Hey NYT - It's called the PATRIOT ACT

I may be tilting at windmills here, but check out this headline from today's NYT. It caught my eye because of the use of the term "security act" to describe what everyone knows is the Patriot Act. Now why would the Times not include the name of the Patriot Act in the headline even though it appears in the very first sentence of the article? I would argue that it is afraid of opening itself up to charges of liberal bias.

The article doesn't explain the history or controversy of the Patriot Act, so the author obviously took it for granted that his readers are well enough informed to allow him to refer to it without any background information. If that's the case, why not include it in the headline? A bad piece of legislation that unnecessarily limited civil liberties is abused by an administration who has abused civil liberties at every step, and the Times cops out with a headline about some mysterious "security act," rather than mentioning the (in)famous Patriot Act by name. Are they afraid of being smeared as anti-Patriot Act and thus unpatriotic or pro-terrorism or something? And wouldn't they want to capture as many readers as possible by including the name of a controversial piece of legislation in the headline? Perhaps I'm making a bigger deal out of this than it deserves, but why pussyfoot around, NYT?