Now some might say "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about," but I'd rather they provide a reasonable cause for a search before they do it instead of inventing one after the fact.
I heard Judge Napolitano on the radio a few months back (on Jim Quinn's show, www.warroom.com) he was talking about how different parts of the Patriot Act desperately need to be removed and/or reworked. This (above) was one of the specifics he cited. Some folks here don't give Judge Napolitano a lot of credibility, but I don't see what's wrong with him.
while that provision may have objectionable issues, the problem with that whole "anti Patriot" crowd is that they have no problems placing these powers in the most unaccountable branch of government - the judiciary. I don't trust the judiciary to protect me from terror threats. I'll give the executive and legislative branches the powers to do it, because at least I can vote them out of office if I feel it has misused them. if some judge refuses to issue a warrant against an AQ suspect, and that suspect blows up a shopping mall, what happens to that judge? nothing, they are unaccountable for their actions.
I've heard of that too, but it is not actually true. Under the Patriot Act, a search of persons or premises still requires a warrant issued by a judge.
What you may be referring to is the "National Security Letter" that agencies like the FBI can issue which requests information from third parties, like credit card companies. It has nothing to do with searches of premises.
As far as third parties go, perhaps there is a privacy argument that should be made. But then again, this is information that I've already allowed some third party to keep about me. It is my definition already *not* private. But there is some discussion that might be worthwhile about this.