Section summary of Title II of the Patriot Act

Supporters of the Patriot Act claim that these provisions are necessary in fighting the War on Terrorism, while its detractors argue that many of the sections of Title II infringe upon individual and civil rights.

The sections of Title II amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 and its provisions in 18 U.S.C., dealing with "Crimes and Criminal Procedure".

It also sets out procedures and limitations for individuals who feel their rights have been violated to seek redress, including against the United States government.

However, it also includes a section that deals with trade sanctions against countries whose government supports terrorism, which is not directly related to surveillance issues.

The direction could be made at the request of the applicant of the surveillance order, by a common carrier, landlord, custodian or other specified person.

However, the section was not without controversy, as James X. Dempsey, the Executive Director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, argued that a few months after the Patriot Act was passed the Intelligence Authorization Act was also passed that had the unintended effect of seeming to authorize "John Doe" roving taps — FISA orders that identify neither the target nor the location of the interception (see The Patriot Debates, James X. Dempsey debates Paul Rosenzweig on section 206).

According to Vermont senator Patrick Leahy, this was done to "harmonizing the rules applicable to stored voice and non-voice (e.g., e-mail) communications".

The U.S. government may now legally search and seize property that constitutes evidence of a United States criminal offense without immediately telling the owner.

[27] Where the law only allowed them to gather surveillance if there was evidence of international terrorism, it now gives the courts the power to grant trap and traces against: Any investigation against U.S. citizens must not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

[30] In early October, a precursor to the Patriot Act was passed, with a proposed amendment specifically attempting to limit access to library records being killed.

[37][38] in July 2005, a librarian received a records request with a gag order, though the Washington Post notes that “Such letters existed before the Patriot Act and did not derive from Section 215.

"[39] FISA was modified by section 215 (Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) of the Act to allow the Director of the FBI (or an official designated by the Director, so long as that official's rank is no lower than Assistant Special Agent in Charge) to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.

The Act gives an example to clarify what it means by "tangible things": it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items".

It is specified that any such investigation must be conducted in accordance with guidelines laid out in Executive Order 12333 (which pertains to United States intelligence activities).

In a semi-annual basis, the Attorney General must also provide a report to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Senate which details the total number of applications over the previous 6 months made for orders approving requests for the production of tangible things and the total number of such orders either granted, modified, or denied.

During a House Judiciary hearing on domestic spying on July 17, 2013 John C. Inglis, the deputy director of the surveillance agency, told a member of the House judiciary committee that NSA analysts can perform "a second or third hop query" through its collections of telephone data and internet records in order to find connections to terrorist organizations.

[44] However, in 2015, the Second Circuit appeals court ruled in ACLU v. Clapper that Section 215 of the Patriot Act did not authorize the bulk collection of phone metadata, which judge Gerard E. Lynch called a "staggering" amount of information.

[47] With the passage of the USA Freedom Act on June 2, 2015 the expired parts of law, including Section 215, were reported broadly as restored and renewed through 2019.

The attempted amendments to Section 215 were intended to stop the NSA from continuing its mass phone data collection program.

[48] Instead, phone companies will retain the data and the NSA can obtain information about targeted individuals with permission from a federal court.

They object to the application of trap and trace and pen register devices to newer technology using a standard designed for telephones.

§ 2511(2) to make it lawful to allow a person to intercept the communications of a computer trespasser if Section 218 (Foreign intelligence information) amended 50 U.S.C.

Mary DeRosa, in The Patriot Debates, explained that the reason behind this was to remove a legal "wall" which arose when criminal and foreign intelligence overlapped.

However, she also says that it is debatable whether this legal tightening of the definition was even necessary, stating that "the Department of Justice argued to the FISA Court of Review in 2002 that the original FISA standard did not require the restrictions that the Department of Justice imposed over the years, and the court appears to have agreed [which] leaves the precise legal effect of a sunset of section 218 somewhat murky.

In amending Title IX, section 906 of the Trade sanctions act, the Taliban was determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism and the export of agricultural commodities, medicine, or medical devices is now pursuant to one-year licenses issued and reviewed by the United States Government.

§ 2520(a) allows any person who has had their rights violated due to the illegal interception of communications to take civil action against the offending party.

[63] A citizen's rights will also be found to have been violated if an investigative, law enforcement officer or governmental entity discloses information beyond that allowed in 18 U.S.C. § 2517(a).

Those seeking damages must present them to the relevant department or agency as specified in the procedures of the Federal Tort Claims Act.

If the court orders the stay of proceedings they will extend the time period that a claimant has to take action on a reported violation.

[65] If it then determined that the use of a pen register or trap and trace device was not lawfully authorized or conducted, the result of such surveillance may be suppressed as evidence.