WASHINGTON -- Negotiators are meeting through the weekend to decide whether hacking offenses and electronic surveillance will be part of a landmark anti-terrorism bill.
Only a few days remain before preliminary votes on the "Anti-Terrorism Act" (ATA) are scheduled to take place, and it's anything but clear what portions will stay intact.
Currently, the bill -- drafted by the Bush administration -- would add computer hacking to the list of federal terrorism offenses punishable by life imprisonment, and rewrite wiretapping and Internet eavesdropping laws. Other portions that have raised concerns would give police more power to arrest and detain immigrants.
After public outcry, the House Judiciary committee abruptly postponed a vote originally scheduled for this week, and Senate Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) said some sections will require careful review.
Since then, aides for Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) and Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) -- the senior members of the House Judiciary committee -- have been meeting in private in hopes of crafting a version of the ATA that will encounter less rigorous opposition.
Provisions relating to the punishment of malicious hackers as terrorists may remain in the final draft. A source close to Conyers said committee members are "torn right now, because there is a law right now that protects against (hacking), so some believe it is unnecessary."
Jeff Lungren, a spokesman for the House Judiciary Republicans, said that both sides are "very close to reaching an agreement" on a new version of the ATA -- based on the Bush proposal -- that should be finished by late Monday or Tuesday and ready for a vote by midweek.
Opponents of expanded surveillance powers have been battling to excise the sections of ATA -- previously entitled the "Mobilization Against Terrorism Act" -- they find the most disturbing.
David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, says he's been asked to brief negotiators on Sunday afternoon about his group's concerns.
Sobel would like to get rid of the hacking-as-terrorism definition entirely, but failing that, he's trying to define hacking far more narrowly. "There is an effort to at least add an intent requirement for the entire provision that would clarify that the various statutes need to be violated for a purpose that relates to terrorism," Sobel says.
One way would be to borrow the language from 18 U.S.C. 2331, which defines terrorism as acts intended to "intimidate or coerce a civilian population (or) influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." Translation: Most everyday computer intrusions or Web page defacements wouldn't be covered.
Jim Dempsey, deputy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology and a former Hill staffer, says the hacking-as-terrorism definition is "still there" in both the latest House and Senate versions.
Dempsey says another worrisome section of ATA would allow Internet service providers to increase monitoring of their customers, a practice that's limited by current federal law. ATA would allow an Internet provider to eavesdrop on people the company believes are engaged in illegal activities.
In the Senate, Judiciary Chairman Leahy has drafted a response to ATA -- viewed as less extreme -- that he hopes will attract broader support.
Some 100 representatives of groups that are part of the In Defense of Freedom coalition met Friday afternoon to compare tactics and coordinate responses. But participants contacted after the meeting said little was known about what the next few days would bring.
As evidence of how tight-lipped the negotiators are being, one Hill source says that congressional aides from other offices were shown draft language during meetings -- but not given copies.
"It's going to be better, but I don't know how much better," says the person. "I know this is vague, but this is like Jello right now."
Ben Polen contributed to this report.
