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."
They may as well legislate that gravity be lessened to solve the obesity problem. It's just as feasible from a technical sense.
You know, I'd like find out what kind of porn or other illicit sites these legislators are surfing and then dredge that up those records to news agencies. See how that flies in their faces.
This is just sick. Every time I hear this shrill siren about protecting the children I know they're coming for another liberty.
I, for one, don't want my kids growing up in a country run by the thought police.
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
What they need is exactly the opposite: optional Web labeling for non-sexually explicit content.
If you think your site is safe for children then you can add a label to that effect. There could even be a well defined process where, if you labeled your site as safe-for-children and it wasn't, then you could be required to take down the safe-for-children label.
Ideally, there wouldn't just be one safe-for-children label but a variety of specific government defined labels that identified a site as being free of specific types of content (e.g. no nude photos versus no sex photos).
This will be another "unfunded mandate" where they'll just fine you if you fail to spend the money to comply.
All in the name of "protecting the children" and "War against Terror".
The question will be, how much money will an ISP have to spend to record everything, in a secure fashion, for years and years? And at what point will the that expense be LESS than any fine that will be levied for non-compliance?
I can only imagine how politicians think:
"Hey how can we kill off a lot of small businesses so our big behemoth telecomm contributors can make more money in the long run? Ooh! increased operating costs! Our friends have the coffers to handle this while their smaller competitors die off. We'll have to make it look like something else though. Tie it to crime. Everyone hates criminals."
Do not taunt Happy-Fun Ball
we havent had a decent amendment in a while. time for a push for an explicit right to privacy?
"I like to wear big boy pants."
The Party's goal isn't to eliminate crime by throwing everyone in jail -- it's to eliminate people who piss it off by merely being able to throw anyone in jail.
You don't have to like Rand to apppreciate that she was onto something when it came to how governments think during the design phase of legislation.
I interpret bills for a major civil rights lobby, and this bill's language is ambiguous. It requires, at a minimum, the retention of personal identification linked to IPs. Whereas I do see your point, that it does not enumerate retention of IM and chat logs, this draft bill is STILL scary. If the legislation passes, it is up to Alberto Gonzales to interpret it. This, the man that recently advocated the revoke of Habeus Corpus, citing the lack of its specific constitutional enumeration. The problem is that the bill's language is broad, and the AG could ASSSUME that it gives him certain powers. The bill would be less scary if it was amended with language that limits the amount of liberal interpretation that could take place. In the end, this draft represents a common problem, and a scary possibility. Politicians struggle balancing individual liberty and safety, and if passed, this bill could establish a precedent of invasion of personal privacy. All of this must be qualified by the following-- I understand the desire to protect our children at all costs. It is an emotionally charged issue, but we must not allow rational thought to be trampled by emotionally charged debate. I do not believe this bill will make us safer. I'd be interested to see how many times and ISP could not produce personal information on the IPs they regulate, and how many times failure of an ISP to produce personal information translated into the loss of a conviction for child predators. This bill represents the beginning of a slippery slope for internet privacy, and a more general affront on free speech.