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:Privacy for the Incidental

[mdwh2]

Or what about porn that involves some 17 year old?

Strange but true: In the UK, it's legal to shag a 17 year old, but now as soon as you take a photo, you're guilty of making and possessing child porn (the 2003 Sexual Offences Act bizarrely raised the age for appearing in photos from 16 to 18, despite the age of consent remaining at 16 where it as always been).

Re:Privacy for the Incidental

[MightyMartian]

I'd gladly agree to this, prividng I can access to Gonzales' online records. Frankly, I think in the area of privacy, if a member of government isn't willing to disclose his own, then he shouldn't be allowed to ask for it from anyone else.

After all, it's not as if Gonzales has anything to hide, right?

Re:Privacy for the Incidental

[Maxo-Texas]

Give me 15 seconds access on your work or home computer and I can get you fired and likely put into prison for years with no evidence it was anyone but you.

Re:Child Porn My Behind

[jafac]

I'm not the only one who believes that it's creepy as hell to NAME a bill.
They usually have numbers. They should be referred to only by their number. Slapping a name on a bill is a dishonest labelling for the purpose of marketing.

Re:Privacy for the Incidental

[AGMW]

Something very similar happened in the UK a year or so back. Some new legislation was tabled that would mean it would be an offence to not provide the decryption key to data if it was suspected that the encrypted data contained evidence of a crime, and you were asked for the key. People told the Home Secretary that you might not know the key, etc, but the law was still going ahead.

Someone committed a crime, verified by a lawyer, and the evidence was encrypted and emailed to the Home Secretary. He now was in possesion of evidence of a crime that was encrypted and he didn't know the decryption key.

Unfortunately, he wasn't arrested and put in prison!

It seems it's one rule for politicians and another for the rest of us!