id they felt the PATRIOT Act should not be repealed.

Those in favor of keeping the act made comments such as "We don't need another 911. Bad for business." and "We need to protect our nation and business sector by being aware of what enemies of our society are plotting and planning!"

Those wishing to see the act repealed made comments such as "The Patriot Act gives the government free reign to spy on innocent citizens in the name of terrorism. It smacks of Nixon's war on political enemies." and "It goes against all the definitions of what it means to be an American. If our freedoms are taken away, we're just like the rest of the world and we lose what makes us a special p

Most Americans are familiar with the USA PATRIOT Act. Passed into law on October 24, 2001, just six weeks after the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks, the Act expands the authority of U.S. law enforcement for the stated purpose of fighting terrorist acts in the United States and abroad.

The rights the act give government, while protecting America from terrorist threat, affect business in several ways. The new reporting and customer monitoring requirements increase operational costs and may expose companies to lawsuits over consumer privacy.

Retail businesses, telecommunications firms and financial businesses are the hardest hit because of the extensive records they must keep and the fact that they must quickly produce any records requested by the government.

Consumers are also inconvenienced by the PATRIOT Act. Anyone buying a car, applying for a loan or leasing equipment must now complete a menagerie of forms, make certifications, meet compliance and audit programs and comply with bureaucratic red-tape that in all likelihood will never even be reviewed by the government. For this reason, many question the actual security benefits of these requirements.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act directly affects private industry by empowering federal law enforcement to subpoena a business for any "tangible thing," such as customer records, library check-out lists, medical records and bank account information.

This may not sound like anything out of the ordinary; police and the government have always been able to subpoena records. But what makes Sec. 215 extraordinary is that it removes the normal requirement to meet the legal standard of "probable cause." Judges must issue subpoenas upon receipt of the FBI application.

Additionally, Sec. 215 supersedes any privacy guarantees between businesses and customers. If a business is served with a Sec. 215 order it is unable to contest it or alert customers.

TITLE III of the Patriot Act expands government access to personal financial information by requiring financial institutions to closely monitor daily financial transactions and share that information with federal agencies. But financial institutions are defined more broadly than many would suspect and include insurance companies; real estate agencies; mortgage brokers; money managers; finance companies; travel agents; automobile, airplane, boat and jewelry dealers; and attorneys.

But despite these inconveniences and, some might say, abuse of power, the majority of respondents to the Tampa Bay Business Journal's Business Pulse Survey on the topic said they do not believe the PATRIOT Act should be repealed.

The survey, conducted in December of 2005, revealed that 58% of the 206 respondents said they felt the PATRIOT Act should not be repealed.

Those in favor of keeping the act made comments such as "We don't need another 911. Bad for business." and "We need to protect our nation and business sector by being aware of what enemies of our society are plotting and planning!"

Those wishing to see the act repealed made comments such as "The Patriot Act gives the government free reign to spy on innocent citizens in the name of terrorism. It smacks of Nixon's war on political enemies." and "It goes against all the definitions of what it means to be an American. If our freedoms are taken away, we're just like the rest of the world and we lose what makes us a special pl

keep and the fact that they must quickly produce any records requested by the government.

Consumers are also inconvenienced by the PATRIOT Act. Anyone buying a car, applying for a loan or leasing equipment must now complete a menagerie of forms, make certifications, meet compliance and audit programs and comply with bureaucratic red-tape that in all likelihood will never even be reviewed by the government. For this reason, many question the actual security benefits of these requirements.

Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act directly affects private industry by empowering federal law enforcement to subpoena a business for any "tangible thing," such as customer records, library check-out lists, medical records and bank account information.

This may not sound like anything out of the ordinary; police and the government have always been able to subpoena records. But what makes Sec. 215 extraordinary is that it removes the normal requirement to meet the legal standard of "probable cause." Judges must issue subpoenas upon receipt of the FBI application.

Additionally, Sec. 215 supersedes any privacy guarantees between businesses and customers. If a business is served with a Sec. 215 order it is unable to contest it or alert customers.

TITLE III of the Patriot Act expands government access to personal financial information by requiring financial institutions to closely monitor daily financial transactions and share that information with federal agencies. But financial institutions are defined more broadly than many would suspect and include insurance companies; real estate agencies; mortgage brokers; money managers; finance companies; travel agents; automobile, airplane, boat and jewelry dealers; and attorneys.

But despite these inconveniences and, some might say, abuse of power, the majority of respondents to the Tampa Bay Business Journal's Business Pulse Survey on the topic said they do not believe the PATRIOT Act should be repealed.

The survey, conducted in December of 2005, revealed that 58% of the 206 respondents said they felt the PATRIOT Act should not be repealed.

Those in favor of keeping the act made comments such as "We don't need another 911. Bad for business." and "We need to protect our nation and business sector by being aware of what enemies of our society are plotting and planning!"

Those wishing to see the act repealed made comments such as "The Patriot Act gives the government free reign to spy on innocent citizens in the name of terrorism. It smacks of Nixon's war on political enemies." and "It goes against all the definitions of what it means to be an American. If our freedoms are taken away, we're just like the rest of the world and we lose what makes us a special p

k-out lists, medical records and bank account information.

This may not sound like anything out of the ordinary; police and the government have always been able to subpoena records. But what makes Sec. 215 extraordinary is that it removes the normal requirement to meet the legal standard of "probable cause." Judges must issue subpoenas upon receipt of the FBI application.

Additionally, Sec. 215 supersedes any privacy guarantees between businesses and customers. If a business is served with a Sec. 215 order it is unable to contest it or alert customers.

TITLE III of the Patriot Act expands government access to personal financial information by requiring financial institutions to closely monitor daily financial transactions and share that information with federal agencies. But financial institutions are defined more broadly than many would suspect and include insurance companies; real estate agencies; mortgage brokers; money managers; finance companies; travel agents; automobile, airplane, boat and jewelry dealers; and attorneys.

But despite these inconveniences and, some might say, abuse of power, the majority of respondents to the Tampa Bay Business Journal's Business Pulse Survey on the topic said they do not believe the PATRIOT Act should be repealed.

The survey, conducted in December of 2005, revealed that 58% of the 206 respondents said they felt the PATRIOT Act should not be repealed.

Those in favor of keeping the act made comments such as "We don't need another 911. Bad for business." and "We need to protect our nation and business sector by being aware of what enemies of our society are plotting and planning!"

Those wishing to see the act repealed made comments such as "The Patriot Act gives the government free reign to spy on innocent citizens in the name of terrorism. It smacks of Nixon's war on political enemies." and "It goes against all the definitions of what it means to be an American. If our freedoms are taken away, we're just like the rest of the world and we lose what makes us a special p

utions to closely monitor daily financial transactions and share that information with federal agencies. But financial institutions are defined more broadly than many would suspect and include insurance companies; real estate agencies; mortgage brokers; money managers; finance companies; travel agents; automobile, airplane, boat and jewelry dealers; and attorneys.

But despite these inconveniences and, some might say, abuse of power, the majority of respondents to the Tampa Bay Business Journal's Business Pulse Survey on the topic said they do not believe the PATRIOT Act should be repealed.

The survey, conducted in December of 2005, revealed that 58% of the 206 respondents said they felt the PATRIOT Act should not be repealed.

Those in favor of keeping the act made comments such as "We don't need another 911. Bad for business." and "We need to protect our nation and business sector by being aware of what enemies of our society are plotting and planning!"

Those wishing to see the act repealed made comments such as "The Patriot Act gives the government free reign to spy on innocent citizens in the name of terrorism. It smacks of Nixon's war on political enemies." and "It goes against all the definitions of what it means to be an American. If our freedoms are taken away, we're just like the rest of the world and we lose what makes us a special p

id they felt the PATRIOT Act should not be repealed.

Those in favor of keeping the act made comments such as "We don't need another 911. Bad for business." and "We need to protect our nation and business sector by being aware of what enemies of our society are plotting and planning!"

Those wishing to see the act repealed made comments such as "The Patriot Act gives the government free reign to spy on innocent citizens in the name of terrorism. It smacks of Nixon's war on political enemies." and "It goes against all the definitions of what it means to be an American. If our freedoms are taken away, we're just like the rest of the world and we lose what makes us a special place."