In response to recently revealed intelligence blunders, Attorney General Ashcroft is lifting decades-old restrictions on espionage activities. Federal agents can now gather information via the Internet, in public libraries and by monitoring attendance at public meetings - even with no evidence of criminal activity.

Following public upheaval over F.B.I. spy operations on Dr. Martin Luther King, civil rights activists and war protesters, agents were ordered to investigate real crimes - not just spy on those they deemed suspicious.

Analysts assert that the rewritten rules reward FBI failures with expanded powers. The proposed solution gives the agency more ammunition to penetrate personal privacy but does not answer why, pre-911, the world's most sophisticated intelligence infrastructure had collected all the dots but failed to connect them.

"Don't worry," say many. We are, after all, not terrorists. But others point out that the F.B.I. has a well-documented history of abusing its powers. Many fear that the new rules cast a pall on perfectly legal activities - like letting agents open files on those who buy politically unpopular books off the Internet.

And while American courts are still determining the legality of holding indefinitely 1200 foreigners living on U.S. soil after 9/11 - some 100 of whom still remain in custody - an additional 150 detainees will join those already being held at Camp X-Ray. Legal and human rights analysts insist that the U.S. has an obligation to determine the status of the detainees in accordance with the Geneva Conventions.

What's the proper balance between privacy rights, constitutional freedoms, international law and national security? Is it accurate to pit national security against essential rights and freedoms? Are these our only choices, or can we be safe and free?