U.S. Government Demands ISP Data Retention

dlc3007 writes to mention an article in the New York Times discussing data privacy. The article expands on the U.S. Government's 'request' last Friday at a meeting between Robert S. Mueller III, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, and the executives of several Internet Service Providers. The ISPs were required to retain data on users, for trials if subpoenaed. Right now they're asking companies to do this. The threat is that, if they don't comply, legislation will follow. From the article: "The Justice Department is not asking the Internet companies to give it data about users, but rather to retain information that could be subpoenaed through existing laws and procedures, Mr. Roehrkasse said. While initial proposals were vague, executives from companies that attended the meeting said they gathered that the department was interested in records that would allow them to identify which individuals visited certain Web sites and possibly conducted searches using certain terms." We originally covered this last Sunday, but more details have been released on the meeting since then.

Comments

Appeals to Emotion.

[TripMaster Monkey]

From TFA:

In its current proposal, the department appears to be trying to determine whether Internet companies will voluntarily agree to keep certain information or if it will need to seek legislation to require them to do so.

Translation: Will we have to ram another law through Congress to make this happen, or can we achieve the same results through good old-fashioned coercion and intimidation? After all, if we have to pass a law, then we'll be constrained by the law's wording...but if we 'persuade' the Internet companies to retin this data for us 'voluntarily', then we can act without restraint or oversight...after all, it is 'voluntary'...

So tell me again....why do the Internet companies have to retain so much data?

From TFA (emphasis mine):

"The investigation and prosecution of child predators depends critically on the availability of evidence that is often in the hands of Internet service providers," Mr. Gonzales said in remarks at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Alexandria, Va. "This evidence will be available for us to use only if the providers retain the records for a reasonable amount of time," he said.

Ah yes...yet another shameless use of the 'Lovejoy Gambit'. If you oppose this data retention, you must hate children. You don't hate children, do you?

And once more from TFA:

An executive of one Internet provider that was represented at the first meeting said Mr. Gonzales began the discussion by showing slides of child pornography from the Internet. But later, one participant asked Mr. Mueller why he was interested in the Internet records. The executive said Mr. Mueller's reply was, "We want this for terrorism."

And we segue straight from the 'Lovejoy Gambit' to the '9/11 bloody shirt'. How relentlesly predictable.

Re:Appeals to Emotion.

[Anonymous Coward]

The executive said Mr. Mueller's reply was, "We want this for terrorism."

At least he told the truth, perhaps though he should have lied better and said "We want this to *fight* terrorism."

Re:Appeals to Emotion.

[TripMaster Monkey]

They're asking this data be retained so that **IF A COURT ORDERED SUBPOENA IS ISSUED** the information will be available. Worried by that?

Given this administration's shocking contempt for the legal system thus far, yes, I am worried by that. They've collected enough data without having to resort to the 'headache' of due process through the courts...do we really need to make more available to them?

It's quite simple, really. Don't prey on children and don't plan terrorist acts and you'll be fine.

I'll ignore your reference to the Lovejoy gambit and proceed directly to your statement about terrorism. Have you read Patriot Act I and II? If you have, you'd know that the new definition of a 'domestic terrorism' is "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law". You'd also know that anyone who fits this ridiculously broad definition of 'terrorism' can now be considred an 'enemy combatant' and stripped of their U.S. citizenship and rights. Under current legislation, a person could be legally held indefinitely without trial for something as innocuous as speeding.

If you don't trust the courts to work properly, then your issue is much bigger than this request/legislation.

In that, you're absolutely correct.

Re:Appeals to Emotion.

[ptbarnett]

Don't prey on children and don't plan terrorist acts and you'll be fine.

From TFA:

At the meeting with privacy experts yesterday, Justice Department officials focused on wanting to retain the records for use in child pornography and terrorism investigations. But they also talked of their value in investigating other crimes like intellectual property theft and fraud, said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, who attended the session.

"It was clear that they would go beyond kiddie porn and terrorism and use it for general law enforcement," Mr. Rotenberg said.

---- end cite.

The problem with a "surveillance state" is that the collected information can be abused by the people that collect it. And worse: over-zealous law enforcement can find sufficient evidence of a crime anywhere they want, given the vagueness of many statutes.

Re:Appeals to Emotion.

[RsG]

Subpoena? You mean like the ones used by the NSA monitoring? Where is that due process thingy again? We seem to have forgotten it somewhere...

Besides which, even if people don't prey on children or plan terrorist acts, what's to stop the **AA from using the greater data retention in the next batch of lawsuits? After all, they can get subpoenas too.

Pedos and terrorists are convienient excuses. The number of actual, real, internet predators and terrorists is very very small. Most violent or sexual crime is in no way related to the net - and most terrorists could easly commit crimes using low tech means (like, oh say, boxcutters, maybe?).

And most child molesters aren't random scary strangers - they're people the victim knows and trusts. The best way to limit the number of molested children would be to force people to get a license before having children, and force people in positions of trust with children (teachers, preists, etc) to undergo rigorous psychological testing. What's that you say? That would violate their constitutional rights? Well tough titty - it's for the children, so that makes it OK.

The reason that laws governing the internet get passed, and laws limiting parenthood don't even get proposed, is that the former are politically easy to sell, and the latter would rightly be seen as oppressive and illegal. It's just more examples of politicians crying "oh won't somebody think of the children" as a way to get elected - because politicians are inherently dishonest and lazy.

Re:Appeals to Emotion.

[IAmTheDave]

Wow. You are amazingly shortsighted.

Mod this puppy WAY up.

Gonzales has already said that the lack of data retention has already hurt child pornography investigations, practically blaming the ISPs for hindering an investigation - and who want's to look like they're aiding the criminal?

This half porn/half terrorism is rediculous. Next they'll be saying hate speech, or arson investigations, or whatever - must... retain... records...

Can = will with the government, which is why record retention is so damned scary. Just like with the Wired article about the surveilance (sp?) conference recently - if they CAN spy on you, they WILL, which has been proven time and again in the very, very recent past.

Child porn my ass. Control the populace - call it what it is.

Re:Appeals to Emotion.

[AusIV]

I have to agree with the guy who got modded down to zero, but I don't think you're completely ignoring his last line:

If you don't trust the courts to work properly, then your issue is much bigger than this request/legislation.

This piece of legislation is not the problem. If it were really going to be used in the ways they claim it will be used, it would be a decent piece of legislation (although an inconvenience to ISPs). It would help put predators behind bars, and potentially disrupt terrorist attacks. The problem is, as JonTurner suggested, much bigger than this legislation. The problem arises when AT&T gives the NSA any information they ask for without going through proper channels. The problem is that we can't trust our government not to use things like this against people who disagree with them politically. We shouldn't sit here and oppose small pieces of legislation like the one in question, we need to be looking at the bigger issue.

Mycarthyism....

[beheaderaswp]

It's nothing but Mycarthyism.

We just jumped back 50 years.

What's the point?

[Bombula]

I'm not sure I really see the value of this information. Sure, some crackheads end up on Fark.com for showing their ID to the teller while robbing a bank, but the real pedaphiles and terrorists of the world don't do regular google searches for "how to build a bomb" and "kiddie porn" from the computers in their homes. To think there will be any significant amount of useful data collected in this fashion is, well, fairly retarded in my opinion.

I can see this data being useful retroactively for things like criminal profiling and possibly being valuable for targeted marketing analysis, but not for catching child molesters and terrorists.

Just remember, this is not a fishing expedition

[smooth wombat]

Just like the warrantless phone monitoring, just like law enforcement officials can now invade your home without a warrant to see if there is evidence of a crime so they can get a warrant, this is not a fishing expedition.

Nor are we trying to track where everyone goes or what they read. We're ensuring that everyone is fully protected from those bad, bad terrorists. You know, 9/11 and all.

You see, people want to be free. We're ensuring they can be free by these actions. All we ask is that people understand that we're in it for the long run and ask for their patience while we administer these proctology exams.

Just remember, 9/11 was a wakup call. We can't let these terrorists take our freedoms away.

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution

[netsetboy]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. These people are just going to far...! We need to start blasting ISP's with so much email that they finally get the picture, that we don't appreciate being spyed on...!

Another unfunded mandate

[stankulp]

Transfer the costs of spying to the ISPs.

Priceless.

Re:Let me put that into focus for you.

[CreatureComfort]

No. "Big Brother" just ensures that everyone is a documented lawbreaker, and that documentation can be used to harrass, blackmail, or remove anyone who offends the ruling power.

The cost to the ISP

[kbuckalo]

I am the owner of a small ISP in Santa Cruz, California. We get a couple/few subpoenas a year from the FBI, like most ISPs. My concern with data retention of logs, which is what is being asked for here, is: 1. privacy - 'nuff said 2: the cost to the ISP.

We're a small ISP, and we keep a week or two of backups and it's already several terabytes. Now, the feds want us to extract all the access, email and web log files from the backups and save them from 2 years. There's a couple thousand ISPs in the US, spread this cost over the US industry, and you are looking at millions, perhaps tens of millions of dollars per year in additional storage and staff costs.

As a final point, I have 3 kids. Anyone invites me to a meeting and opens it with slides of child porn and my one thought is they are sick sick sick. Most of the people "invited" to the meeting are probably parents, you can sell anti-child porn without showing it to us! What does it say about our AG that he supports torture and has a collection of child porn which he shows to people?

what is it with these people?

[misanthrope101]

"It's quite simple, really."

At least you had one sentence that wasn't asinine. It is simple, really. An administration that has already proven that it does not feel bound by warrants and due process wants private citizens to keep a lot of information on other private citizens, and at their own expense, in case the govt wants to look at it later. It is simple--they don't want to fund this, don't want it covered by pesky due process or oversight by the judiciary or legislature, and don't want any accountability when abuses occur. Simple as can be. Now, the other stuff you said was just stupid.

"Don't prey on children and don't plan terrorist acts and you'll be fine."

The administration has already put antiwar groups (such as the Quakers, known terrorists all) under surveillance. So your point is simply wrong. Are you just ignorant, or are you lying from political motives? What is it about a Republican presidency that makes people forget that governments will abuse the power they have? Do you get special Kool-aid that makes you forget the obvious? No government in history has really been trustworthy, and all government is hostile to freedom. Has a fairy godmother come down from heaven and blessed this one so it's immune to the human fallibility, arrogance, and secretiveness that has plagued all the other governments in history? What is it about George Bush that makes conservatives want to give him authority unchecked by due process, separation of power, and public scrutiny? Has that whole "power corrupts" idea been rescinded? I didn't see that memo. Did I miss something?

Re:Let me put that into focus for you.

[jrockway]

> No. "Big Brother" just ensures that everyone is a documented lawbreaker, and that documentation can be used to harrass, blackmail, or remove anyone who offends the ruling power.

This, to me, is the scarriest thing that a government can do. Pass laws and then say, "well it's OK, we're not going to use this against people". What? Don't pass laws if you're not going to prosecute every violator. Otherwise it sounds like you're saying, "this law shouldn't affect people that don't cause any controversy... we're only going to use it to take down people we don't like". Great, just great.

If every law were actually enforced, they would go away when people got fed up with them. Imagine every jaywalker going to jail -- jaywalking wouldn't be illegal for much longer after W (or someone else important, not one of us pleebs) had to spend time in a cell overnight.

Speaking of which, I think it's time to start filing lawsuits against the government for all these bullshit laws that are passed. I'm sure there are plenty of other laws that make these laws illegal.

Re:Article Text

[Tackhead]

> The executives spoke on the condition that they not be identified because they did not want to offend the Justice Department.

Why. If they're doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.