Supersize my Patriot Act

At the end of this month, the Patriot Act will expire in the United States. Certain members of Congress have tried to pitch a new spin for the controversial antiterrorism law to extend it another year. The USA Patriot Act (an acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act) was passed shortly after 9/11 as an emergency legislation. Since it came into effect, it has significantly strengthened the powers of the US intelligence agencies and often grants them privileges which do not require the approval of a competent judicial authority.

Their stated objective is to ensure the CIA, FBI, and NSA’s hands are not tied while they are attempting to intercept risks to “national security.” How this could grossly impact the first amendment – the right to freedom of expression – is largely overlooked. The National Security Letters is a prime example demonstrating the detriment the law has on expression. Each year there are 50,000 requests from the government to obtain personal data online. The subjects of these investigations, however, are not notified that their confidential information is being accessed.

Since its inception, the Patriot Act became one of the most fiery debates in US politics. Anyone who defended individual privacy was labeled a “socialist” by Fox News. Regardless of Fox’s rhetoric, The legislation was strongly opposed by both liberals and conservative politicians who in some cases refused to apply the legislation. For over six years, judges have even challenged the Act’s constitutionality.

40 minutes of debates

The Congress is meeting to discuss the updated text, and will probably put the legislation on a fast-track vote. Along with aggregating credit card information and telephone records without the consent of the targeted people, the amended Patriot Act institutionalizes surveillance of the Internet which “allows the government to monitor computers that may occasionally be used by suspected terrorists.” This does not come as a surprise as these activities are already documented: The FBI recently visited Facebook at their office in Palo Alto to negotiate the creation of “backdoor” access, and the NSA has been working closely with Google since the China censorship fiasco.

The consensus around the new provisions is surprising. The Patriot Act’s vote will be consistent with the “Suspension of the Rules,” which is used when there is high consensus between Democrats and Republicans. This procedure allots only 40 minutes of debates without the possibility to introduce amendments.While some prominent individuals such as Susan Crawford (a former advisor to President Obama) is concerned about the “militarization of the web,” it seems the majority of American politicians merely see the Internet as the next intelligence battleground.

The right to oversight

On Patrick Leahy’s website, the Democratic Senator from Vermont defends the new draft of the Patriot Act and emphasizes the bipartisan agreements forged:

[The Patriot Act] will also promote transparency and expand privacy and civil liberties safeguards in current law. It increases judicial oversight of government surveillance powers that capture information on Americans. This is a package of reforms that all Americans should support.

With the blessing of the judicial system, the new text would give intelligence authorities greater surveillance powers. Yet there is little discussion around how the bill could backlash against individual liberties. “While this bill makes important changes to the Patriot Act to increase oversight of its powers, it unfortunately allows many dangerous provisions to continue,” says Michelle Richardson, a legal advisor for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

While there is talk of a metaphorical button which could “turn off” the Internet, the US takes a different stance on how to filtrate: maintaining control. For any nation that uses DPI technologies [FR], the question posed is if surveillance is passive or active: if monitoring is only observation or if it is tool to counteract any opponent.

If this point still needs clarification, the judiciary and intelligence agencies already sided with Capitol Hill: the Minister of Justice Eric Holder and the Intelligence Director Eric Clapper have called on elected officials[FR] to renew the Patriot Act.

Update February 9: In an interesting turn of events, the bill failed to obtain the two-thirds requirement in the House of Representatives. The Patriot Act was not renewed by a vote of 277 to 148.

–
Illustrations CC FlickR: Ownipics, D.C. Atty

Translation: Stefanie Chernow