It is a cliché that politics makes for strange bedfellows. This is certainly the case with the current coalition fighting the U.S.A. Patriot Act on the grounds of privacy rights. Allied in a battle to reform certain aspects of the Act are well-known Conservative pundit and former Republican Senator Bob Barr and Senate Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin — The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Conservative Union. Also joining up to vociferously defend privacy are the Second Amendment Foundation and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Learn more about the issues under scrutiny below.

	The Patriot Act has been controversial since its passage but those who criticize the measure have often earned condemnation in the name of national security. Memorably, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft said, "To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve." In 2005, as the Patriot Act comes up for renewal, there are bi-partisan efforts to alter some of the surveillance aspects of the bill. Section 213 Former Republican Senator Bob Barr was among many who testified about what he views as the overreaching powers provided by sections of the bill. Of special concern to Barr and other privacy activists is Section 213, often know as the "sneak and peek," or "delayed notice" provisions. It authorizes authorities to not disclose search warrants to the parties involved if "notice of the search warrant would result in destruction of evidence, danger, flight from prosecution, intimidation of a witness, or wherever the government believes it necessary so as not to jeopardize or delay its investigation." The Act sets no limit on the length of time such a search of a person's home or business can be kept secret. What is most worrisome to Section 213's critics is that this increased power is not limited to cases involving terrorism or foreign agents, and thus would have no relation to national security. In addition, opponents maintain the phrasing permitting its use whenever the government believes it is "necessary" is in conflict with the freedoms guaranteed under the 4th Amendment. Section 215 Also troubling to a variety of groups, is Section 215. This section of the Act allows federal agents to obtain a variety of business records, potentially including library records. Some U.S. libraries have taken a public stand against the provision, in one Chicago suburb the librarians posted a notice warning patrons that they could not longer guarantee library records would remain confidential. This section of the Patriot Act is scheduled to be "sunset" this year, if not rewritten into the bill. The Justice Department wants the provision made permanent. They, and other of the Act's stanch supporters, point to the fact that the power had not yet been used to obtain records without notifying the subject of the investigation show it isn't being abused. Critics say the same evidence shows it isn't needed. National Security Letters Some provisions of the Patriot Act concerning privacy have come under court scrutiny. In April 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union and an anonymous Internet Service Provider (ISP) filed a lawsuit challenging the FBI's authority to issue "National Security Letters" (NSLs) ordering certain kinds of businesses to turn over sensitive customer records. Before the Patriot Act, the FBI could use NSLs to obtain records concerning suspected terrorists and spies. The Patriot Act amended the law to allow the use of NSLs to obtain information about anyone. In addition, it bars that provider from even disclosing to anybody that it got the subpoena. The lawsuit also challenges the constitutionality of that gag provision. In September 2004, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero ordered the Justice Department to cease use of special subpoena power under the act, stating "[A]n unlimited government warrant to conceal, effectively a form of secrecy per se, has no place in our open society." The Safe Act Opposition to some of the powers of the Patriot Act has come in the bipartisan SAFE Act, which would create a time limit for the secrecy of such searches. The SAFE Act limits the initial period of delay to seven days, and allows that period to be renewed for good cause. Co-sponsor Richard Durbin states reassuringly: The SAFE Act does not repeal a single provision of the Patriot Act. In fact, the SAFE Act retains all of the expanded powers created by the Patriot Act but places important limits on these powers. Let me be very clear. We want to mend the Patriot Act, not end it. The great challenge of our age is combating terrorism while remaining true to our Constitution. The SAFE Act will help us to meet that challenge. Bob Barr's testimony on the reauthorization of The Patriot Act American Library Association: USA PATRIOT Act and Intellectual Freedom ACLU Challenge to the National Security Letter Authority Track legislation online Debating the Patriot Act: Resources Additional sources: "Librarians set aside `shhh' to speak out for privacy Patriot Act: Government access to data on library users criticized by the normally quiet types," Gail Gibson, THE BALTIMORE SUN, June 24, 2004; "The Great Date Heist Why can't corporations keep their customers' personal data secure? Inside the world of identity theft," Daniel Roth, Stephanie Mehta, Julia Boorstin, Joan Levinstein, FORTUNE, 16 May 2005; "Limiting the Patriot Act," THE TENNESSEAN, October 1, 2004; "Improving the Patriot Act," CHICAGO TRIBUNE, April 12, 2005.