Communication providers are also allowed to disclose customer records or communications if they suspect there is a danger to "life and limb".<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 212.</ref>

Title II established three very controversial provisions: [[Sneak and peek warrant|"sneak and peek"]] warrants, [[roving wiretap]]s and the ability of the FBI to gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens. The so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants. The period before which the FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act—the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard"<ref>[http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/DOJ_guidance.pdf Field Guidance on New Authorities (Redacted)], [[Federal Bureau of Investigation]] (hosted by the [[Electronic Privacy Information Center]]). Retrieved September 24, 2007.</ref>—and it may be extended at the court's discretion.<ref name="Section213">USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 213.</ref> These sneak and peek provisions were struck down by judge [[Ann Aiken]] on September 26, 2007, after a [[Portland, Oregon|Portland]] attorney, [[Brandon Mayfield]], was wrongly jailed because of the searches. The court found the searches to violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.<ref name="SneakAndPeakStruckDownWired">{{cite magazine|magazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]]|url=http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/09/court-strikes-2.html|title=Court Strikes Down 2 Key Patriot Act Provisions|date=September 26, 2007|first=Ryan|last=Singel}}</ref><ref name="SneakAndPeakStruckDownNYT">{{cite news|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/washington/27patriot.html?ref=us|title=Judge Rules Provisions in Patriot Act to Be Illegal|first=Susan Jo|last=Keller|date=September 27, 2007}}</ref>

Roving wiretaps are wiretap orders that do not need to specify all common carriers and third parties in a surveillance court order. These are seen as important by the Department of Justice because they believe that terrorists can exploit wiretap orders by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones,<ref>[[United States Department of Justice]], [http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/what_is_the_patriot_act.pdf The USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty], pg. 2. Retrieved September 24, 2007. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090309172100/http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/what_is_the_patriot_act.pdf |date=March 9, 2009 }}</ref> while opponents see it as violating the particularity clause of the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]].<ref>James Dempsey, [http://www.patriotdebates.com/206-2#opening "Why Section 206 Should be Modified"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070113014056/http://www.patriotdebates.com/206-2 |date=January 13, 2007 }} (undated), accessed January 7, 2006.</ref><ref name="EFFSection206">{{cite web|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060605152308/https://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/206.php|url=https://www.eff.org/patriot/sunset/206.php|archive-date=June 5, 2006|title=Let the Sun Set on PATRIOT – Section 206|publisher=Electronic Frontier Foundation|access-date=December 21, 2011}}</ref> Another highly controversial provision is one that allows the FBI to make an order "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution."<ref name="Section215">USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 215.</ref> Though it was not targeted directly at libraries, the [[American Library Association]] (ALA), in particular, opposed this provision.<ref>{{cite journal|ssrn=901266 |title=Phillips, Heather A., "Libraries and National Security Law: An Examination of the USA Patriot Act". Progressive Librarian, Vol. 25, Summer 2005 |publisher=Papers.ssrn.com |date= May 17, 2006|last1=Phillips |first1=Heather A. }}</ref> In a resolution passed on June 29, 2005, they stated that "Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to secretly request and obtain library records for large numbers of individuals without any reason to believe they are involved in illegal activity."<ref>[[American Library Association]], [http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=ifresolutions&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=101514 Resolution on the USA PATRIOT Act and Libraries], enacted June 29, 2005</ref>

The title also covers a number of other miscellaneous provisions, including the expansion of the number of FISC judges from seven to eleven (three of which must reside within {{convert|20|mi}} of the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]]),<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 208.</ref> trade [[Sanctions against North Korea]] and [[Taliban]]-controlled [[Afghanistan]]<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 221.</ref> and the employment of [[Translation|translators]] by the FBI.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 205.</ref>

At the insistence of Republican Representative [[Dick Armey|Richard Armey]],<ref>{{cite news|last=O'Harrow, Jr.|first=Robert|title=Six Weeks in Autumn|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A1999-2002Oct22&notFound=true|newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]|page=W06|date=October 27, 2002|access-date=July 11, 2008}}{{dead link|date=June 2021|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> the Act had a number of [[sunset provision]]s built in, which were originally set to expire on December 31, 2005. The sunset provision of the Act also took into account any ongoing foreign intelligence investigations and allowed them to continue once the sections had expired.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title II, Sec. 224.</ref>
The provisions that were to expire are below.