Report Card on the Patriot Act

Government cites successes, while privacy watchdogs say failures and problems aren't publicized.

Michelle Madigan, Medill News Service

WASHINGTON--In its first year, the controversial Patriot Act--which gives federal investigators unprecedented access to Americans' online communications--has been effective while respecting privacy, federal officials say.

But privacy advocates remain wary of the antiterrorism measure, saying that the government's claims are hard to verify because the operations conducted under the new law have so far been kept secret.

The Patriot Act, signed into law just six weeks after the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, lets investigators access e-mail messages and monitor Web sites that suspects visit, though it does not permit them to look at the content.

"If the new tools in this act are working and effective, clearly we should keep them and perhaps strengthen them," says Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who chairs a Senate subcommittee assessing the Patriot Act's impact. "If they are being abused, we should eliminate them or add new safeguards."

Broader Powers

Before the Patriot Act, police could use the trap-and-trace surveillance technique to record the sources of a suspect's incoming phone calls but not the content of those calls, and could apply a pen register technique to do the same for outgoing calls.

The law extended this power to online communications, making e-mail addresses and URLs legally comparable to phone numbers and permitting police to identify a suspect's e-mail correspondents without knowing the content of the e-mail messages. Police may also compile a list of Web sites a suspect visits.

Both methods can be used without warrants, but only if relevant to an ongoing investigation, the law stipulates.

This provision allowed prosecutors in the Daniel Pearl murder case to get information leading to the individuals responsible for the American journalist's kidnapping and execution in Pakistan, according to Alice Fisher, a federal deputy assistant attorney general.

It was also used to track down a student who posted electronic bulletin board threats to bomb his high school and to shoot a faculty member and several students.

"We have been using this tool, and we have been very cautious not to get into content," says Fisher.

Skeptical Watchdogs

Fisher says the law's provisions have been used "effectively, aggressively, and responsibly." She says she is unaware of any violations of privacy having occurred as a result.

But Lee Tien, senior counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says it is difficult to tell how valuable the surveillance is because the Justice Department is unlikely to disclose attempts that did not produce results.

"It raises privacy and accountability problems because the amount of information that can be gathered is significant," Tien says. He stops short of charging that the Patriot Act abuses privacy, but he says that the group has been unable to keep close enough tabs to determine how well it respects privacy rights, either.

A second provision of the Patriot Act requires the government to develop a technological standard for biometric identification. This represents the first step toward using programs such as automated facial recognition software to improve security at border crossings and airports. Considerable testing and evaluation have already been conducted, says Benjamin Wu, deputy undersecretary for technology at the Commerce Department. A report to Congress should be ready soon, he says.

Biometrics technology "has a tremendous potential to accurately identify people," Tien notes.

Many of the Act's powers expire at the end of 2005, but privacy experts expect the Justice Department to request that they be renewed before that date.

"It's important for the committee to be hammering away at that issue to make a sound assessment of the importance of these powers," Tien says.