Slashdot Mirror
34 ISPs Subpoenaed By U.S. Government
seanonymous writes "The Justice Department, in their continued effort to revive questionable legislation, has subpoenaed dozens of ISPs for files. Considering that ISPs generally host their users' mail, this seems like it could be a larger issue than their fight with Google over search queries. Some, like Verizon, even resisted the call for information." From the article: "Representatives for McAfee and Symantec confirmed that the companies had received and complied with the subpoenas. A spokeswoman at LookSmart did not immediately return a phone call. Many of the subpoenas asked for information related to products that can be used to filter out adult content for underage Internet users. Symantec's subpoena, dated June 29, asked for a wide range of information about the price and popularity of the Internet filtering products it sells and how the products are used by customers. " Information Week has a number of the documents involved, including the letter of objection from Verizon.
RTFA
This is not about "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY". It is (supposedly) about a law that is designed to prevent children from LOOKING AT pornography. It's also a load of BS, but at least get their lame-assed excuse right.
I don't quite understand the US governments crusade against online porn
Religious people don't just want to remove [insert_immoral_action_here] from their own life. They beleive it is their sacred duty to prevent everyone else from doing it as well. Regardless of the law everyone's agreed to live under.
Remember, this is the president who actually beleives god instructs him personally
Why on Earth is a humble ISP supposed to provide the DOJ with this information, and how are they supposed to do it? And why doesn't the DOJ just research this themselves if this is such a big deal for them?
I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
Not at all. Do you really think the spy agencies would publicly reveal one of their most valuable assets, just to get some stupid DoJ pet project finished?
This does nothing to confirm or deny the existence of echelon/carnivore/any other massive government snoop operations.
Why would the DoJ not have subpoena powers in this case? They are gathering evidence to argue a case before a court, why in the world would they NOT have the ability to subpoena the information they need to argue their case?
Because there is no evidence that the information is relevant. A citizen can't just bring a case before the court and ask for information on the government just because they beleive it's crucial to the case.
"Your honor, I beleive the confession that will prove my innosense has been sealed in the concrete comprising the Washington Monument. If you wouldn't mind just knocking that ol' thing down so I can retrieve it..."
Even better, implement some sort of on-demand filtering so my cable box censors it if I choose.
The ClearPlay DVD player will take a file from ClearPlay to use to skip objectionable portions. Both the MPAA and the Directors Guild of America sued ClearPlay. The MPAA claimed it created a derivative work, the DGA claimed it harmed the brand name of its member directors.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
in the motives for this; but simply, this is a major step the government is taking to control the internet; what you see, what you hear, what you think, it's all about who controls the information (Marty!) ;)
To clarify the confusion; this step is being pushed through to give the government key information that will help them undertand the psychology of the average internet user in effort to make moves towards influencing & controlling the information (like is done in every other popular media form). Unfortuantely, Google alone cannot stop this.
Where we fail is that we think it will be obvious like:
Gov. body: "American people, can we take control of the internet to further our own greed?"
Of course the American people would reply:
American people: "Hell no!"
But don't think for a minute, for a nano-second, that these manuevers will be overtly public & obvious and without spin. No, it will likely take the standard "scare you with something to fear, then offer a vague solution that favors Gov." form that we fall for again and again.
What makes me say this? How do i know?
Because it works and is exactly what i (and any clear thinking person) would do if they had such desire and the resources (our tax dollars at work); which i don't in either case... i tend to more lean towards those crazy "sharing is better than hoarding" & "truth reigns supreme" ideas... But we all know what bullshit those ideas are, right? right?
Your honor, I beleive the confession that will prove my innosense has been sealed in the concrete comprising the Washington Monument.
Son, the Washington Monument is made of marble.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
An important thing to remember is that the government [due to abuses during Vietnam and later] is now restricted from gathering and maintaining information on innocent civilians. It would be illegal for the government to aggregate all these data sources together into a large database to be used to "digitally spy" on people.
In the case of private companies they are unrestricted in gathering amazingly detailed information on innocent people. In fact currently the market only encourages these things both to the benefit of their customers and to themselves.
The problem is that the government can [and does] use these data sources when needed. It is a giant loophole in personal privacy from the government. They cannot directly collect info on me unless they suspect me of a crime. If they want to buy access to my data from a private business [without suspecting me of a crime] they can do so. Major loophole.
The larger danger is that there is no legal or monetary motivation for accurate data. If a data collection company has data that I have bad credit due to identity theft they have no motivation to really fix it, even if it ruins my financial future.
There needs to be regulations about what is allowed to be capture, shared, and sold similar to medical privacy laws. Certain other information is just as important to keep private. Though lobbyists will deter any action Congress might consider.
Dude, which ACLU v Gonzales? There are dozens if not hundreds of them. They have them pertaining to LOTS of thing, not just the COPA lawsuit that we are discussing here. My question was meant more in the rhetorical sense of "Who is the counsel for the plaintif, not what entity filed the suite, and why isn't he/she screaming to the Justices about a fishing expedition, or are the Justices alowing a fishing expedition because there are conflicting constitutional protections and they are attempting to see if one of the protections has the weight to bury the other." That spelled out well enough for you?.
p.s. The ACLU files suit aginst the person of the AG in his professinal capacity on an almost weekly basis, if not more often. There are even more "ACLU v Ashcroft" than Gonzales has the honor of being named in. They "really" liked Mr Ashcroft.