Gonzales Wants ISP Data Retention To Curb Child Porn

$RANDOMLUSER writes, "The AP is reporting that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified before the Senate Banking Committee today and called for Congress to require ISPs to preserve customer records, asserting that prosecutors need them to fight child pornography. 'This is a problem that requires federal legislation,' Gonzales said. He called the government's lack of access to customer data the biggest obstacle to deterring child porn. 'We respect civil liberties but we have to harmonize this so we can get more information,' he said." Gonzales added that he agrees with a letter sent to Congress in June by 49 state attorneys general, requesting federal legislation to require ISPs to hold onto customer data longer.

Comments

Re:Who was the holdout state AG?

[Jim Logajan]

If I got this right, it appears the attorney generals who didn't sign were in Guam, Indiana, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Northern Marianas, Palua, and Virginia. Okay - you say some of those aren't states? Well, neither are American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands, yet those were included in the list of alleged "49 state attorney generals" who signed the letter. Source: http://www.atg.wa.gov/releases/2006/Documents/DRLe tter.pdf

Nothing New

[homer_ca]

Abu Gonzales has been pushing ISP data retention since at least early this year, and he's invoked all the usual boogeymen to get it passed: terrorism and kiddie porn.

He's tried:
-meeting privately with the major ISPs to ask them for voluntary compliance
-getting Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner to introduce a bill that went nowhere.
-somehow persuading Qwest to endorse legislation

I don't mean to pimp Cnet. Search any tech news site for "ISP data retention" and you'll see the history of this.

You're missing the point

[Jeff Molby]

I'm completely against legislation like this, but in the interest of having a full discussion, I'll explain why they want this legislation.

They don't intend to use this against people that they already suspect. Instead, they will identify sites containing illegal images/information and then subpoena the major ISPs for lists of users that have accessed any of those sites. This becomes their probable cause and then they resume normal investigation techniques to solidify their cases.

Re:Privacy for the Incidental

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, more generally: can you get punished for possessing child pornography if the child in question is yourself

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/05/girl_charg ed_with_child_porn/

Why, yes. Yes you can. Pretty insane, no?

"Prima Facie" possession

[Kadin2048]

You would think so, but I bet that in a lot of cases, they'd just treat your possession of the contraband as prima facie evidence of a crime.

It's like drug possession -- if the cops toss your car and find a kilo of China White or a handgun with the serial number scratched off in the glove compartment, your insistence that it's not yours may not keep you out of trouble. Just having it, in a place that was under your control, is the crime. A demonstration of intent is not necessary. In effect, it means that the burden of proof is shifted to the defendant to explain themselves, and if they cannot provide a justification for the evidence, they're guilty.

Frankly I think "prima facie" laws in general are a travesty of justice; we ought to abolish the whole philosophy and get back to a more intent-focused jurisprudence. But of course if you tried to do that, you'd be keelhauled for being supportive of crime and criminals, because in the short term it would make the work of the police harder.

In general, a lot of "possession" laws (drug possession, weapon possession, pornography, "burglar's tools") are intentionally written this way so that a demonstration of intent is unnecessary, and many laws include the phrase "prima facie" verbatim. (See this Montana weapon law, for example.)

More information you might want to read:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p078.htm (deals with torts, specifically in employment law, but discussed the general concept)
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=15 98&bold=