Any amount owed as the result of a purchase of goods or services on a credit basis. Although a firm making a purchase issues no written promise of payment, it enters the amount owed as a current liability in its accounts. Companies often incur this type of short-term debt in order to finance their inventories, especially in industries where inventory turnover is rapid. Seealso account receivable.
Learn more about account payable with a free trial on Britannica.com.
The act expands the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad. Among its provisions, the Act increases the ability of law enforcement agencies to search telephone, e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records; eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States; expands the Secretary of the Treasury’s authority to regulate financial transactions, particularly those involving foreign individuals and entities; and enhances the discretion of law enforcement and immigration authorities in detaining and deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts. The act also expands the definition of terrorism to include domestic terrorism, thus enlarging the number of activities to which the USA Patriot Act’s expanded law enforcement powers can be applied.
The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Despite widespread congressional support, it has been criticized for weakening protections of civil liberties. In particular, opponents of the law have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s or the occupant’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of National Security Letters, which allows the FBI to search telephone, email and financial records without a court order; and the expanded access of law enforcement agencies to business records, including library and financial records. Since its passage, several legal challenges have been brought against the act, and Federal courts have ruled that a number of provisions are unconstitutional.
Many of the act's provisions were to sunset beginning December 31, 2005, approximately 4 years after its passage. In the months preceding the sunset date, supporters of the act pushed to make its sunsetting provisions permanent, while critics sought to revise various sections to enhance civil liberty protections. In July 2005, the U.S. Senate passed a reauthorization bill with substantial changes to several sections of the act, while the House reauthorization bill kept most of the act's original language. The two bills were then reconciled in a conference committee that was criticized by Senators from both the Republican and Democratic parties for ignoring civil liberty concerns. The bill, which removed most of the changes from the Senate version, passed Congress on March 2, 2006 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on March 9, 2006.
The Patriot Act has made a number of changes to U.S. law. Key acts changed were the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986 and Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act. The Act itself came about after the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon. After these attacks, Congress immediately started work on several proposed anti-terrorist bills, before the Justice Department finally drafted a bill called the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001. This was introduced to the House as the Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (PATRIOT) Act of 2001, and was later passed by the House as the Uniting and Strengthening America (USA) Act (H.R. 2975) on October 12. It was then introduced into the Senate as the USA Act of 2002 (S. 1510) where a number of amendments were proposed by Senator Russ Feingold, all of which were passed. The final bill, the USA PATRIOT Act was introduced into the House on October 23 and incorporated H.R. 2975, S. 1510 and many of the provisions of H.R. 3004 (the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act). It was vehemently opposed by only one Senator, Russ Feingold, who was the only Senator to vote against the bill. Senator Patrick Leahy also expressed some concerns. However, not all parts of the Act are seen in this light, with many parts being seen as necessary by both detractors and supporters. The final Act included a number of sunsets which were to expire on December 31, 2005.
Due to its controversial nature, a number of bills were proposed with which to amend the Patriot Act. These included the Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act, the Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act, and the Security and Freedom Ensured Act (SAFE), none of which passed. In late January 2003, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity, Charles Lewis, published a leaked draft copy of an Administration proposal titled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003. This highly controversial document was quickly dubbed "PATRIOT II" or "Son of PATRIOT" by the media and organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The draft, which was circulated to 10 divisions of the Department of Justice, proposed to make further extensive modifications to extend the USA PATRIOT Act. It was widely condemned, although the Department of Justice claimed that it was only a draft and contained no further proposals.
Title X created or altered a number of miscellaneous laws that didn't really fit into the any other section of the Patriot Act. Hazmat licenses were limited to drivers who pass background checks and who can demonstrate they can handle the materials. The Inspector General of the Department of Justice was directed to appoint an official to monitor, review and report back to Congress all allegations of civil rights abuses against the DoJ. It amended the definition of "electronic surveillance" to exclude the interception of communications done through or from a protected computer where the owner allows the interception, or is lawfully involved in an investigation. Money laundering cases may now be brought in the district the money laundering was committed or where a money laundering transfer started from. Aliens who committed money laundering were also prohibited from entering the U.S. Grants were provided to first responders to assist them with responding to and preventing terrorism. US$5,000,000 was authorized to be provided to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to train police in South and East Asia. The Attorney General was directed to commission a study on the feasibility of using biometric identifiers to identify people as they attempt to enter the United States, and which would be connected to the FBI's database to flag suspected criminals. Another study was also commissioned to determine the feasibility of providing airlines names of suspected terrorists before they boarded flights. The Department of Defense was given temporary authority to use their funding for private contracts for security purposes. The last title also created a new Act called the Crimes Against Charitable Americans Act which amended the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act to require telemarketers who call on behalf of charities to disclose the purpose and other information, including the name and mailing address of the charity the telemarketer is representing. It also increased the penalties from one year imprisonment to five years imprisonment for those committing fraud by impersonating a Red Cross member.
The scope and availability of wiretap and surveillance orders were expanded under Title II. Wiretaps were expanded to include addressing and routing information to allow surveillance of packet switched networks — EPIC objected to this, arguing that it does not take into account email or web addresses, which often contain content in the address information. The Act allowed any district court judge in the United States to issue such surveillance orders and search warrants for terrorism investigations. Search warrants were also expanded, with the Act amending Title III of the Stored Communications Access Act to allow the FBI to gain access to stored voicemail through a search warrant, rather than through the more stringent wiretap laws.
Various provisions allowed for the disclosure of electronic communications to law enforcement agencies. Those who operate or own a "protected computer" can give permission for authorities to intercept communications carried out on the machine, thus bypassing the requirements of the Wiretap statute. The definition of a "protected computer" is defined in and broadly encompasses those computers used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including ones located outside the United States. The law governing obligatory and voluntary disclosure of customer communications by cable companies was altered to allow agencies to demand such communications under U.S.C. Title 18 provisions relating to the disclosure of electronic communications (chapter 119), pen registers and trap and trace devices (chapter 206) and stored communications (121), though it excluded the disclosure of cable subscriber viewing habits. Subpoenas issued to Internet Service Providers were expanded to include not only "the name, address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a subscriber" but also session times and durations, types of services used, communication device address information (e.g. IP addresses), payment method and bank account and credit card numbers. Communication providers are also allowed to disclose customer records or communications if they suspect there is a danger to "life and limb".
Title II established three very controversial provisions: "sneak and peek" searches, roving wiretaps and the ability of the FBI to gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens. The so-called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants. The period before which the FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act — the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard" — and it may be extended at the court's discretion. These sneak and peek provisions were struck down by judge Ann Aiken on September 26, 2007 after a Portland attorney, Brandon Mayfield was wrongly jailed because of the searches. The court found the searches to violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Roving wiretaps are wiretap orders that do not need to specify all common carriers and third parties in a surveillance court order. These are seen as important by the Department of Justice because they believe that terrorists can exploit wiretap orders by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones, while opponents see it as violating the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment. Another highly controversial provision is one that allows the FBI to make an order "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution." Though it was not targeted directly at libraries, the American Library Association (ALA), in particular, opposed this provision. In a resolution passed on June 29, 2005 they stated that "Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to secretly request and obtain library records for large numbers of individuals without any reason to believe they are involved in illegal activity. However, the ALA's stance did not go without criticism. One prominent critic of the ALA's stance was the Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald, who argued in an article for the New York City Journal that "[t]he furore over section 215 is a case study in Patriot Act fear-mongering.
The title also covers a number of other miscellaneous provisions, including the expansion of the number of FISC judges from seven to eleven (three of which must reside within of the District of Columbia), trade sanctions against North Korea and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and the employment of translators by the FBI.
At the insistence of Republican Representative Richard Armey, the Act had a number of sunset provisions built in, which were originally set to expire on December 31, 2005. The sunset provision of the Act also took into account any ongoing foreign intelligence investigations and allowed them to continue once the sections had expired. The provisions that were to expire are below.
|201||Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to terrorism|
|202||Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications relating to computer fraud and abuse offenses|
|203(b)||Authority to share electronic, wire and oral interception information|
|204||Clarification of intelligence exceptions from limitations on interception and disclosure of wire, oral, and electronic communications|
|206||Roving surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.|
|207||Duration of FISA surveillance of non-United States persons who are agents of a foreign power|
|209||Seizure of voice-mail messages pursuant to warrants|
|212||Emergency disclosure of electronic communications to protect life and limb|
|214||Pen register and trap and trace authority under FISA|
|215||Access to records and other items under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.|
|217||Interception of computer trespasser communications|
|218||Foreign intelligence information|
|220||Nationwide service of search warrants for electronic evidence|
|223||Civil liability for certain unauthorized disclosures|
|225||Immunity for compliance with FISA wiretap|
The first subtitle tightened the record keeping requirements for financial institutions, making them record the aggregate amounts of transactions processed from areas of the world where money laundering is a concern to the U.S. government. It also made institutions put into place reasonable steps to identify beneficial owners of bank accounts and those who are authorized to use or route funds through payable-through accounts. The U.S. Treasury was charged with formulating regulations designed to foster information sharing between financial institutions in order to prevent money-laundering. Along with expanding record keeping requirements it put new regulations into place to make it easier for authorities to identify money laundering activities and to make it harder for money launderers to mask their identities. If money laundering was uncovered, the subtitle legislated for the forfeiture of assets of those suspected of doing the money laundering. In an effort to encourage institutions to do their bit to reduce money laundering, the Treasury was given authority to block mergers of bank holding companies and banks with other banks and bank holding companies that had a bad history of preventing money laundering. Similarly, mergers between insured depository institutions and non-insured depository institutions that have a bad track record in combating money-laundering could be blocked.
Restrictions were placed on accounts and foreign banks. Foreign shell banks that are not an affiliate of a bank that has a physical presence in the U.S. or that are not subject to supervision by a banking authority in a non-U.S. country were prohibited. The subtitle has several sections that prohibit or restrict the use of certain accounts held at financial institutions. Financial institutions must now undertake steps to identify the owners of any privately owned bank outside the U.S. who have a correspondent account with them, along with the interests of each of the owners in the bank. It is expected that additional scrutiny will be applied by the U.S. institution to such banks to make sure they are not engaging in money laundering. Banks must identify all the nominal and beneficial owners of any private bank account opened and maintained in the U.S. by non-U.S. citizens. There is also an expectation that they must undertake enhanced scrutiny of the account if it is owned by, or is being maintained on behalf of, any senior political figure where there is reasonable suspicion of corruption. Any deposits made from within the U.S. into foreign banks are now deemed to have been deposited into any interbank account the foreign bank may have in the U.S. Thus any restraining order, seizure warrant or arrest warrant may be made against the funds in the interbank account held at a U.S. financial institution, up to the amount deposited in the account at the foreign bank. Restrictions were placed on the use of internal bank concentration accounts because such accounts do not provide an effective audit trail for transactions, and this may be used to facilitate money laundering. Financial institutions are prohibited from allowing clients to specifically direct them to move funds into, out of, or through a concentration account, and they are also prohibited from informing their clients about the existence of such accounts. Financial institutions are not allowed to provide any information to clients that may identify such internal accounts. Financial institutions are required to document and follow methods of identifying where the funds are for each customer in a concentration account that co-mingles funds belonging to one or more customers.
The definition of money laundering was expanded to include making a financial transaction in the U.S. in order to commit a crime of violence; the bribery of public officials and fraudulent dealing with public funds; the smuggling or illegal export of controlled munitions and the importation or bringing in of any firearm or ammunition not authorised by the U.S. Attorney General and the smuggling of any item controlled under the Export Administration Regulations. It also includes any offense where the U.S. would be obligated under a mutual treaty with a foreign nation to extradite a person, or where the U.S. would need to submit a case against a person for prosecution due to the treaty; the import of falsely classified goods; computer crime; and any felony violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938. It also allows the forfeiture of any property within the jurisdiction of the United States that was gained as the result of an offense against a foreign nation that involves the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance. Foreign nations may now seek to have a forfeiture or judgement notification enforced by a district court of the United States. This is done through new legislation that specifies how the U.S. government may apply for a restraining order to preserve the availability of property which is subject to a foreign forfeiture or confiscation judgement. In taking into consideration such an application, emphasis is placed on the ability of a foreign court to follow due process. The Act also requires the Secretary of Treasury to take all reasonable steps to encourage foreign governments make it a requirement to include the name of the originator in wire transfer instructions sent to the United States and other countries, with the information to remain with the transfer from its origination until the point of disbursement. The Secretary was also ordered to encourage international cooperation in investigations of money laundering, financial crimes, and the finances of terrorist groups.
The Act also introduced criminal penalties for corrupt officialdom. An official or employee of the government who acts corruptly — as well as the person who induces the corrupt act — in the carrying out of their official duties will be fined by an amount that is not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the bribe in question. Alternatively they may be imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or they may be fined and imprisoned. Penalties apply to financial institutions who do not comply with an order to terminate any corresponding accounts within 10 days of being so ordered by the Attorney General or the Secretary of Treasury. The financial institution can be fined $US10,000 for each day the account remains open after the 10 day limit has expired.
The second subtitle made a number of modifications to the BSA in an attempt to make it harder for money launderers to operate and easier for law enforcement and regulatory agencies to police money laundering operations. One amendment made to the BSA was to allow the designated officer or agency who receives suspicious activity reports to notify U.S. intelligence agencies. A number of amendments were made to address issues related to record keeping and financial reporting. One measure was a new requirement that anyone who does business file a report for any coin and foreign currency receipts that are over US$10,000 and made it illegal to structure transactions in a manner that evades the BSA's reporting requirements. To make it easier for authorities to regulate and investigate anti-money laundering operations Money Services Businesses (MSBs) — those who operate informal value transfer systems outside of the mainstream financial system — were included in the definition of a financial institution. The BSA was amended to make it mandatory to report suspicious transactions and an attempt was made to make such reporting easier for financial institutions. FinCEN was made a bureau of the United States Department of Treasury and the creation of a secure network to be used by financial institutions to report suspicious transactions and to provide alerts of relevant suspicious activities was ordered. Along with these reporting requirements, a considerable number of provisions relate to the prevention and prosecution of money-laundering. Financial institutions were ordered to establish anti-money laundering programs and the BSA was amended to better define anti-money laundering strategy. Also increased were civil and criminal penalties for money laundering and the introduction of penalties for violations of geographic targeting orders and certain record-keeping requirements. A number of other amendments to the BSA were made through subtitle B, including granting the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System power to authorize personnel to act as law enforcement officers to protect the premises, grounds, property and personnel of any U.S. Federal reserve bank and allowing the Board to delegate this authority to U.S. Federal reserve banks. Another measure instructed United States Executive Directors of international financial institutions to use their voice and vote to support any country that has taken action to support the U.S.'s War on Terrorism. Executive Directors are now required to provide ongoing auditing of disbursements made from their institutions to ensure that no funds are paid to persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism.
The third subtitle deals with currency crimes. Largely due to the effectiveness of the BSA, money launders had been avoiding traditional financial institutions to launder money and were using cash-based businesses to avoid them. A new effort was made to stop the laundering of money through bulk currency movements, mainly focusing on the confiscation of criminal proceeds and the increase in penalties for money laundering. Congress found that a criminal offense of merely evading the reporting of money transfers was insufficient and decided that it would be better if the smuggling of the bulk currency itself was the offense. Therefore, the BSA was amended to make it a criminal offense to evade currency reporting by concealing more than US$10,000 on any person or through any luggage, merchandise or other container that moves into or out of the U.S. The penalty for such an offense is up to 5 years imprisonment and the forfeiture of any property up to the amount that was being smuggled. It also made the civil and criminal penalty violations of currency reporting cases be the forfeiture of all a defendant's property that was involved in the offense, and any property traceable to the defendant. The Act prohibits and penalizes those who run unlicensed money transmitting businesses. In 2005, this provision of Patriot Act was used to prosecute Yehuda Abraham for helping to arrange money transfers for British arms dealer Hermant Lakhani, who was arrested in August 2003 after being caught in a government sting. Lakhani had tried to sell a missile to an FBI agent posing as a Somali militant. The definition of counterfeiting was expanded to encompass analog, digital or electronic image reproductions, and it was made an offense to own such a reproduction device. Penalties were increased to 20 years imprisonment. Money laundering "unlawful activities" was expanded to include the provision of material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations. The Act specifies that anyone who commits or conspires to undertake a fraudulent activity outside the jurisdiction of the United States, and which would be an offense in the U.S., will be prosecuted under , which deals with fraud and related activity in connection with access devices.
Under subtitle B, various definitions relating to terrorism were altered and expanded. The INA was retroactively amended to disallow aliens who are part of or representatives of a foreign organization or any group who endorses acts of terrorism from entering the U.S. This restriction also included the family of such aliens. The definition of "terrorist activity" was strengthened to include actions involving the use of any dangerous device (and not just explosives and firearms). To "engage in terrorist activity" is defined as committing, inciting to commit or planning and preparing to undertake an act of terrorism. Included in this definition is the gathering of intelligence information on potential terrorist targets, the solicitation of funds for a terrorist organisation or the solicitation of others to undertake acts of terrorism. Those who provide knowing assistance to a person who is planning to perform such activities are defined as undertaking terrorist activities. Such assistance includes affording material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training to perform the terrorist act. The INA criteria for making a decision to designate an organisation as a terrorist organisation was amended to include the definition of a terrorist act. Though the amendments to these definitions are retroactive, it does not mean that it can be applied to members who joined an organisation, but since left, before it was designated to be a terrorist organisation under by the Secretary of State.
The Act amended the INA to add new provisions enforcing mandatory detention laws. These apply to any alien who is engaged in terrorism, or who is engaged in an activity that endangers U.S. national security. It also applies to those who are inadmissible or who must be deported because it is certified they are attempting to enter in order to undertake illegal espionage, are exporting goods, technology or sensitive information illegally or are attempting to control or overthrow the government, or have, or will have, engaged in terrorist activities. The Attorney General or the Attorney General's deputy may maintain custody of such aliens until they are removed from the U.S., unless it is no longer deemed they should be removed, in which case they are released. The alien can be detained for up to 90 days but can be held up to six months after it is deemed that they are a national security threat. However, removal proceedings or an arrest must be made no longer than seven days after the alien's detention, otherwise the alien will be released. However, such detentions must be reviewed every six months by the Attorney General, who can then decide to revoke it, unless prevented from doing so by law. Every six months the alien may apply, in writing, for the certification to be reconsidered. Judicial review of any action or decision relating to this section, including judicial review of the merits of a certification, can be held under habeas corpus proceedings. Such proceedings can be initiated by an application filed with the United States Supreme Court, by any justice of the Supreme Court, by any circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, or by any district court otherwise having jurisdiction to entertain the application. The final order is subject to appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Provisions were also made for a report to be required every six months of such decisions from the U.S. Attorney General to the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.
A sense of Congress was given that the U.S. Secretary of State should expedite the full implementation of the integrated entry and exit data system for airports, seaports, and land border ports of entry specified in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). They also found that the U.S. Attorney General should immediately start the Integrated Entry and Exit Data System Task Force specified in section 3 of the Immigration and Naturalization Service Data Management Improvement Act of 2000. Congress wanted the primary focus of development of the entry-exit data system was to be on the utilization of biometric technology and the development of tamper-resistant documents readable at ports of entry. They also wanted the system to be able to interface with existing law enforcement databases. The Attorney General was ordered to implement and expand the foreign student monitoring program that was established under section 641(a) of the IIRIRA. which records the date and port of entry of each foreign student. The program was expanded to include other approved educational institutions, including air flight schools, language training schools or vocational schools that are approved by the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Education and the Secretary of State. US$36,800,000 was appropriated for the Department of Justice to spend on implementing the program.
The Secretary of State was ordered to audit and report back to Congress on the Visa waiver program specified under for each fiscal year until September 30, 2007. The Secretary was also ordered to check for the implementation of precautionary measures to prevent the counterfeiting and theft of passports as well as ascertain that countries designated under the visa waiver program have established a program to develop tamper-resistant passports. The Secretary was also ordered to report back to Congress on whether consulate shopping was a problem.
The last subtitle, which was introduced by Senators John Conyers and Patrick Leahy, allows for the preservation of immigration benefits for victims of terrorism, and the families of victims of terrorism. They recognised that some families, through no fault of their own, would either be ineligible for permanent residence in the United States due to being unable to make important deadlines because of the September 11 terrorist attacks, or had become ineligible to apply for special immigration status because their loved one died in the attacks.
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. 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.
One of the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act is in title V, and relates to National Security Letters (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 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. 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 to not allow a client to inform their Attorney as to the order due to the gag provision of the letters. The court's judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law unconstitutional. Later, the 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. 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 meaningful judicial review of these gags.
New penalties were created to convict those who attack mass transportation systems. If the offender committed such an attack while no passenger was on board, they are fined and imprisoned for a maximum of 20 years. However, if the activity was undertaken while the mass transportation vehicle or ferry was carrying a passenger at the time of the offense, or the offense resulted in the death of any person, then the punishment is a fine and life imprisonment. The title amends the biological weapons statute to define the use of a biological agent, toxin, or delivery system as a weapon, other than when it is used for "prophylactic, protective, bona fide research, or other peaceful purposes." Penalties for anyone who cannot prove reasonably that they are using a biological agent, toxin or delivery system for these purposes are 10 years imprisonment, a fine or both.
A number of measures were introduced in an attempt to prevent and penalize activities that are deemed to support terrorism. It was made a crime to harbor or conceal terrorists, and those who do are subject to a fine or imprisonment of up to 10 years, or both. U.S. forfeiture law was also amended to allow authorities to seize all foreign and domestic assets from any group or individual that is caught planning to commit acts of terrorism against the U.S. or U.S. citizens. Assets may also be seized if they have been acquired or maintained by an individual or organisation for the purposes of further terrorist activities. One section of the Act (section 805) prohibited "material support" for terrorists, and in particular included "expert advice or assistance." This was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Federal Court after the Humanitarian Law Project filed a civil action against the U.S. government. The court found that it violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the provision was so vague it would cause a person of average intelligence to have to guess whether they were breaking the law, thus leading to a potential situation where a person was charged for an offense that they had no way of knowing was illegal. The court found that this could potentially have the effect of allowing arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the law, as well as possible chilling effects on First Amendment rights. Congress later improved the law by defining the definitions of the "material support or resources," "training," and "expert advise or resources."
Cyberterrorism was dealt with in various ways. Penalties apply to those who either damage or gain unauthorized access to a protected computer and then commit a number of offenses. These offenses include causing a person to lose an aggregate amount greater than US$5,000, as well as adversely affecting someone's medical examination, diagnosis or treatment. It also encompasses actions that cause a person to be injured, a threat to public health or safety, or damage to a governmental computer that is used as a tool to administer justice, national defense or national security. Also prohibited was extortion undertaken via a protected computer. The penalty for attempting to damage protected computers through the use of viruses or other software mechanism was set to imprisonment for up to 10 years, while the penalty for unauthorized access and subsequent damage to a protected computer was increased to more than five years imprisonment. However, should the offense occur a second time, the penalty increases up to 20 years imprisonment. The act also specified the development and support of cybersecurity forensic capabilities. It directs the Attorney General to establish regional computer forensic laboratories that have the capability of performing forensic examinations of intercepted computer evidence relating to criminal activity and cyberterrorism, and that have the capability of training and educating Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel and prosecutors in computer crime, and to "facilitate and promote the sharing of Federal law enforcement expertise and information about the investigation, analysis, and prosecution of computer-related crime with State and local law enforcement personnel and prosecutors, including the use of multijurisdictional task forces." The sum of $50,000,000 was authorized for establishing such labs.
A number of reports were commissioned relating to various intelligence-related government centers. One was commissioned into the best way of setting up the National Virtual Translation Center, with the goal of developing automated translation facilities to assist with the timely and accurate translation of foreign intelligence information for elements of the U.S. intelligence community. The Patriot Act required this to be provided on February 1, 2002, however the report, entitled "Director of Central Intelligence Report on the National Virtual Translation Center: A Concept Plan to Enhance the Intelligence Community's Foreign Language Capabilities, April 29, 2002" was received more than two months late, which the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported was "a delay which, in addition to contravening the explicit words of the statute, deprived the Committee of timely and valuable input into its efforts to craft this legislation. Another report was commissioned on the feasibility and desirability of reconfiguring the Foreign Terrorist Asset Tracking Center and the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury. It was due by February 1, 2002 however, it was never written. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence later complained that "[t]he Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary of the Treasury failed to provide a report, this time in direct contravention of a section of the USA PATRIOT Act" and they further directed "that the statutorily-directed report be completed immediately, and that it should include a section describing the circumstances which led to the Director's failure to comply with lawful reporting requirements.
Other measures allowed certain reports on intelligence and intelligence-related matters to be deferred until either February 1, 2002 or a date after February 1, 2002 if the official involved certified that preparation and submission on February 1, 2002, would impede the work of officers or employees engaged in counterterrorism activities. Any such deferral required congressional notification before it was authorized. The Attorney General was charged with training officials in identifying and utilizing foreign intelligence information properly in the course of their duties. The government officials include those in the Federal Government who do not normally encounter or disseminate foreign intelligence in the performance of their duties, and State and local government officials who encounter, or potentially may encounter in the course of a terrorist event, foreign intelligence in the performance of their duties. A sense of Congress was expressed that officers and employees of the intelligence community should be encouraged to make every effort to establish and maintain intelligence relationships with any person, entity, or group while they conduct lawful intelligence activities.
The first act reauthorized all but two of the provisions of Title II that would have expired. Two sections were changed to sunset on December 31, 2009: section 206 — the roving wiretap provision — and section 215, which allowed access to business records under FISA. Section 215 was amended further regardless so as to give greater judicial oversight and review. Such orders were also restricted to be authorized by only the FBI Director, the FBI Deputy Director, or the Executive Assistant Director for National Security, and minimization procedures were specified to limit the dissemination and collection of such information. Section 215 also had a "gag" provision, which was changed to allow the defendant to contact their Attorney. However, the change also meant that the defendant was also made to tell the FBI who they were disclosing the order to — this requirement was removed by the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act.
As NSL provisions of the Patriot Act had been struck by the courts, the reauthorization Act amended the law in an attempt to make them lawful. It provided for judicial review and the legal right of a recipient to challenge the validity of the letter. The reauthorization act still allowed NSLs to be closed and all evidence to be presented in camera and ex parte. Gag provisions were maintained, but were not automatic. They only occurred when the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI or a Special Agent in Charge in a Bureau field office certified that disclosure would result in "a danger to the national security of the United States, interference with a criminal, counterterrorism, or counterintelligence investigation, interference with diplomatic relations, or danger to the life or physical safety of any person". However, should there be no non-disclosure order, the defendant can disclose the fact of the NSL to anyone who can render them assistance in carrying out the letter, or to an attorney for legal advise. Again, however, the recipient was order to inform the FBI of such a disclosure. Due to the concern over the chilling effects of such a requirement, the Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act removed the requirement to inform the FBI that the recipient spoke about the NSL to their Attorney. Later, the Additional Reauthorization Amendments Act excluded libraries from receiving NSLs, except where they provide electronic communications services. The reauthorization Act also ordered the Attorney General submit a report semi-annually to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, the House and Senate Intelligence Committees and the House Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on all NSL requests made under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
Changes were made to the roving wiretap provisions of the Patriot Act. Applications and orders for such wiretaps must describe the specific target of the electronic surveillance if the identity of the target is not known. If the nature and location of each of the facilities or places targeted for surveillance is not known, then after 10 days the agency must provide notice to the court. The notice must include the nature and location of each new facility or place at which the electronic surveillance was directed. It must also describe the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify the applicant's belief that each new surveillance place or facility under surveillance is or was being used by the target of the surveillance. The applicant must also provide a statement detailing any proposed minimization procedures that differ from those contained in the original application or order, that may be necessitated by a change in the facility or place at which the electronic surveillance is directed. Applicants must detail the total number of electronic surveillances that have been or are being conducted under the authority of the order.
Section 213 of the Patriot Act was modified. Previously it stated that delayed notifications would be made to recipients of "sneak and peek" searches in a "reasonable period". This was seen as unreasonable, as it was undefined and could potentially be used indefinitely. Thus, the reauthorization act changed this to a period not exceeding 30 days after the date of the execution of the search warrant. Courts were given the opportunity to extend this period if they were provided good cause to do so. Section 213 states that delayed notifications could be issued if there is "reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result". This was criticised, particularly by the ACLU, for allowing potential abuse by law enforcement agencies and was later amended to prevent a delayed notification "if the adverse results consist only of unduly delaying a trial."
The reauthorization act also legislates increased congressional oversight for emergency disclosures by communication providers undertaken under section 212 of the Patriot Act. The duration of FISA surveillance and physical search orders were increased. Surveillance performed against "lone wolf terrorists" under section 207 of the Patriot Act were increased to 120 days for an initial order, while pen registers and trap and trace device extensions under FISA were increased from 90 days to a year. The reauthorization act also increased congressional oversight, requiring a semi-annual report into physical searches and the use of pen registers and trap and trace devices under FISA. The "lone wolf terrorist" provision (Section 207) was a sunset provision that also was to have expired, however this was enhanced by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. The reauthorization act extended the expiration date to December 31, 2009. The amendment to material support law done in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act was also made permanent. The definition of terrorism was further expanded to include receiving military-type training from a foreign terrorist organization and narcoterrorism. Other provisions of the reauthorization act was to merge the law outlawing train wrecking and the law outlawing attacks on mass transportation systems into a new section of Title 18 of the U.S. Code and also to criminalize the act of planning a terrorist attack against a mass transport system. Forfeiture law was further changed and now assets within U.S. jurisdiction will be seized for illegally trafficking in nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weapons technology or material, if such offense is punishable under foreign law by death or imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. Alternatively, this applies if similar punishment would be so punishable if committed within the U.S. A sense of Congress was further expressed that victims of terrorism should be entitled to the forfeited assets of terrorists.
Much of the controversy over the Act stems from changes to foreign intelligence surveillance law, National Security Letters, material support prohibitions and mandatory detention laws. Roving wiretaps, defined in section 206, were particularly controversial. Many commentators have objected to them, believing them to bypass the Fourth Amendment requirement that search warrants detail the place to be searched. EPIC have criticised the law as unconstitutional, especially when "the private communications of law-abiding American citizens might be intercepted incidentally", while the EFF hold that the lower standard applied to wiretaps "gives the FBI a 'blank check' to violate the communications privacy of countless innocent Americans". Others do not find the roving wiretap legislation to be as concerning. Professor David D. Cole of the Georgetown University Law Center, a critic of many of the provisions of the Act, found that though they come at a cost to privacy are a sensible measure while Paul Rosenzweig, a Senior Legal Research Fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, argues that roving wiretaps are just a response to rapidly changing communication technology that is not necessarily fixed to a specific location or device.
The Act also allows access to voicemail through a search warrant rather than through a title III wiretap order. James Dempsey, of the CDT, believes that it unnecessarily overlooks the importance of notice under the Fourth Amendment and under a Title III wiretap, and the EFF criticises the provision's lack of notice. However, the EFF's criticism is more extensive — they believe that the amendment "is in possible violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution" because previously if the FBI listened to voicemail illegally, it couldn't use the messages in evidence against the defendant. Others disagree with these assessments. Professor Orin Kerr, of the George Washington University school of law, believes that the ECPA "adopted a rather strange rule to regulate voicemail stored with service providers" because "under ECPA, if the government knew that there was one copy of an unopened private message in a person's bedroom and another copy on their remotely stored voicemail, it was illegal for the FBI to simply obtain the voicemail; the law actually compelled the police to invade the home and rifle through peoples' bedrooms so as not to disturb the more private voicemail." In Professor Kerr's opinion, this made little sense and the amendment that was made by the Patriot Act was reasonable and sensible.
The Patriot Act's expansion of court jurisdiction to allow the nationwide service of search warrants proved controversial for the EFF. They believe that agencies will be able to "'shop' for judges that have demonstrated a strong bias toward law enforcement with regard to search warrants, using only those judges least likely to say no—even if the warrant doesn't satisfy the strict requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution", and that it reduces the likelihood that smaller ISPs or phone companies will try to protect the privacy of their clients by challenging the warrant in court — their reasoning is that "a small San Francisco ISP served with such a warrant is unlikely to have the resources to appear before the New York court that issued it." They believe that this is bad because only the communications provider will be able to challenge the warrant as only they will know about it—many warrants are issued ex parte, which means that the target of the order is not present when the order is issued.
For a time, the Patriot Act allowed for agents to undertake "sneak and peek" searches. Critics such as EPIC and the ACLU strongly criticized the law for violating the Fourth Amendment, with the ACLU going so far as to release an advertisement condemning it and calling for it to be repealed. However supporters of the amendment, such as Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to the New York City Journal, expressed the belief that it was necessary because the temporary delay in notification of a search order stops terrorists from tipping off counterparts who are being investigated. In 2004, FBI agents used this provision to search and secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. While the U.S. Government did publicly apologise to Mr. Mayfield and his family, Mr. Mayfield took it further through the courts. On September 26, 2007, judge Ann Aiken found the law was, in fact, unconstitutional as the search was an unreasonable imposition on Mr. Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.
Laws governing the material support of terrorism proved contentious. It was criticised by the EFF for infringement of freedom of association. The EFF argues that had this law been enacted during Apartheid, U.S. citizens would not have been able to support the African National Congress (ANC) as the EFF believe the ANC would have been classed as a terrorist organisation. They also used the example of a humanitarian social worker being unable to train Hamas members how to care for civilian children orphaned in the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, a lawyer being unable to teach IRA members about international law, and peace workers being unable to offer training in effective peace negotiations or how to petition the United Nations regarding human rights abuses. Another group, the Humanitarian Law Project, also objected to the provision prohibiting "expert advise and assistance" to terrorists and filed a suit against the U.S. government to have it declared unconstitutional. They succeeded, and a Federal Court found that the law was vague enough to cause a reasonable person to guess whether they were breaking the law or not. Thus they found it violated the First Amendment rights of U.S. citizens, and struck it down.
Perhaps one of the biggest controversies involved the use of NSL's by the FBI. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order they were criticized by many parties. In November 2005, BusinessWeek reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions". Before this was revealed, however, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April 2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown Internet Service Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the Patriot Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional. Congress later tried to remedy this in a reauthorization Act, but because they did not remove the non-disclosure provision a Federal court again found NSLs to be unconstitutional because they prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review.
Another provision of the Patriot Act brought a great deal of consternation amongst librarians. Section 215 allows the FBI to apply for an order to produce materials that assist in an investigation undertaken to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities. Amongst the "tangible things" that could be targeted, it includes "books, records, papers, documents, and other items". Supporters of the provision point out that these records are held by third-parties, and therefore are exempt from a citizen's reasonable expectations of privacy and also maintain that the FBI has not abused the provision. As proof, then Attorney General John Ashcroft released information in 2003 that showed that section 215 orders had never been used. However, despite protestations to the contrary, the American Library Association strongly objected to the provision, believing that library records are fundamentally different to ordinary business records, and that the provision would have a chilling effect on free speech. The association became so concerned that they formed a resolution condemning the Patriot Act, and which urged members to defend free speech and protect patrons' privacy. They urged librarians to seek legal advice before complying with a search order and advised their members to only keeping records for as long as was legally needed. Consequently, reports started filtering in that librarians were shredding records to avoid having to comply with such orders. This stance was criticised by Heather Mac Donald, who opined that "[t]he furore over section 215 is a case study in Patriot Act fear-mongering."
Another controversial aspect of the Patriot Act is the immigration provisions that allow for the indefinite detention of any alien whom the Attorney General believes may cause a terrorist act. Before the Patriot Act was passed, Anita Ramasastry, an associate professor of law and a director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce, & Technology at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle, Washington, accused the Act of depriving basic rights for immigrants to America, including legal permanent residents. She warned that "Indefinite detention upon secret evidence — which the Patriot Act allows — sounds more like Taliban justice than ours. Our claim that we are attempting to build an international coalition against terrorism will be severely undermined if we pass legislation allowing even citizens of our allies to be incarcerated without basic U.S. guarantees of fairness and justice." Many other parties have also been strongly critical of the provision. Russell Feingold, in a Senate floor statement, claimed that the provision "falls short of meeting even basic constitutional standards of due process and fairness [as it] continues to allow the Attorney General to detain persons based on mere suspicion". The University of California passed a resolution condemning (amongst other things) the indefinite detention provisions of the Act, while the ACLU has accused the Act of giving the Attorney General "unprecedented new power to determine the fate of immigrants... Worse, if the foreigner does not have a country that will accept them, they can be detained indefinitely without trial."
Another controversial aspect of the Patriot Act is its affect on the privacy of British Columbian citizens. British Columbia’s privacy commissioner raises concerns that the USA Patriot Act will allow the United States government to access Canadians' private information, such as personal medical records, that are outsourced to American companies. Although the government of British Columbia has taken measures to prevent United States authorities from obtaining information, the wide-spread powers of the USA Patriot Act could overcome legislation that is passed in Canada. B.C. Privacy Commissioner David Loukidelis stated in a report on the consequences of the USA Patriot Act, “once information is sent across borders, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to control”.
In an effort to maintain their privacy, British Columbia placed amendments on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIPPA), which was enacted as law on October 21, 2004. These amendments aim to place more firm limitations on “storing, accessing, and disclosing of B.C. public sector data by service providers.” These laws only pertain to public sector data and do not cover trans-border or private sector data in Canada. The public sector establishments include an estimated 2,000 “government ministries, hospitals, boards of health, universities and colleges, school boards, municipal governments and certain Crown corporations and agencies.”
Legal action has been taken in Nova Scotia to protect the province from the Patriot Act’s data collecting methods. On November 15, 2007 the government of Nova Scotia passed a legislation aimed to protect Nova Scotians’ personal information from being brought forward by the US Patriot Act. The act was entitled “The new Personal Information International Disclosure Protection Act”. The goal of the act is to establish requirements to protect personal information from being revealed, as well as punishments for failing to do so. Justice Minister Murray Scott stated, "This legislation will help ensure that Nova Scotians' personal information will be protected. The act outlines the responsibilities of public bodies, municipalities and service providers and the consequences if these responsibilities are not fulfilled."
US Patent Issued to Hantz Group on Nov. 8 for "Multi-Company Business Accounting System and Method for Same Including Account Payable" (Connecticut Inventor)
Nov 10, 2011; ALEXANDRIA, Va., Nov. 10 -- United States Patent no. 8,055,560, issued on Nov. 8, was assigned to Hantz Group Inc. (Southfield,...
US Patent Issued to Visa U.S.A. on Feb. 12 for "Payment Entity Device Transaction Processing Using Multiple Payment Methods" (Maryland, California Inventors)
Feb 19, 2013; ALEXANDRIA, Va., Feb. 19 -- United States Patent no. 8,374,932, issued on Feb. 12, was assigned to Visa U.S.A. Inc. (San...