Slashdot Mirror
ISP Tracking Legislation Hits the House
cnet-declan writes "CNET News.com reports that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives announced yesterday legislation to force ISPs to keep track of what their users are doing. It's part of the Republicans 'law and order agenda,' with other components devoted to the death penalty, gangs, and terrorists. Attorney General Gonzales would be permitted to force Internet providers to keep logs of Web browsing, instant message exchanges, and e-mail conversations indefinitely. The draft bill is available online, and it also includes mandatory Web labeling for sexually explicit pages. The idea enjoys bipartisan support: a Colorado Democrat has been the most ardent supporter in the entire Congress."
The sky is not falling.
Here's what the bill says:
SEC. 6. RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS.
(a) REGULATIONS.Not later than 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this section, the Attorney General
shall issue regulations governing the retention of records
by Internet Service Providers. Such regulations shall, at
a minimum, require retention of records, such as the name
and address of the subscriber or registered user to whom
an Internet Protocol address, user identification or telephone
number was assigned, in order to permit compliance
with court orders that may require production of such information.
First note that the information they are primarily interested in is being able to tie a user to an IP address. It is trivial for an ISP to keep this information, and any responsible ISP already does so that they can investigate fraud and abuse complaints.
Second, the regulations are to deal with record retention, not tracking. So, if an ISP currently tracks user activity, the AG could require the ISP to keep that information for x days. But this bill does not seem to give anyone the power to order ISPs to start tracking users in ways they aren't already.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
The only thing more annoying than a Libertarian is an (un|mis)informed Libertarian
As the text you notes quotes, that's the bare minimum. The concern is more laws allowing even more to be tracked.
From TFA.
"Because there is no limit on how broad the rules can be, Gonzales would be permitted to force Internet providers to keep logs of Web browsing, instant message exchanges, or e-mail conversations indefinitely. (The bill does not, however, explicitly cover search engines or Web hosting companies, which officials have talked about before as targets of regulation.)
That broad wording also would permit the records to be obtained by private litigants in noncriminal cases, such as divorces and employment disputes. That raises additional privacy concerns, civil libertarians say. "
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
You underestimate the web pages you visit. I did an experiment a few weeks ago along these lines using Firefox's LiveHTTPHeaders. After hitting the front pages of Slashdot, MSN, Yahoo, and two other portal sites, I had 150 requests. That's 30 requests per page. Just now, loading yro.slashdot.org took over 50 requests.
People generate an enormous amount of web traffic without even thinking about it. To expect every ISP to archive that information just because is crazy. It's only really feasible for someone like Google, who is in the business of profiling potential customers (or AT&T, who is in the business of letting the Feds spy on you).
Lamar Smith's bill's language is ambiguous. It requires, at a minimum, the retention of personal identification linked to IPs. The contention that that Smith's bill does not explicitly mandate the retention of IM and chat logs ignores a very important fact. The Attorney General gets to interpret the bill. Alberto Gonzales is the man that recently advocated revocation of Habeus Corpus, citing the lack of its specific constitutional foundations. Gonzales has an expansionist view of the Constitution, as evidenced by his moronic opinion that specific protections not enumerated in the constitution are open season for federal government. I have a feeling that his interpretation would augment the executive branch's power. This is just is one major problem with this bill-- it's ambiguous language is too broad, and Gonzales could liberally interpret the legislation however he feels. More generally, this bill is part of a national problem-- the belief that politicians are justified in sacrificing our privacy. This "struggle" they face, balancing individual liberty against security, is a nonexistent red herring. We can be both safe and free. The bill also represents a scary possibility. If passed, it would establish a legal precedent for acceptable invasion of personal privacy. Socially, this precedent has already been established. The technology industry has already justified, and is currently implementing, the widespread, viral invasion of our personal computer-- in the form of DRM protection of music and software. All of this must be qualified by the following--Smith's bill is aimed at stopping child predators, and I understand and wholeheartedly support his desire to protect our children. This bill's reach extends far beyond the sick and twisted world of pedophiles, though-- it requires retention of everyone's records. Alberto Gonzales could theoretically interpret the bill to include widespread monitoring of internet use. Including AIM conversations and E-mails. I do not believe this bill will make us safer. I am interested to see how many times an ISP could not produce personal information on their customers, and how many times failure of an ISP to produce personal information translated into the loss of a conviction for child predators. My guess is none. One of two things can happen with Lamar Smith's bill in the short term. First, it could die, or second, It could be amended-- perhaps with limits on the retention of records to convicted sex offenders. This bill represents the beginning of a slippery slope for internet privacy, and a more general affront on free speech. We must not let our leaders continue the abolition of rational thought.
Actually there is: Now, I suggest you go read Title 18, 2257:http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/usco
Specifically this line:
"(g) The Attorney General shall issue appropriate regulations to carry out this section."
Now... go out and read about the "appropriate regulations" which have been issued by the Attorney General and their practical applications and implications. For example: Federal agents can enter a private home without warning nor warrant, and search through her computer files to check for compliance. Anything seen during that "visit"--regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with "porn", can be used as evidence of crime. By order of the AG, the 4th Amendment ceases to exist for cam girls (any "cam girl" who shows skin is considered a "producer of pornography" and her home is a "place of business").
As with 2257, this legislation clearly and specifically gives the Attorney General a blank check in writing rules--rules which are not debated before nor voted on by Congress, nor signed by the President, yet which hold the weight of law.
You can bet that the initial "attack" will be 2-pronged: Porn and Terrorism. Morality and Fear.
And let's be very clear about this: This will be done under the authority of a single, unelected man; a man who, in the current incarnation, wrote guidelines telling members of the current administration how to get away with torture.
While there are very few politicians that I trust, I do trust in the conflict of personal interests which pervades Congress to create a situation where there is at least some degree of valid debate and limit of authority.