Slashdot Mirror


Congress May Consider Mandatory ISP Snooping

An anonymous reader writes to mention a News.com story covering a most disquieting trend in the House of Representatives. From the article: "Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette's proposal says that any Internet service that 'enables users to access content' must permanently retain records that would permit police to identify each user. The records could not be discarded until at least one year after the user's account was closed. It's not clear whether that requirement would be limited only to e-mail providers and Internet providers such as DSL (digital subscriber line) or cable modem services. An expansive reading of DeGette's measure would require every Web site to retain those records."

4 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. Certainly, Congressman... by Astatine210 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...as long as we, the public, can get to see which web site you've visited, and get to see the emails you're sending and recieving.

    What's that, Congressman? "Invasion of privacy" you say? Goodness, so it is.

  2. Time for a little goose-gander sauce by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Considering how often this sort of thing is staring to come up, I think it's time to start a bounty fund. The next time some elected person starts up with this nonsense, the fund should be used to reward any ISP or IT operator/technicians who post a list of every site and e-mail address visited, mailed to, or received by the representative, his or her spouse, and his or her children.

    After all, of they think it's such a great idea, and not at all an invasion of privacy, they won't mind, will they?

  3. Re:In a related story... by tenchiken · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The one thing I would suggest is that people should go hit c-span and watch the briefings and testimony that lead to Degette to push this law. This solution to the problem won't work, and I think we as a technical community can come up with a better fix to the darker side of the internet, but the testimony is the most horrific thing I have seen on CSPAN this year (with the exception of the budget negotiations).

  4. Will work, just not as planned. by JonTurner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Think of the unintended consequences. If this passes, I think we can expect the free internet at coffeehouses, libraries, airports, etc. to end quite abruptly. Maybe we'll have to present a national ID card first...

    I know your questions are rhethorical, but from this Conservative Libertarian's viewpoint:
    1. Who runs the country? Lobbysts, and those who hire them. The will of the people is little more than a quaint notion. Just look at this Amnesty program for ILLEGAL aliens. 80% of America is against it from recent opinion polls, but the politicians don't care. Same goes for the Dubai ports deal. America's against it, but the politicians will make it work anyway.
    2. What does Congress think it's doing? Whatever the hell it wants. It's not like that 10th Amendment to the Constitution applies any more. Seriously, have you ever (EVER?) heard any poliician say "We can't do that, that's a State Right?" or "We can't pass a law requiring XYZ, that violates the 10th Amendment?" Nobody else has either.
    3. Do they have any idea how much it will cost? No. Like they care. It won't cost THEM anything. That's your problem, buddy. Now get back to work paying your taxes. (Speaking of taxes, Tax Amnesty Day is the 3rd of June for 2006, meaning that if the tax burden were evenly distributed, the average person would work from Jan 1 to June 3 just to pay their taxes for that year. Now consider that 49% pays no federal taxes. Don't believe me? Go to the IRS web site and look it up yourself. http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xl s)

    Anything else I can clear up for you?

    (And moderators, just because you disagree, it doesn't mean it's "flamebait" or "troll". It could simply indicate that I'm an idiot.)