Talking Points
![Printer-friendly version Printer-friendly version](https://www.bookweb.org/sites/all/modules/contrib/print/icons/print_icon.png)
Patriot Act Reauthorization: Why the Conference Report is Unacceptable
The Conference Report Does not Adequately Protect Reader Privacy
Both the House and the Senate have voted to restore safeguards for reader privacy that were eliminated by the USA Patriot Act. In June, the House of Representatives approved Rep. Bernie Sanders' Freedom to Read Amendment by a vote of 238-187, cutting off funds for bookstore and library searches under Section 215 of the Patriot Act. In July, the Senate passed a Patriot Act reauthorization bill that restricts bookstore and library searches to the records of people who are suspected of terrorism. However, the conference report that compromised the differences between the House and Senate reauthorization bills failed to include crucial reader privacy safeguards.
Section 215 Must Be Limited to Searches of the Records of Suspected Terrorists
Section 215 of the Patriot Act authorizes the FBI to seek an order from the secret court established by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) for any records that may be "relevant" to a terrorist investigation. The conference report continues to give the FBI access to all "relevant" records, including the records of people who are not suspected of any crime and have no connection to a person suspected of terrorism. The Senate reauthorization bill eliminated the danger of fishing expeditions in bookstore and library records by limiting searches to the records of suspected terrorists and people who are in contact with them.
Booksellers and Librarians Must Not Be Permanently Gagged
Section 215 imposes a permanent gag on booksellers and librarians who receive an order to turn over records. The conference report continues to gag recipients of Section 215 orders. While a temporary ban on disclosing a search order may be justified in some circumstances, booksellers and librarians must have the right to challenge the scope and duration of any gag that limits their First Amendment right to engage in public debate over Section 215.