Slashdot Mirror


Support for U.S. Mandatory Data Retention Laws

chill wrote to mention a C|Net article about an upswell in support for a mandatory data retention policy here in the U.S. From the article: "Top Bush administration officials have endorsed the concept, and some members of the U.S. Congress have said federal legislation is needed to aid law enforcement investigations into child pornography. A bill is already pending in the Colorado State Senate. Mandatory data retention requirements worry privacy advocates because they permit police to obtain records of e-mail chatter, Web browsing or chat-room activity that normally would have been discarded after a few months."

7 of 264 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, this will never be abused... by Megaweapon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Politician: "Hey, we gained access to mail server logs for suspect A, let's see what else other people are up to... Hey lookie here, my political rival's internet activities..."

    --
    I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
  2. Quick easy solution by totalbasscase · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They want to prosecute child porn offenders? Fine. Put it in the text of the law. Retain the data, but make it unusable in court except for child porn cases.

    Then tell all the privacy watchdogs to go back and chew their bones.

    --
    Fragging my father since 2004
    1. Re:Quick easy solution by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Informative
      > They want to prosecute child porn offenders? Fine. Put it in the text of the law. Retain the data, but make it unusable in court except for child porn cases.

      Nice in theory. Government doesn't work that way in practice.

      Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

      - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169254&cid =14107454

  3. Re:Wow, this really sucks. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you just talking about the freaks who wack off to pics of little girls, then think of this: People searching for pics of little kids creates a demand for pics of little kids. If the demand is there, then someone posts pics of little kids. Where do you think this pics come from? People sexually absuing and exploiting little kids and posting pictures of them online.

    The problems with your little analysis are that:

    1. Kiddie-porn can be manufactured without children and it is legal to do it. The SCOTUS ruled that virtual kiddie porn is legal. http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp ?documentID=16075
    2. Images are non-rivalarous - you can make as many copies as you want. Thus if a kiddie-porn-pervert is, on average, satisified with 1000 photos and videos, then all it takes is the SAME 1000 photos and videos to satisfy 1 or 1,000,000 kiddie-porn-perverts. No new demand is created.

    Pure freedom is nice and all in theory, but when people are still too uncivilized to handle it, then it's unrealistic.

    You misspelled fascist .

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  4. Re:Wow, this really sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Back that up with facts, Jack.

    Prove to me that every picture of little kids is exploitation. For every picture there is always some doubt as to (1) who took the picture, (2) the actual age of the person(s) in the picture, (3) when the picture was taken, and (4) whether or not there are even real people in the picture.

    Look at it this way: Assume there is a demand for underage pictures. If you wish to fill this demand, you can (1) force young kids to pose for you, (2) find somebody that LOOKS young, but is old enough so you don't get busted, or (3) use some creative ability to otherwise simulate underage pictures realistically. Which choice has the most risk? Which choice(s) can cover your ass?

    Hustler makes money selling "Barely Legal" videos of people that LOOK young, but are above the legal age to be in such pictures. This is not exploitation (unless you call ALL forms of pornography exploitation, in which case "doing it for the children" doesn't come into play) but playing on people's fantasies.

    Throwing out a statement like, "If the demand is there, then someone posts pics of little kids. Where do you think this pics come from? People sexually absuing and exploiting little kids and posting pictures of them online" is simply marching to the mantra of those that would have you nodding your head to their own agenda.

    Not every form of nudity is pornography, and it should not be treated as such. Mindlessly spewing the company line and saying "It's just for the children!" is playing into the hands of people that want to do much more sinister things with your privacy.

    So, let's assume that you're not a child pornographer. However, if the government goes on a fishing expedition looking for child pornographers and, lo and behold, finds an email about how you cheat on your income taxes, do you think the government is going to shrug over your indiscretion?

    Of course not!

    Giving the government the right to search you and your data at any time for any reason "in the name of child pornography" automatically keeps the barn door open for any and every kind of reprehensible violation of your civil rights.

    Just like saying that the government has the right to tap any phone lines it wants without a warrant is justified because terrorism is such a bad thing and we need to prevent it.

    I thought that Americans were against prior restraint!

    Without any special powers, the government successfully foiled a few plots against America before 9/11... the Millenium Plot comes immediately to mind.

    However, we didn't catch the 9/11 hijackers. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! Monday Morning Quarterbacking shows that there were clues, but "nobody connected the dots." Why do Americans now happily give powers of prevention to the FBI, CIA, NSA, and other government agencies now? These agencies were PREVENTED from sharing data due to abuses during the 1970s (remember Watergate?).

    However, if you fight against these new government powers, the government automatically accuses you of being on the side of terrorists.

    It's the same thing with Child Pornography.

    Let them take an inch in the name of the children, and you've given up just about every basic freedom you thought you enjoyed.

    Our president uses the Constitution as a replacement for toilet paper, and you are willing to give the government EVEN MORE POWERS?

    How stupid are you?

  5. Re:Wow, this really sucks. by NixLuver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know police who catch these bastards. I think we should initiate a policy of constant video surveillance of all households with children, not to mention legally mandated implantation of RFID devices in all children under the age of 18 so we can monitor their whereabouts 24/7/365. I think we should have checkpoints at every entrance/exit on the highways, and require proper paperwork to allow transport of a child through those checkpoints. I think we should make illegal all photographic record of children other than officially approved school photos. In addition, we should require prospective parents to get a license to have children, with a mandatory background check for criminal tendencies and liberalism.

    If you don't support these policies, you must believe that nothing bad ever happens to children, or you must bugger children in your basement. Which is it?

  6. I remember once, long ago.. by BalanceOfJudgement · · Score: 5, Insightful

    An old man, once tall and proud, now tired and beaten, slumped in his chair, speaks one last time to his grandchildren. He hopes, in vain, that they will hear, and understand, and that maybe something will change.

    He knows, deep down, it never will.

    He speaks.

    "Once, we were free. We didn't really know it; we took it for granted. We assumed that people would always do the right thing, in the end. We thought that people loved freedom as much as we did, we just quibbled over the details.

    "If you ask me the day we lost our freedom, I won't be able to answer you. That's because it didn't happen on one day; we didn't lose a war, we didn't pass a Tyranny Act, we didn't plunge into economic chaos and come out of it a dictatorship. No, we lost our freedom in pieces, bit by bit, and with each piece we said, "We're doing it for our safety, and for our children's future. We're doing it for the children, we're doing it for ourselves and our posterity. We're doing it because we think it's right."

    I remember when we could buy a CD and listen to it wherever we wanted. You think I'm crazy, don't you kids? You've never even dreamt of such a thing. But it's true, and I got to live it. Oh for a few short years, I got to live it.

    "I remember when I could record my favorite TV shows on my computer and watch them over and over again. You can't do that anymore though; after the Content Rights Act of 2011, it became illegal to possess any content on your machine that you didn't pay for every time you watch it. Or if you preferred, you could accept RIAA-approved AdWare to display advertisements at predetermined intervals as you watched your recording.

    "I remember when I knew that my privacy was protected, that the government needed a reason to search my private data for wrongdoing - remember the 5th Amendment kids? You learned about that in history class right? Remember what year it was appealed? 2012, good, you've been studying.

    "I remember trusting my government and my elected officials. I remember not being afraid of everything I did, because I knew I lived in the land of the free. I remember being proud that my country upheld personal liberties above corporate power and the rule of politicians. But alas, I didn't realize I was free.

    "And so it is gone. Each time a freedom was taken away, I did nothing. I sat and accepted it, because I had my own things to worry about. I had to go to work, and clean the house, and pay the bills, and throw in some vacations. I didn't have time to consider revolt. I didn't have time to remember that our Founding Fathers revolted for far lesser grievances than have been visited upon the world these days.

    "Remember my words, kids, because it's illegal now to speak of them. You won't find them in books, or in emails, or on television or in music - those are all sanctioned now, only approved content can be delivered in them - I remember that too.. TV used to be so interesting.. until someone said "Think of the children." Even cable TV can't have cuss words now. You probably don't even know any, do you? Too bad. A good swear can really take the pressure off once in awhile.

    Only one thing will change the world, kids, and it ain't talk. Have the courage to stand up for your freedoms - your freedom of thought, your freedom of speech, your freedom of action, and your freedom to live without fear.

    Remember this:

    The worst they can do to you is take your life.

    The worst you can do to them is destroy their civilization.

    I think a few lives are worth it."

    And with that, he died.

    What happens next? It's up to you.

    --

    We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.