As the government launches a positive PR campaign for the Patriot Act, the Center for Democracy and Technology takes a moment to explore the DOJ's new website. The website is part of a public relations push by the administration which includes a speaking tour by Attorney General John Ashcroft.

How does it affect you as a broadband user?

Under the law, ISP's and network administrators can give the green light to government surveillance of computer networks without a judicial order, without informing the person monitored, without Judicial oversight, without reporting the tactics to congress; all while essentially canning the rights of the person being monitored. Of course this and other more questionable portions of the act aren't discussed at the 'cheerleaderesque' website developed by the DOJ.

According to this analysis by the Center for Democracy and technology, the website "provides misleading, incomplete and, in some cases, incorrect information." Among other misleading statements, the DOJ claims that "Peaceful political organizations engaging in political advocacy cannot be considered terrorists under the PATRIOT Act's new definition of domestic terrorism."

Not necessarily true, says the CDT, who notes that all someone needs to do to acquire the label of domestic terrorist is violate an existing law "involving risk of serious injury." That could include blocking traffic at a protest, or accidentally harming someone during a struggle. Like most hotly debated legislation, it's the loose wording of the Act, leading to potentially significant abuses, that gives privacy advocates cause for concern.

Of course not everyone is worried. Particularly if you're one who believes the U.S. government isn't capable of abusing authority. A common response to the act's sweeping powers is usually something to the effect of "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about". Take this report at American Daily as an example, where the author suggests that "under the Act, ISP’s are relieved of liability for disclosing an internet user’s information in the event that the provider believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury justifies the disclosure. How awful for the Left, the bad guys can’t sue the ISP."

What Paul Walfield ignores obviously, is the effect this has if by chance, you aren't the "bad guy". If an ISP discloses your information without judicial oversight and you've done nothing wrong, you're essentially left with no legal recourse. Anyone suspected of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act can be wiretapped, and essentially loses the majority of their rights provided them under that often forgotten legislation known as the bill of rights. How "pro-Patriot act" would Mr. Walfield be after an eight month stint sans lawyer in a 4x4 cell?

Users web-surfing logs are now easily available without a court order. Officers can search your home simply under suspicion without informing you they were ever there. The Patriot Act also ignores the existence of Echelon (see ACLU report), a massive technology surveillance project that snoops through the globe's electronic communications with little or no accountability (NO congressional oversight), giving the government much of the electronic monitoring capabilities they claim they didn't already have.

Groups like the CDT and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (see their analysis here) aren't opposed to improving the governments ability to combat terrorism, they're concerned about electronic privacy invasion and a lack of accountability if someone is falsely accused.