ACLU & Tea Party: NSA reform bill has gaping holes Either fill the holes, or let the insidious Section 215 expire - for good.

Anthony D. Romero and Matt Kibbe | USA TODAY

Earlier this month, a federal appeals court took a close look at the National Security Agency's collection and data-mining of Americans' phone records and concluded that the program was unlawful.

Rather than stop it, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit noted that Section 215 of the Patriot Act, the provision the NSA relies on for the program, would sunset on June 1. So the court decided to let Congress determine whether Section 215 should die, be revised, or extended without alteration.

Last Wednesday, the House passed a bipartisan reform bill that would prohibit the NSA's nationwide bulk collection of Americans' phone records. While the bill would stop spy agencies from engaging in some of the most egregious forms of abuse — such as collecting the information of an entire state, zip code, or service provider — it would not stop them from demanding vast amounts of information about Americans who have no connection to terrorism. Moreover, there is no requirement that the government immediately delete information that is irrelevant, or that belongs to innocent people — meaning those records could end up in intelligence databases for years. Clearly, this reform does not go far enough.

As the bill moves to the Senate, we urge all senators who care about privacy and the rule of law to insist upon stronger reforms that truly end bulk collection. Otherwise, they should simply pull the plug and let Section 215 expire. By wiping the slate clean, our country can have a much-needed debate about how much privacy we are willing to give up in the name of security.

Under Section 215 — which was passed with no debate in the aftermath of 9/11 — the government claims it can collect "any tangible things" deemed "relevant" to a foreign intelligence or terrorism investigation. But as the court of appeals noted, the government eviscerates the definition of relevant when it collects every phone record simply because those records might come in handy sometime in the future.

When the NSA's phone-records program was revealed two years ago, much was made of the fact that the government only collected metadata, such as who called whom and the time and duration of the call. "They are not looking at people's names," said President Obama, "and they're not looking at content."

But metadata is incredibly revealing. It gives the government highly sensitive information about our private lives: whom you called, whether it is your Alcohol Anonymous sponsor, a suicide hotline, or your lover; for how long; and what time, whether it was the middle of the day or the middle of the night. As former top NSA lawyer Stewart Baker said, "Metadata absolutely tells you everything about somebody's life. If you have enough metadata, you don't really need content."

And Section 215 does not just apply to phone records. The government points to Section 215 for its authority to collect and store financial records, medical records, educational records, and firearms records.

This is a power no government should have, much less a constitutional republic, especially when the White House's own review group found that the nationwide phone-records program operated under Section 215 has not prevented a single attack. What the government is creating are databases of ruin, which eviscerate Americans' expectations of privacy and the liberties that flow from them.

Congress should do the right thing and either coalesce around more meaningful reform or let Section 215 die the ignoble death it deserves.

Then, the American people can debate how far we are willing to allow the government to go in the name of national security. It is a discussion the government has disgracefully prevented its citizens and their elected representatives from having for 14 long years.

Anthony D. Romero is the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Matt Kibbe is the president and founder of FreedomWorks.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors. To read more columns like this, go to the Opinion front page.