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."
Particularly the phone calls of our congressmen and presidents to lobbyists and such, top secret or not. As long as that provision is on the bill I'm fine with it because you know it will never ever ever get passed.
If web page requests are added to logging I'll start running an idle process on my router that crawls the web. I might just do that anyway.
...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?
Read my Very Short "Stories"
"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 *
Some Democratic politicians have called for data retention laws to extend to domain name registries and Web hosting companies and even social networking sites.
I thought we had established the republicans as the evil enemy.
you mean the democrats are also evil?
data retention is for spying. spying is ALWAYS a crime against man and fundamentally evil. data retention will come back to bite you, make no mistake about it. this is worrying (but sadly not unexpected).
still, no matter how bad it gets, it could only be worse in australia or england (I'm NOT kidding about that, either).
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
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.
You mean just like how the NSA is limited by the 4th amendment from snooping on U.S. citizens? Oh wait...
Please, they'll bypass the 4th amendment any time they want to get access to the data.
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?
Time to buy some stock in manufacturers of storage solutions.
Shop smart, Shop S-Mart.
How about we start with the whitehouse? Remember all those missing emails?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
All your data is transfered unencrypted and, with Web 2.0 "revolution", on servers accessible to outsourced personal in jurisdictions with questionable privacy laws. I hope this is a wake up call for widespread adoption of IPSec/SSL and return to hosting content on your own machine, like it was meant to be at inception of Internet and World Wide Web. Opportunistic encryption solutions can exchange public keys with assumption of trust during the first communication between two given users. Law enforcement or black hats who start to listen in later will not get much once your circle of online friends is established.
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.
Advertisement aimed at businessmen traveling to Europe:
Attention American Businessmen:
Are you concerned about your government making your ISP keep records of where your employees surf when they are at home? Are you worried your Vice President will get in the news because he's surfing porn at a site that later turns out to host terrorist blogs?
Fear not!
For $20/month each, your employees can enjoy the security of EuroProxy(TM). Based on Super Secure Layering technology, we provide untraceable unbreakable internet surfing to your employees.
Our servers are located in North Elbonia which has among the strictest privacy laws on the planet.
Call Now!
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Yeah... life will be good as soon as our benevolent government can track and dictate everything we do. After all... it's for our own good.
NOT!
Seriously though, as soon as any government determines that every movement needs to be tracked in a virtual world, how quickly will that translate to the real world?
Including the Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution was controversial at the time as some feared that it may come to be interpreted that the list would come to be seen as the only rights a Citizen possesed. The exact opposite is what was originally intended, the Federal government only has a small set of rights while Citizens are assumed to have unnumerated rights with the Bill of Rights as only listing a few. Under the Constitution it is not only their responsibility but even more importantly their duty to provide a conclusive and pressing need to curtail the Rights of the People of the United States of America when it comes to renegotiating the Rights and Freedoms of said Citizens. The anonymity of the original Federalist Papers strikes a chord here - this government sees people who are working for change as "homegrown terrorists". How ironic is the historical comparison to British rule over the Americas and those who oppose the status-quo with the Federal government today.
Shh.
The potential for abuse here is huge. Mueller is trying to distract politicians and the pitchfork-wielding public with scenarios where John E. Pedophile is able to be apprehended because the FBI can see he visited Underage-illegal-pornography.org thanks to the wonders of data retention. But imagine how much information about our lives can be gathered from our ISP records... private medical information, marital problems, embarrassing yet legal sexual predilections, books we read, videos we rent, political groups we favor, and on and on. The government will be able to obtain a vast amount of private and personal information after they gain access to years of our ISP records. And with 4th Amendment loopholes like national security letters in existence, there's no guarantee that this information will only be accessed upon suspicion of serious criminal activity.
The end just doesn't justify the means. The FBI seems to be doing a fine job in stopping the production of child pornography with the data retention policies that are in place. Are there any child pornography websites on the internet anymore? Are child pornographers really "pushing" their product on random internet users? Of course, no one knows the answers to these questions, and it is impossible to independently verify the government's claims without putting yourself in jeopardy of facing severe criminal charges, but it seems doubtful that child pornography is such a rampant problem that it requires opening up a pandora's box of privacy concerns.
Either the gov wants to track a few people or they want to track everyone. Giving this kind of power when not in wartime is irresponsible. I could see a judge letting them check on certain profiles but EVERYONE???
Funny in that they CAN'T STOP FUCKING MURDERS & OTHER CRIMES IN THEIR OWN PISSHOLE CITY : WASHINGTON D.C.
Here's a little advice for all you ISPs out there: The records were accidentally erased and the backup tapes were accidentally destroyed.
If it's good enough for Cheney it's got to be good enough for you.
I'm really beginning to hate my government!
(Now you make sure to keep this statement on record for at least two years there Cowboy Neal).
You didn't happen to see where the SCotUSA decided that doesn't apply anymore today, did you?
From yahoo.
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.
After all, we know congress and the presidency are both crammed with child molesters and other predators. Will someone please think of the children and Xray those bastards daily?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Does this apply to the executive branch?
Didn't this exact same load of crap happen about every 50 years ago or so? sed "s/communism/terrorism/g" and you've transformed McCarthyism to, for lack of a better term, Bushism.
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
Riiiiight. And the FBI hasn't been caught improperly issuing National Security Letters recently ahref=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/washington/25justice.htmlrel=url2html-11383http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/washington/25justice.html>. And the NSA hasn't conducted domestic wiretapping in violation of the 4th amendment http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm. And the executive branch hasn't claimed that the right to a writ of habeas corpus is not granted by the Constitution http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/011907Parry.shtml
Not to be rude, but do you believe in the tooth fairy, too?
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
New, recently proposed legislation now requires every person to store everything they say or hear for two years. This is for your protection and must be accessible to the FBI and local law enforcement. Advocates for the new law cite the number of lives that could have been saved if this was available to fight terrorists in 1776.
In other news, President Bush was elected to a fifth term despite only having 1% of the popular vote and a 0% approval rating. When asked how this didn't violate the 22nd amendment to the constitution, the President's reply was, "the what?"
Why is it that I think VPN just became the new digital equivalent of the tin foil hat?
HDGary secures my bank