Three years after its inception, the USA Patriot Act remains a divisive and highly contested piece of legislation.

Hailed by some as an indispensable tool in the war on terror, and reviled by others as an attack on the nation’s civil liberties, the Patriot Act allows law enforcement to spy on American citizens in an attempt to prevent further terrorist attacks. One way to determine if the act is beneficial or detrimental is to examine the consequences of its enactment and to examine how it has been applied.

One of the surprising and unintended consequences of the Patriot Act has been its adverse effect on business, particularly the information technology sector. In October 2004, the Canadian government recommended a halt to the outsourcing of public data to U.S. companies on the grounds that Canadians’ personal data wasn’t safe from U.S. government spying. In addition, Canadian banks are reconsidering outsourcing data processing work to the U.S. for the same reason. Simply put, the Patriot Act may convince other countries that the cost of doing business with America is more trouble than it’s worth.

For American companies, the economic losses are more concrete. Telecommunications companies are deluged by subpoenas to turn over their customers’ phone and Internet records, while financial institutions and real estate companies spend extra money on customer background checks. A May 2003 article in American Banker said, “The consequences of the Patriot Act for financial institutions and their affiliates are substantial. The economic costs of compliance, enhanced enforcement and liability risks … will hurt revenue and performance.”

Then there are the numerous cases of how the law has been abused, most often against common criminals. North Carolinian Martin Dwayne Miller was sent to prison under the Patriot Act for possessing a weapon of mass destruction: his homemade methamphetamine lab. Or take the case of Las Vegas strip club owner Michael Galardi, who was indicted under the Patriot Act for a bribery scandal involving local politicians. Demonstrably, neither man is a terrorist, so why is an anti-terrorism law being used against them?

Some people may be willing to forfeit the economic productivity and the civil liberties mentioned above so long as the Patriot Act protects them. Paradoxically, the law may do just the opposite. By treating everyone as a suspect, the Patriot Act wastes valuable law-enforcement resources by focusing overwhelmingly on the innocent. This information overload lowers the signal-to-noise ratio that surveillance experts must sift through in order to find real threats and increases the chances that a genuine terrorist plot might slip through unnoticed.

It’s not just that the Patriot Act is poorly applied; it’s a clumsy and unwieldy law that does more harm than good. The United States can do a better job of keeping the country safe by focusing on better security at ports, nuclear power plants and chemical facilities and by showing al-Qaida the American commitment to individual liberty remains unbowed by terrorism.

Columns reflect the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the Northern Star staff.