Information Ethics: Privacy and Intellectual Property 
edited by Lee Freeman, A Graham Peace
Idea Group Inc (IGI)
Publication Date  November 15, 2004

pp. 171-172 (~1 page out of 300):

Legally, there is little to stop the government from getting access to 
records of individuals.  The Privacy Act of 1974 banned the government from 
keeping information on citizens who are not the targets of investigations, 
but the government can get around this by either purchasing the information 
from private sources or using subpoenas to get it (Stanley & Steinhardt, 
2003).  Also, there is a legal prec3edent for the use of administrative 
subpoenas, which are already authorized for more than 300 types of 
investigations (Lichtblau, 2003).  In the end, the use of subpoenas in 
terrorism investigations does not challenge privacy from legal or 
constitutional grounds, although administrative subpoenas, with a lack of 
judicial oversight, are worrying in times when abuse of power seem more likely.

In terms of public opinion, the use of subpoenas has received a great deal 
of criticism. Librarians have been in an uproar over the possibility that 
FBI agents might demand access to patrons' borrowing records.  Librarians in 
Santa Cruz shredded sign-in sheets for computer terminals, while the Montana 
Library Association passed a resolution saying the PATRIOT Act is "a danger 
to the constitutional rights and privacy rights to library users" (Kohler, 
2003).  Likewise, there was so much controversy over the Total (or 
Terrorism) Information Awareness program, as well as the terrorism futures 
market, that John Poindexter resigned from leading the program and Congress 
cut off funding for these programs (Graham, 2003).  The access that might 
have been granted to TIA would have violated the normative aspect of privacy 
because it would have removed any relationship to criminal activity by 
searching for patterns of behavior rather than people or places (Electronic 
Privacy Information Center, 2003a; Stanley & Steinhardt, 2003).  According 
to Timothy Edgar, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties 
Union office in Washington, the TIA "was a hugely unpopular program with a 
mission far outside what most Americans would consider acceptable in our 
democracy" (Hulse, 2003).  IN a Business Week/Harris Poll, 95% of the 
American public "were uncomfortable with profiles that included tracking of 
browsing habits, identity, and other data, such as income and credit data" 
(Electronic Privacy Information Center, 2003e).  Evaluating privacy in all 
of its aspects is particularly useful here, because it shows that, while the 
TIA may hoave not infringed on privacy in legal or constitutional ways, it 
was stil vehemently criticized by the public, and this criticism affected 
policy decisions.