The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks prompted congressional action on many fronts,including passage of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate ToolsRequired to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act. The Act is broadlyscoped, (1) and some of itsprovisions may affect use of the Internet, computer security, and critical infrastructure protection. The legislation initially passed the Senate (96-1) as S. 1510 on October 11,2001. The House passed H.R. 2975 (337-79) on October 12. A compromise bill, H.R. 3162 , passed the House (under suspension) on October 24 and the Senate (98-1)on October 25. The President signed it into law on October 26 ( P.L. 107-56 ). The implementation of the Act will be carefully scrutinized. While law enforcement officialsheralded the passage of what they regard as necessary provisions for counteracting terrorists andother criminals, civil liberties groups urged caution in passing a new law in an emotionally chargedenvironment. During debate, some Representatives raised concerns about the process used to bringthe bills to the floor. In the House, for example, the version of H.R. 2975 as reportedfrom the Judiciary Committee on October 11 ( H.Rept. 107-236 , Part 1) was replaced by the text ofa new bill, H.R. 3801 , for the purposes of debate. (2) H.R. 3801 wasvery similar, but not identical, to S. 1510 as it had passed the Senate hours earlier. Hence, some Representatives felt they had insufficient time to review the legislation they were beingasked to vote on. Among the changes in H.R. 3801 was an extension of the sunsetperiod on several of the electronic surveillance provisions from 2 years to 5 years. Some Membershad argued for a short sunset period, maintaining that the changes in the law were being madehurriedly. In light of this history, it appears that oversight of the Act's implementation will be ofconsiderable interest to Congress and a broad range of interest groups. This report summarizes the potential effect of the Act on electronic privacy, security,commerce, and government, and identifies issues that are arising. Every day, persons gain access (or try to gain access) to other people's computers withoutauthorization to read, copy, modify, or destroy the information contained within--webpages aredefaced, unwanted messages and pictures are conveyed, information (or money) is stolen,communications are jammed and services denied. The list of perpetrators includes juveniles,disgruntled (ex)employees, criminals, competitors, politically or socially motivated groups, andagents of foreign governments. For the purposes of this report, people who engage in such activitieswill be called computer trespassers (adopting a term which the USA PATRIOT Act defines, asexplained below). The damage computer trespassers can inflict, either knowingly or unwittingly,often goes beyond merely being a nuisance and in most cases rises to the level of a federal crime(pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1030). It is also conceivable that under certain conditions such actions couldbe considered a terrorist act or rise to the level of endangering national security by threatening thefunctioning of the country's critical infrastructure. For the most part, law enforcement agencies seem to have had adequate tools to investigate,prosecute and penalize these offenses. One area where officials have sought improvement for sometime, however, is in streamlining their ability to track computer trespassers, both in real time or afterthe fact. Prior to passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, procedures required investigators to requestcourt orders, warrants, subpoenas, etc. from a multitude of jurisdictions, since most computertrespassers will route their communications around the world. While the USA PATRIOT Act isdirected primarily to improve the ability of the government to detect, prevent, and respond to thekinds of terrorist attacks experienced last September and October, a number of the provisions affectthe government's law enforcement surveillance and investigatory powers more generally. Those thatdirectly and indirectly affect the ability of the government to investigate, prosecute, and perhapsdeter computer trespassers, whatever their intent, are listed below. Section 105 expands upon the U.S. Secret Service's National Electronic CrimeTask Force Initiative. The U.S. Secret Service has been leading a New York Electronic Crime TaskForce that has been held up as a model of success for investigating a variety of electronic crimes,ranging from "cloning" cell phones to denial-of-service attacks against on-line tradingcompanies. (4) The taskforce includes experts from other government agencies as well as the private sector. Section 105directs the Director of the Secret Service to develop a national network of such taskforces. Section 202 and Section 217 clarify that law enforcement officials may seekpermission to intercept electronic communications of "computer trespassers." Section 202 adds 18U.S.C. 1030 (computer fraud and abuse) offenses to the list of offenses for which the AttorneyGeneral, or other designated officials, may authorize a request for a court order to intercept targeted communications. Section 217 defines a "computer trespasser" as someone "who accesses a protectedcomputer (5) withoutauthorization and thus has no reasonable expectation of privacy in any communication to, through,or from the protected computer." Section 217 also specifies the conditions under which thecommunications of a computer trespasser may be intercepted. Those conditions are: the owner oroperator of the protected computer authorizes the interception; the person acting under color of lawis lawfully engaged in an investigation; the person acting under color of law has reasonable groundsto expect the content of the computer trespasser's communication is relevant to the investigation; andthe interception acquires only the trespasser's communications within the invaded computer. (6) Prior to the Act, the statutewas less explicit in specifying the terms under which a computer trespasser's communications couldbe intercepted. Section 210 expands the information that law enforcement officials may obtain(with appropriate authorization) from providers of electronic communications service or remotecomputing services regarding a subscriber or customer of those services. The information may nowinclude a subscriber's or customer's means and source of payment. The language is also modifiedto include information more clearly related to Internet use (e.g. session times and temporarilyassigned network addresses). These changes are to improve the ability of law enforcement officialsto track the activity and identity of suspects concerning a wide range of offenses, including terroristactivities and those of computer trespassers. Section 211 clarifies that in the deregulated telecommunications environment,cable providers that also provide communication services are governed by the same statutes as otherelectronic communication providers in regard to interception of communications, disclosure ofcustomer records, and application of pen registers and trap and trace devices. (7) Prior to deregulation, cableproviders followed different rules. Therefore, law enforcement officials now have the samesurveillance and investigatory powers in regard to cases involving cable internet services.Information regarding a subscriber's selection of video programming, however, continues to begoverned separately. Section 216 modifies the authorities relating to use of pen registers and trapand trace devices. As a result of Section 216, a single court order authorizing the use of a penregister or trap and trace device can be used to apply those devices to any computer or facilityanywhere in the country. Prior to the Act, authorization had to be obtained in each jurisdiction wherethe devices needed to be applied. Also, the availability of this authority with respect to computercommunications was unclear. It was generally thought that these devices could only be used ontelephone equipment. Section 220 allows a single court with jurisdiction over the offense underinvestigation to issue a warrant allowing the search of electronic evidence anywhere in the country. Prior to this, the warrant needed to be issued by a court within the jurisdiction where the informationresided. Section 808 adds certain computer fraud and abuse offenses to the list ofviolations that may constitute a federal crime of terrorism. The new provisions apply to: anyone whoknowingly accesses a computer without authorization and obtains classified information; and,anyone who knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, andas a result intentionally causes damage to a protected computer. The inclusion of these offenses inthe definition of a federal crime of terrorism in Section 2332b(g)(5)(B) relates primarily to who hasinvestigatory authority over the offenses (the Attorney General, in this case). However, by virtueof cross-references in other parts of the Act, including these offenses in the definition of terrorismalso affects: the extension of their statute of limitations (Section 809 of the Act); post-releasesupervision of someone convicted of these offenses under certain circumstances (Section 812 of theAct); and, applicability of the racketeering statutes (Section 813 of the Act). According to Section809, should these computer offenses result in or create a foreseeable risk of death or serious bodilyinjury, there is no statute of limitations. Under similar conditions, Section 812 could lead tolife-time post-release supervision. The cross-reference to racketeering statutes gives lawenforcement officials more tools with which to prosecute computertrespassers. Section 814 increases the penalties for certain computer fraud and abuseoffenses. The penalty for a first offense of causing the transmission of a program, information, codeor command that intentionally causes damage to a protected computer increases from 5 years to 10years. The penalty for a second such offense or a second offense of intentionally gainingunauthorized access to a protected computer and, as a result, recklessly causing damage is increasedfrom 10 years to 20 years. Also, it is now an offense to attempt to commit these offenses.