<P> The scope and availability of wiretapping and surveillance orders were expanded under Title II . Wiretaps were expanded to include addressing and routing information to allow surveillance of packet switched networks--the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) objected to this, arguing that it does not take into account email or web addresses, which often contain content in the address information . The Act allowed any district court judge in the United States to issue such surveillance orders and search warrants for terrorism investigations . Search warrants were also expanded, with the Act amending Title III of the Stored Communications Access Act to allow the FBI to gain access to stored voicemail through a search warrant, rather than through the more stringent wiretap laws . </P> <P> Various provisions allowed for the disclosure of electronic communications to law enforcement agencies . Those who operate or own a "protected computer" can give permission for authorities to intercept communications carried out on the machine, thus bypassing the requirements of the Wiretap statute . The definition of a "protected computer" is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (e) (2) and broadly encompasses those computers used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including ones located outside the United States . The law governing obligatory and voluntary disclosure of customer communications by cable companies was altered to allow agencies to demand such communications under U.S.C. Title 18 provisions relating to the disclosure of electronic communications (chapter 119), pen registers and trap and trace devices (chapter 206) and stored communications (121), though it excluded the disclosure of cable subscriber viewing habits . Subpoenas issued to Internet Service Providers were expanded to include not only "the name, address, local and long distance telephone toll billing records, telephone number or other subscriber number or identity, and length of service of a subscriber" but also session times and durations, types of services used, communication device address information (e.g. IP addresses), payment method and bank account and credit card numbers . Communication providers are also allowed to disclose customer records or communications if they suspect there is a danger to "life and limb". </P> <P> Title II established three very controversial provisions: "sneak and peek" warrants, roving wiretaps and the ability of the FBI to gain access to documents that reveal the patterns of U.S. citizens . The so - called "sneak and peek" law allowed for delayed notification of the execution of search warrants . The period before which the FBI must notify the recipients of the order was unspecified in the Act--the FBI field manual says that it is a "flexible standard"--and it may be extended at the court's discretion . These sneak and peek provisions were struck down by judge Ann Aiken on September 26, 2007, after a Portland attorney, Brandon Mayfield, was wrongly jailed because of the searches . The court found the searches to violate the provision that prohibits unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution . </P> <P> Roving wiretaps are wiretap orders that do not need to specify all common carriers and third parties in a surveillance court order . These are seen as important by the Department of Justice because they believe that terrorists can exploit wiretap orders by rapidly changing locations and communication devices such as cell phones, while opponents see it as violating the particularity clause of the Fourth Amendment . Another highly controversial provision is one that allows the FBI to make an order "requiring the production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment to the Constitution ." Though it was not targeted directly at libraries, the American Library Association (ALA), in particular, opposed this provision . In a resolution passed on June 29, 2005, they stated that "Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act allows the government to secretly request and obtain library records for large numbers of individuals without any reason to believe they are involved in illegal activity ." However, the ALA's stance did not go without criticism . One prominent critic of the ALA's stance was the Manhattan Institute's Heather Mac Donald, who argued in an article for the New York City Journal that "(t) he furor over section 215 is a case study in Patriot Act fear - mongering ." </P>

Which is the main purpose of the patriot act