Slashdot Mirror


FBI Head Wants Strong Data Retention Rules

KevHead writes "Speaking at a conference of international police chiefs, FBI Director Robert Mueller called for strict data retention guidelines for US ISPs. Echoing DHS head Michael Cherthoff's assertion that the Internet was enabling terrorists to telecommute to work, Mueller went further and said that the US needs stricter data retention guidelines. '"All too often, we find that before we can catch these offenders, Internet service providers have unwittingly deleted the very records that would help us identify these offenders and protect future victims," Mueller said. The solution? Forcing ISPs to retain data for set periods of time.' If that happens, how long before the MPAA and RIAA start asking to take a peek at the data too, as they have in Europe?"

21 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. Data Retention... by TheGreatHegemon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A broken solution for a non-existent problem.

  2. Re:ugh.... by cloricus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Agreed. I also have a few troubles with the arguement here... "We are going to retain data in America to catch terrorists in other countries like Iran and Iraq!" ...Does any one else smell 'omg teh terrorists r coming lol all j00r privacy r belong to us?'

    --
    I ate your fish.
  3. Supplying free SAN's to ISP's as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I used darkstat once on 2 T1's for a 24 hour period just the URL log was over 500MB, no packet captures, no session data.
    Just imagine an OC-3, you are talking about a lot of storage space.

  4. why? by macadamia_harold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mueller went further and said that the US needs stricter data retention guidelines.

    With the AT&Ts "collaboration" with the NSA, and CARNIVORE, one would think the government already has all the tools they need. Are they now saying that's not enough? That's kind of pathetic, don't you think?

    1. Re:why? by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 4, Insightful
      one would think the government already has all the tools they need. Are they now saying that's not enough?

      They already have a lot of data, but that's not what it's all about:

      "Disaffected people living in the United States may develop radical ideologies and potentially violent skills over the Internet and that could present the next major U.S. security threat, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Monday."

      So, it's not just Terrorists (TM) anymore, it's the "disaffected" they're after.
      http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2574462

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    2. Re:why? by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So, it's not just Terrorists (TM) anymore, it's the "disaffected" they're after.

      And if you're not with us, you're "disaffected."

      KFG

  5. It will never be "enough". by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Despite all the statistical evidence that this does NOT work to PREVENT any "terrorist" acts ... they will attempt to use this to intimidate people into voluntarily restricting their actions.

    When every search / posting / IM / etc from you is available to elected officials (and may be accidentally "leaked"), they hope that most people will self-censor their activities to only items that would be "appropriate".

    Should you ever take a stand against the elected officials, they will have access to your records ... but you will not have access to their's. Asymmetrical. And because they are the government, they can release only the information they want from your records. Only the information that shows that you are really a wannabe child molesting, America hating, terrorist loving, Communistic, gay atheist.

    It's all about maintaining power and control.

  6. Helps after an attack has already happened by ConfusedSelfHating · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since the terrorists will be using encrypted messages or coded messages which don't appear to be anything special (you know those -1 Slashdot comments are for something), this will help retrace the terrorist's online activities after people have died in a terrorist attack. My guess: lots of porn and a few messages to E-mail accounts which no longer exist.

    It's just that there are so many disposable E-mail accounts available and the easy access to Internet cafes. If someone is using a disposable E-mail account and an Internet terminal which is paid for in loose change (usually used in airports), how are you going to track that person down one month later? What if the terminal is outside the United States?

    Not to mention free Linksys brand wireless Internet access which is available in most areas.

    Any government fighting terrorists needs to setup its own terrorist propaganda websites which make use of Microsoft Internet Explorer's many vulnerabilities. Spyware for the spies. Microsoft's poor security practices not only hurt you, they also hurt the terrorists. Of course terrorists using Firefox screws us all.

  7. Hats off to the modern spy state by pieterh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's the trick. Don't scare your population with too many moves at once. Take away their freedoms one by one, starting with the ones no-one really cares about. Let other countries take one step too far, and if their populations don't squeal, make a further step yourself.

    So the EU enacted its spy state law last year, while people said, "even the states does not go that far". The EU Data Retention Directive wants (it needs to be ratified by individual countries) to track every phone call made, every email sent, every web site visited, every cell phone location, and hold this data for over a decade. The data would be available to non-governmental organisations (private firms). Anonymous internet usage would be banned. Anonymous prepaid mobile phone cards would be banned. All this, of course, to save us from terrorism and organised crime.

    And the UK has constructed a surveillance system that beats anything ever built by the soviet spy states. Every public urban space is monitored, recorded, tracked. The only privacy you have is in your home, where you are safely under house arrest, unable to do anything to damage the interests of the state.

    It was just a matter of time before the FBI asked for the same powers. What police force would not? It's a copper's wet dream. Every one of us stinking criminals-in-waiting tracked like cockroaches in a pen. No more crime. No more disorder. No more rebellion.

  8. On Liberty: by i)ave · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Excerpt from John Stuart Mill's On Liberty
    "The principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That is the only purpose for which power can be rightfully excersized over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

    There are 2 questions, really:
    • 1) Does spying on everyone's internet use threaten everyone's Liberty to use it?
    • 2) What happens when there are 2 people, meaning to harm others, but the only way to know how to prevent that harm is to restrict their "liberty of action" along with everyone else's?

    If you're looking for a guess, I don't have it. All I know is that it bothers me when the government's fear of people they can't even identify is enough reason for them to start "monitoring" the 300 million people in our country that they can identify. I don't know how much liberty one has if they are aware that everything they type, or every call they make, is "monitored". Is that liberty? Does that make anyone feel safer?

    --
    -- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
  9. Re:ugh.... by Rooked_One · · Score: 4, Insightful

    my point is that we can't even do the simple stuff - mail... how do we expect to beat encryption over myspace, proxied through an FTP server in thailand? i'm sure we could go on and on, but lets face it... these terrorists are not idiots... they can carry out what they plan... The leaders probably got their educations at the same places we did!

  10. And who is going to pay for this? by tehSpork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    First, the practical:

    I'm sorry, but I am not going to waste my resources storing every email every one of my customers has received from now until kingdom come. Unlike Google, I don't have the spare cash sitting around for that kind of storage space. Make it a law and I bet you see a surge of ISPs basing their servers offshore to protect their investment (customer privacy mainly).

    Secondly, the privacy concern

    So the FBI reading my sarcastic emails to friends and family is going to help us catch a bunch of terrorists who, last I heard, had one webmaster who was stupid enough to get himself arrested in Germany? I've got news for you guys: Teenagers, CEOs, and computer enthusiasts coordinate things through the internet. I imagine terrorists prefer suicide bombing training camps or mountain hideaways for their secret conferences. Besides, we haven't heard anything of Al Qaeda declaring Jihad on Microsoft over Netmeeting or even MSN Messenger, so it is highly doubtful that they have tried to use them. :p

    As far as 'terrorist websites' go, the FBI just needs to get some of their buds at the CIA to break into the server and plant a basic hit reporter. Figure out who is logging in and making changes, and you've got your man.

  11. Re:Please read the article before quoting... by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The connection logs are often all you need to paint a strong picture of who's in contact with who.

    Let's say, for instance, that the logs for my telephone show a number of calls to a satellite phone in Afghanistan. Suddenly, I'm a suspect the next time a bomb goes off within about 150 miles of me. What am I saying to this person in Afghanistan? Well, actually, it's my sister who went over there as part of a red cross relief effort, but the local police don't know that and while they're holding me to confirm it, my employer is asking questions.

    Questions like "What sort of a person is this who was arrested last week and hasn't been heard from since? Best replace him."

    After that happens, it's rather hard to get another job. A common interview question is "Why did you leave your last job?" and the honest answer ("I was arrested and held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act owing to poor evidence") tends to put off prospective employers - chances are they stopped listening after the word "arrested" and now just want me off the premises as quickly as possible.

  12. Re:ugh.... by badfish99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But there are plenty of idiot would-be terrorists who have no hope of carrying out what they are planning, but who are more than willing to martyr themselves by pleading guilty when they are caught (here is an example).

    If the police can keep up a steady trickle of arrests of people like this, the "war on terror" can be kept going indefinitely.

  13. Re:ugh.... by gkhan1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly! If the terrorists use encryption and anonymizers (like TOR) it's going to be impossible to track them. They don't even have to go that far, I'd like to see the FBI track a terrorist planning session going on in a lvl 60 raid in World of Warcraft (Al-Qaida, the guild!). You can always hide online, and the damn feds are too stupid to realise it.

  14. Re:ugh.... by Instine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not trying to start a flame war here, but maybe its not them that are so stupid. They keep getting these grants, for these ludicrous ideas... They (FBI et al) have good health care and wages... Maybe its the general public who allow this crap to be paid for through their taxes that are the 'less well informed'. Time to stop griping and start telling the zombie nation, that they're bein taken for, well, zombies.

    --
    Because you can - or because you should?
  15. Re:The Fifth Wave* by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Donating to charity acting as a front to funnel money to terrorist organizations is a crime.

    We're all very glad of that over in the UK, by the way. Otherwise, just imagine how much money the IRA would have been able to raise from American donations! Fortunately, the US government always took a very hard line on this and made sure that their citizens were not responsible for funding a terror campaign against their own allies.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  16. Re:Add to "to do" list for new Congress by finkployd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sorry, the same party that pushed Clipper? If you think this stuff is going to change one bit under the Democrats you are delusional. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of reasons for vote for anyone but Republicians these days, but this is not one of them. When it comes to spying on citizens, the party in power wants it bad, and the minority party becomes the voice of privacy and government restraint. It was not that long ago that Ashcroft was the pro-privacy, anti-clipper chip crusader. I fully expect that everything the Democrats are saying about government oversight and privacy will be completely forgotten when they get into power.

    Finkployd

  17. Re:One of my most favorite quotes by finkployd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think the vile Cardinal had to convince a jury of his peers, and answer endless appeals through several levels of appeals courts.

    No, he probably just could detain them without trials, access to an attorney, letting them know what they are accused of, or any evidence against them. Maybe he labeled them "enemy conbatents" or something.

    Finkployd

  18. Re:DUDE! by IAmTheDave · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I thought we were fighting both. And the war on poverty. And the war on illiteracy. And the war on AIDS, pollution, hunger, disease. No wonder why we can't keep up (.. the focus and funding).

    No no - just drugs and terror.

    See, poverty, illiteracy, AIDS, pollution, hunger, disease - and those you didn't mention like genocide, etc., are too hot politically to be fought, for they provide no gain to the government.

    Drugs and terror... and let's go ahead and add child porn... allow the government a "war" that can be used to justify reductions in personal privacy, massive amounts of data collection, and emboldening of the Executive.

    Those other "wars" are just hippie rally-cries. Duh.

    --
    Excuse my speling.
    Making The Bar Project
  19. Re:ugh.... by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Operationally, a covert attacker would be an idiot to use any sort of electronic communications media. The 9-11 attackers observed complete e-silence, and communicated face-to-face. Bin Laden as well.

    And I must challenge this constant assumption of cell of killers surrounding you and plotting your deaths.

    WHERE ARE THEY? It's been five years, for chissakes. On 9-11 itself, they could only get enough manpower to take 4 planes instead of the 12 they wanted. And they can't ever pull that trick again.

    Occam's razor, kids. They aren't there. There are no "terror cells" full of brown people saturating the country. It's a truthy crock. The "terrorists" we've kidnapped gave us nothing but lies under torture, which gave us endless terror warnings.

    They ain't there. Stop snivelling! BUSH IS LYING. He has no intel at all. We have no humint in these groups, the people we're torturing are nonentities or innocents that we've used as proxies for our anger. All the "facts" Bush has sold us on, from the "terraist cells" to the Iraq terror to Iran to Korea were garbage. We got hit with a simple trick on 9-11. That's it. We don't have to stop the planet to find the evildoers. They are DEAD. We however are making millions of people who hate our guts on a daily basis in Iraq, so I guess it's a goddamned self-fulfilling prophecy after all.