Slashdot Mirror


FBI Renews Push for ISP Data Retention Laws

mytrip brings us a news.com story about the FBI's efforts to make records of users' activities available to law enforcement for a much longer time. Several members of Congress also lent their support to the idea that such data retention should be mandatory for a period of up to 2 years. Quoting: "Based on the statements at Wednesday's hearing and previous calls for new laws in this area, the scope of a mandatory data retention law remains fuzzy. It could mean forcing companies to store data for two years about what Internet addresses are assigned to which customers (Comcast said in 2006 that it would be retaining those records for six months). Or it could be far more intrusive. It could mean keeping track of e-mail and instant messaging correspondents and what Web pages users visit. Some Democratic politicians have called for data retention laws to extend to domain name registries and Web hosting companies and even social networking sites."

10 of 179 comments (clear)

  1. I am not 'their' citizen... by TheLazySci-FiAuthor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...they are MY government.

    At least I thought this is supposed to be 'my' government. If it were, then why can't I see everything they are doing? Why when documents are 'declassified' is 90% of the text blanked-out?

    It's for my own good? Well, how can I refute that when I have no evidence, and no evidence can be obtained.

    One of those double-binds, eh?

  2. I remember reading somewhere... by kurt555gs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

    Now , where was that? , I can't quite place it, maybe it was in a fairy tale my mom read me as a child?

    Oh well, I know that I remember it from somewhere.

    Cheers

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
    1. Re:I remember reading somewhere... by ScreamingCactus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dear Technical Support: I recently upgraded from The Govt OS ver 1.7.7.6 (beta) to the latest release, Govt ver 2.0.0.8, and I noticed a few unexpected changes. For one thing, I have noticed that many of my favorite programs (most of which are the reason I bought the OS to begin with) will no longer run, or only run in a crippled state with most of their features disabled. These include Bill of Rights v1.17, Due Process v3.02, and Privacy v6.9. I've also noticed that this new Govt ver 2 is full of bloatware like Evil Coporation 6, Big Brother v19.84, and Bush Administration v2.0. I opened task manager and noticed that Govt 2 has spawned several background processes, like War.Iraq, Phone.Tap, and Irresponsible.Spending, which seem to be interfering with my previously installed programs. I've been thinking about going back to Govt 1.7, but the uninstall feature doesn't work. Please help, Worried Citizen Dear Worried Citizen: This is a common problem. What most people don't understand about Govt v1.7.7.6 is that it really wasn't an OS. It was merely an extension built on the backbone of the previous OS, WeThePeople. Govt v2.0.0.8 has completely phased out WeThePeople, and now runs standalone (much like the upgrade to Windows 98). Unfortunately it is not possible to uninstall this OS as it overwrites the boot sector. We suggest installing background applications Pay_Taxes and Support_Troops. Although these processes will help to smooth operation, every so often you will have to run the command C:\Vote. While this command may help to reset corrupted processes, unfortunately this OS is still not designed to run your older programs. However, Govt 2 comes with it's OWN version of these these applications, combined into a suite called Illusion of Security, which attempts to emulate some of those features. Warning! Do not, under any circumstances, install Anarchy 3.1, this program causes irreversible damage to the OS. Good luck, Fox News

      --
      The path to enlightenment is truly through homemade drugs!
  3. I'm against this by Bryansix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm against this not because of the privacy implications but because government shouldn't make it more expensive for a business to run by requiring them to keep information that is of no value to them past a certain period of time.

  4. Re:democrats? by Uncle+Focker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Also lending their support for data retention were Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla., who said that Internet chat rooms were crammed with sexual predators, and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary committee and a previous data retention enthusiast. This law has bipartisan support. Anyone who is trying to paint this as if only one side or the other pushing it is just playing politics. Not to mention this idea was originally pushed by our wonderful friend Alberto Gonzales.
  5. Double Standard by pfleming · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So the administration that can't keep its own email records in accordance with Federal Law wants to pass a NEW Federal Law mandating that all of OUR records be retained for 2 years?

  6. Re:ok... by PoliTech · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Great, another Unfunded Mandate, but instead of bankrupting your friendly state or local governments with no funding to pay for the requirement, they are going to start hitting the citizenry directly.

    ISPs will simply pass the cost of maintaining and storing all of that data right to their customers. Never mind the privacy implications.

    What Political philosophy attacks perceived weakness of democracy, corruption of capitalism, promises vigorous foreign aid as well as aggressive military programs, and undertakes federal control of private business and economy to reduce "social friction"?

    I won't supply an answer because I'm already flirting with Godwins Law.

  7. Re:That means phone calls too, right? by Duradin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Politicians make the laws so they don't have to be subject to them.

    It would be madness to expect them to be subject to the same laws that we, the masses, are.

    We drink and drive and we get a ticket, jail time and sky high insurance rates.

    They drink and drive and the cops give them a ride home.

    We kill someone and it is jail time.

    They kill someone and they get re-elected.

    Social order would be destroyed if there weren't paragons of non-virtue standing tall upon the backs of the masses.

  8. Responsibility first, privileges later by Odin's+Raven · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It might sound trite, but as long as the FBI behaves like a child, it should be treated like a child. Right now it seems like if we give them a baseball bat for little league then the next morning all the mailboxes along the street are smashed. If we lend 'em the car keys so they can go to youth prayer sessions, two hours later we're getting a phone call about how they wrapped the car around a telephone pole as they tried driving to the liquor store after getting thrown out of the local bar. And what's particularly galling is that they come back afterwards and ask if they can have a new Porsche because the old car doesn't go fast enough.

    Let the FBI go a year without abusing their existing powers before they even get to ask for anything new. (Child equivalent: "No dessert until you clean your room.") Or use a more immediate reward/punishment system - if anyone abuses any privilege, the agent responsible is disciplined and the situation rectified (evidence tossed, etc). Otherwise the whole agency loses that privilege for a week the first time, a month the second time, then six months, then a year, etc. (Child equivalent: "If whoever threw that spitball doesn't fess up, the entire class is getting detention.")

    I mean, seriously, it seems like my two-year old nephew has a better understanding of rights and responsibilities than the FBI does.

    --
    A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear that only the other one snores.
  9. VPN = New Tin foil Hat by queenb**ch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is it that I think VPN just became the new digital equivalent of the tin foil hat?

    --
    HDGary secures my bank :/