Slashdot Mirror


Police Want Fast Track To Get At Your Private Data

An anonymous reader writes "According to this story on CNET, police again are pushing for new laws requiring ISPs and webmail providers to store users' private data for five years and also want a new electronic way of speeding up subpoenas and search warrants via police-only encrypted portals at all ISPs and webmail providers."

13 of 301 comments (clear)

  1. Security keeps increasing... by Jorl17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As well as criminality. Can we see a pattern here? These measures don't seem to help at all. They are ethically wrong and have been empirically proven useless.

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
  2. Because they can?! by headkase · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They think just because they can it's a good idea? Doesn't sabotage the principles of free and open societies at all?! Imagine if they did in real life half the things they already do online. I'd have already picked up a gun just because others already would have too.

    --
    Shh.
  3. Okay, but on one condition by twidarkling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The police have to pay for the storage. Since the amount of online data is constantly increasing, I figure having to lay out funds for that many terrabytes of storage should bankrupt them, and then they can focus on doing the job they *should* be doing (picking up garbage), instead of the one they *want* to be doing (invading privacy without probable cause).

    --
    Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
    1. Re:Okay, but on one condition by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pay for storage AND maintenance of said storage. The ISPs shouldn't be forced to spend a dime on this, even if it does pass.

      ISPs pay, increase rates to make up shortfall. Result: The average joe pays to lose his privacy.

      Government pays, increase taxes to make up shortfall. Result: The average joe pays to lose his privacy.

      I'd like a third option, please. How about "we don't do it and no one pays"?

  4. NO! by russotto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's no great surprise the cops want this. But can you imagine the response of banks (and customers) if the police were to demand a special door in every bank so they could waltz in and search the safety deposit boxes at their convenience? Of homeowners if the cops were to demand a master key to every house to make search warrants easier to execute?

    Unfortunately, when it comes to electronic records, lawmakers seem to think expanding the AT&T NSA rooms to access portals for every cop in the country is a great idea.

  5. Re:Bore them to death by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nobody knows how totalitarian their country will be in 5 years.
    Best to assume the worst extrapolating from today's trajectory.

  6. Re:Bore them to death by Jorl17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We need a revolution, that's all. Democracy isn't ruling the world -- politicians are. And politicians are nowhere near what we need.
    Once again, we need a revolution. We need to take control. We must take control and save the world.

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
  7. Re:Bore them to death by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  8. Re:Bore them to death by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to fear" is exactly backwards. If you've actually committed a crime, I don't care about your privacy. I only care about the privacy of people who haven't committed crimes. I think we should care about it so much that we protect the criminals, too.

    Protected rights aren't supposed to be loopholes with which to "get away with stuff." That's just a side effect of the real purpose of protecting your rights.

    Just because your data is boring to a law enforcement agent, does not mean that your data will be boring to everyone that subsequently has access to it, including people who are in addition to being LEOs also people who have an interest in you, personally.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  9. Re: not their business by mollog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree that until they have a very specific reason to be looking at my data, they have no business with my data. But I also acknowledge that, starting soon after 9/11, they started looking at my data despite laws that were supposed to prevent that.

    And I also acknowledge that they will construe my information in ways that will put me at a disadvantage because I supported such-and-so politician, or because I looked into the side-effects of medication X. This manner of data-mining is already happening. Outlawing it is fruitless, but we can make laws that disclose who has looked at my data.

    Until we have a sort of reciprocity wrt searching data, until we know who has been doing it, we will be at a disadvantage. The searching is already happening. But who is watching the watch-birds? That's what I want to know.

    --
    Best regards.
  10. Hey, coppers, first do this! by haruchai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You want the keys to the kingdom? Prove you can be trusted

    1.) All police officers, all employees of all police forces that may have any kind access to confidential data and any contractors or consultants
              must submit to annual interviews including polygraphs regarding their activities, private and professional, past and present.
              The Canadian Mounties have a process like this for applicants but I don't think it's done once you become a constable.
      2.) No question is off-limits; all questions must be answered.
      3.) Failure to submit or answer a question will result in dismissal.
      4.) All interviews are to be observed by a panel of witnesses of which several are private citizens
      5.) All (unedited) interviews will be available to the public upon request.

    If those conditions are met, then I'll gladly comply with your requests for private data.

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  11. 3 different levels of scare by davidwr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I see 3 major issues:

    * the desire for electronic-speed/non-paper efficiency from the police point of view

    * the desire not to have records be routinely destroyed between the receipt of a police request and the time the record is scheduled for destruction, i.e. "almost immediate" data-freezing

    * (not stated, but probably desired) the desire to have historical information available for years.

    Traditional phone companies already keep records of what phone called what phone for 2 years, which IMHO is about 22 months too long. I'm sure the police would love similar transaction records of who emailed whom and who chatted with whom going back that far, and they would salivate over having the actual content of the communications for that long.

    As a taxpayer, I'm all for increased efficiency as long as it doesn't increase the "efficiency" of illegal or barely-legal-but-inappropriate records requests. It also makes sense that data-retention requests should be honored as soon as practical, not "oops, we just now got around to processing your request from yesterday, the data you want was purged last night, sorry."

    However, transaction records and other records should not be kept any longer than necessary for billing and other internal processes. For most services which aren't billed a la carte or per-bit or per-transaction, we are talking days, max, for individual records. For billed services, they need to be kept until the billing=dispute deadline has passed or until all billing disputes are finalized, or the normal "few days," whichever is later.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  12. Re:Bore them to death by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because the Constitution says something doesn't mean it's true. After all, our government has been happily ignoring the Constitution for decades now.

    The "true power" is with the Federal Government, in a de facto fashion. The States are a joke, and would never stand up to the Federal gov. And the people are just sheep. They're not going to stand up to the government either.