Editing Patriot Act (section)

=== Title V: Removing obstacles to investigating terrorism ===
{{Main|Title V of the Patriot Act}}

Title V allows the U.S. Attorney General to pay rewards pursuant of advertisements for assistance to the Department of Justice to combat terrorism and prevent terrorist acts, though amounts over $US250,000 may not be made or offered without the personal approval of the Attorney General or President, and once the award is approved the Attorney General must give written notice to the Chairman and ranking minority members of the Committee on Appropriations and the Judiciary of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title V, Sec 501.</ref> The ''[[State Department Basic Authorities Act of 1956]]'' was amended to allow the U.S. State Department to offer rewards, in consultation with the Attorney General, for the full or significant dismantling of any terrorist organization<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title V, Sec 502. Amended {{usc-clause|22|2708|(b)(5)}}</ref> and to identify any key leaders of terrorist organizations.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title V, Sec 502. Amended {{usc-clause|22|2708|(b)(6)}}</ref> The U.S. Secretary of State was given authority to pay greater than $US5&nbsp;million if he so determines it would prevent terrorist actions against the United States and Canada.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title V, Sec 502. Amended {{usc-clause|22|2708|(e)(1)}}</ref> The ''[[DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act]]'' was amended to include terrorism or crimes of violence in the list of qualifying Federal offenses.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title V, Sec 503. Amended {{usc-clause|42|14135a|(d)(2)}}</ref> Another perceived obstacle was to allow federal agencies to share information with federal law enforcement agencies. Thus, the act now allows federal officers who acquire information through electronic surveillance or physical searches to consult with federal law enforcement officers to coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against potential or actual attacks, sabotage or international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title V, Sec 504. Amended {{usc|50|1825}}</ref>

[[United States Secret Service|U.S. Secret Service]] jurisdiction was extended to investigate computer fraud, access device frauds, false identification documents or devices, or any fraudulent activities against U.S. financial institutions.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title V, Sec 506.</ref> The ''[[General Education Provisions Act]]'' was amended to allow the U.S. Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General to collect and retain educational records relevant to an authorized investigation or prosecution of an offense that is defined as a Federal crime of terrorism and which an educational agency or institution possesses. The Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General must "certify that there are specific and articulable facts giving reason to believe that the education records are likely to contain information [that a Federal crime of terrorism may be being committed]." An education institution that produces education records in response to such a request is given legal immunity from any liability that rises from such a production of records.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title V, Sec 507.</ref>

One of the most controversial aspects of the USA PATRIOT Act is in Title V, and relates to [[National Security Letter]]s (NSLs). An NSL is a form of [[administrative subpoena]] used by the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the [[United States Department of Defense|U.S. Department of Defense]] (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a [[gag order]], preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. Title V allowed the use of NSLs to be made by a Special Agent in charge of a Bureau field office, where previously only the director or the deputy assistant director of the FBI were able to certify such requests.<ref>USA PATRIOT Act, Title V, Sec 505. Amended {{usc-clause|18|2709|(b)}}; Section 1114(a)(5)(A) of the ''[[Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978]]'' ({{usc-clause|12|3414|(a)(5)(A)}}) and Section 624 of the ''[[Fair Credit Reporting Act]]'' ({{usc|15|1681u}}).</ref> This provision of the Act was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of an unknown party against the U.S. government on the grounds that NSLs violate the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because there is no way to legally oppose an NSL subpoena in court, and that it was unconstitutional not to allow a client to inform their Attorney as to the order because of the gag provision of the letters. The court's judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law unconstitutional.<ref name="ACLUvDoJ">''Doe v. Ashcroft'', 334 F.Supp.2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) [http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/04CV2614_Opinion_092904.pdf source] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041218201531/http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/04CV2614_Opinion_092904.pdf |date=December 18, 2004 }}</ref> Later, the USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized and amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of the letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order.<ref>USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (U.S. [[United States House of Representatives|H.R.]] 3199, Public Law 109-177) Title I, Sec. 115 & 116</ref>
However, in 2007, the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in a meaningful judicial review of these gags. On August 28, 2015, Judge Victor Marrero of the federal district court in Manhattan ruled the gag order of [[Nicholas Merrill]] was unjustified. In his decision, Judge Marrero described the FBI's position as, "extreme and overly broad," affirming that "courts cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, simply accept the Government's assertions that disclosure would implicate and create a risk." He also found that the FBI's gag order on Mr. Merrill "implicates serious issues, both with respect to the First Amendment and accountability of the government to the people."<ref>{{cite web |url=http://isp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/page-attachments/merrill_v._lynch_-_unredacted_decision_vacating_gag_order.pdf#page=32 |page=32 |website=Isp.yale.edu |title=Gag Order |access-date=June 24, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171202072615/https://isp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/page-attachments/merrill_v._lynch_-_unredacted_decision_vacating_gag_order.pdf#page=32 |archive-date=December 2, 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Initially, the ruling was released in [[redaction]] by Judge Marrero. The FBI was given 90 days to pursue any other alternative course of action but elected not to do so. Upon release of the unredacted ruling on November 30, 2015, it was revealed for the first time the extent to which the FBI's NSL accompanied by a gag order sought to collect information. Through the court documents, it was revealed for the first time that through an NSL, the FBI believes it can legally obtain information including an individual's complete [[web browsing history]], the [[IP addresses]] of everyone a person has corresponded with, and all the records of all online purchases within the last 180 days. The FBI also claims via the extension of an NSL, it can obtain [[cell site]] location information. In the landmark case of Nicholas Merrill the FBI in specific sought to seek the following information on an account: DSL account information, radius log, subscriber name and related subscriber information, account number, date the account opened or closed, addresses associated with the account, subscriber day/evening telephone numbers, screen names or other on-line names associated with the account, order forms, records relating to merchandise orders/shipping information for the last 180 days, all billing related to the account, [[internet service provider]] (ISP), all email addresses associated with the account, internet protocol address assigned to the account, all website information registered to the account, uniform resource locator address assigned to the account, any other information which you consider to be an electronic communication transactional record. This was the first time it was revealed the extent to which an NSL under the Patriot Act could request communication information.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://isp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/page-attachments/merrill_v._lynch_-_unredacted_decision_vacating_gag_order.pdf |website=Isp.yale.edu |title=Nicholas Merrill v. Loretta E. Lynch |access-date=June 24, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171202072615/https://isp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/page-attachments/merrill_v._lynch_-_unredacted_decision_vacating_gag_order.pdf |archive-date=December 2, 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://isp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/page-attachments/merrill_v._lynch_-_unredacted_attachment_to_2004_nsl.pdf |page=3 |website=Isp.yale.edu |title=Mr. Nicholas Merrill : Attachment |access-date=June 24, 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170519131858/http://isp.yale.edu/sites/default/files/page-attachments/merrill_v._lynch_-_unredacted_attachment_to_2004_nsl.pdf |archive-date=May 19, 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref>