Changes

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />  

A lot of criticisms have been aimed towards the libraries provision of the Patriot Act. As with other criticisms, those for the libraries provision rest largely in the broad and vague language in the bill. These types of searches had existed before in criminal law, but not with such loose and broad terms. The new law could be used to gain access to records usually subject to privacy protections, such as medical records.<ref name="swire">Swire, Peter P. “Section 215: Access to Business Records under FISA (‘Libraries Provision’): Replies” (American Bar Association, 2005). http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/patriotdebates/sections-214-and-215 (Accessed April 16th, 2007)</ref> Opponents also dislike the [[gag rule]], which makes it illegal for the business which has been subpoenaed to even reveal that they have received a FISA request. Gag rules have been in place for such things as ongoing wiretaps, where informing the suspect would result in negating the usefulness of the tap, but never before have they been used to keep a subject in the dark about completed searches (even sneak and peek suspects eventually discover that they were searched).<ref name="swire" />  

<s>Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho]], [[Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties.{{fact}} Despite these claims, however,</s> The FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.  

<s>Eight states ([[Alaska]], [[California]], [[Colorado]], [[Hawaii]], [[Idaho]], [[Maine]], [[Montana]] and [[Vermont]]) and 396 cities and counties (including [[New York City]]; [[Los Angeles]]; [[Dallas]]; [[Chicago]]; [[Philadelphia]]; and [[Cambridge, Massachusetts]]) have passed resolutions condemning the Act for attacking civil liberties. Despite these claims, however,</s> The FBI reports that there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/aboutus/transformation/patriot_act.htm</ref> nor any terrorist incidents causing loss of life on American soil since its passage.  

In September 2007 a federal judge ruled that sections of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional, stating in a 106 page ruling that the Act was "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html?nav=rss_politics</ref>

In September 2007 a federal judge ruled that sections of the Patriot Act were unconstitutional, stating in a 106 page ruling that the Act was "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html?nav=rss_politics</ref>