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 *
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why is it that I think VPN just became the new digital equivalent of the tin foil hat?
HDGary secures my bank