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.
President Eisenhower speaking:
"If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government."
My first reaction was "Good because wading through terrabytes of useless data will really help win the war on terrer!" However on sober reflection I realize that the very technical infeasability of this is part and parcel of the problem.
For those of you that haven't seen Terry Gilliam's Brazil you must it is an essential requirement for anyone who would just react with the snarkiness I mentioned above.
They can't parse all of that data. A single major ISP on a single day would generate terrabytes of data if everything was logged. In that event any actual law enforcement methods would be swamped by the sheer beureucratic waste of it all. Massive computer systems performing continuous number crunching would still come up with garbage.
But that doesn't matter!
It isn't necessary for this to work. What is necessary is for them to make people perceive that it works at least enough to get it put in place. At that point the system becomes self feeding. Don't like it, well that can get you put on the short list for a check of your habits. Because they can look at a single person's habits, they may be wrong but they can and will do it. But in general the system will be a large self-feeding monstrosoty and any "errors", because there are always errors will be dealt with in the same way that the no-fly-list errors are handled: "not my department, next please!"
Eventually success of this process ceases to be the object only its continuation. Once a large enough beureucracy is established staffed with enough place-men and place-seekers to protect themselves then this will take over. Consider the Drug war as an example. Yes it hasn't hit full steam but think of ho many things today are justified by means of the "Drug War". And take a look at the way justifications for the war are handled. Money for the Partnership for a Drug-Free America (led by America's Drug Czar) is spent convincing us to back the drug war or not to vote for legalization. In turn the DEA's budget (paying America's Drug Czar) goes up and who the hell cares if the drugs are stopped. And they aren't even fighting "Terrorists".
In many respects it reminds me of East Germany. At the height of their power the East German Stasi employed one in fifty members of the population as full or part-time spies. This doesn't count the large beureucratic staff that they had or the massive infrastructure that was built and run just to sort through it all. The social costs were enormous as any infraction was targeted for no good reason. The economic costs in turn were insane and deprived the state budget of much of the money that might have been spent say building an infrastructure or feeding the population. No nation on earth had more complete information on its citizens and no nation on earth spent more obtaining it.
Ultimately crime was still committed and even the dissident groups grew because they a) hated the government that much, b) were often flooded with spies sent in by the Stasi, and c) could get away with it. None of the objectives of the Stasi were acheived and East Germany fell, it fell and noone misses it.
This "Law and Order" bull must be stopped, and it must be stopped now! We cannot sit back and think that this is okay or that it will "work its way out. Those of us with a technical mindset are in the best position to explain why this will not work and what a costly destructive system this will be, and we cannot put it off.
For those in the U.S. go Here to find your house rep and place a phone call or send a letter. Then for good measure go Here and tell the Senate not to go there either. Following that try sending a letter to you local paper's letters to the editor. While many of us no longer read the dead-tree press it can and will make a big impact for those that do (read: most people over 35).
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.
First, I love this idea, bravo. ;)
:(
However, there is a flaw, the earth, solar system, and galaxy itself are moving at incredible rates, the point in space we occupy now will not be the same point that the laser will return to in a hojillion years give or take. BUT! I think you have come up with a very novel approach at creating the proverbial write-only memory. Quick, patent it!
To keep on topic (some mod has been busting my chops lately for trying to have actual interesting conversations), since the bill sets no maximums on the retention requirements I think it's very likely that Gonzalez et al are going to ask for a rediculous amount of data retention. They've been dropping hints about it for years now, something like a permanent record of every website visited would be the first thing they try to mandate. That alone will be a gut-busting storage requirement, and force many non-mega ISPs right out of business. This bill has the potential to radically affect the businesses that provide internet access, and radically alter the privacy people expect when using the internet. While I hope this bill dies quickly, I fear it will ride the tide of "think of the children" with few obstacles.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
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.