FBI Pushing For 2-Year Retention of Web Traffic Logs

suraj.sun writes to tell us that the FBI is pushing to have ISPs keep detailed records of what web sites customers have visited for up to two years. Claiming a desire to combat "child pornography and other serious crimes," the FBI and others are pressing for increased data retention, which they have been doing since as early as 2006. "If logs of Web sites visited began to be kept, they would be available only to local, state, and federal police with legal authorization such as a subpoena or search warrant. What remains unclear are the details of what the FBI is proposing. The possibilities include requiring an Internet provider to log the Internet protocol (IP) address of a Web site visited, or the domain name such as cnet.com, a host name such as news.cnet.com, or the actual URL such as http://reviews.cnet.com/Music/2001-6450_7-0.html. While the first three categories could be logged without doing deep packet inspection, the fourth category would require it. That could run up against opposition in Congress, which lambasted the concept in a series of hearings in 2008, causing the demise of a company, NebuAd, which pioneered it inside the United States."

Comments

Re:Won't someone please think of the children

[Monkeedude1212]

I think the government should no longer be able to tax me, to help combat child pornography and other serious crimes.

Lollipop, Lollipop

[adipocere]

We should log lollipop purchases, so we can crack down on those guys in big white vans with FREE CANDY on the side.

Re:Lollipop, Lollipop

[CTalkobt]

We should log lollipop purchases, so we can crack down on those guys in big white vans with FREE CANDY on the side.

You mean the white vans that have been following me with those guys in white coats actually pass out lollipops?

And here I thought it was because they were out to get me...

Re:Won't someone please think of the children

[Threni]

That and terrorism. TERRORISM!!! What about TERRORPORN! Naked children with BOMBS! Won't someone please think of the photographs?

Re:Won't someone please think of the children

[dgatwood]

No, but we're nowhere near the end of abuse of kiddie porn as a justification for invasion of privacy. I'm just waiting to see someone propose a law that requires children be photographed naked annually with the pictures stored in a national database so that they can more rapidly identify the victims of abuse. From a logical perspective, it's completely valid. From an ethical perspective, it's completely appalling.

Horrible humor

[TiggertheMad]

ahh the old think of the kids line. It always works and people never have the guts to say that some things don't simply protect kids.

Isn't that the problem with child pornography, that people are 'thinking of the kids'....?

Re:Why torment the internet??

[z-j-y]

You left out "Family Guy". That show is child+animal+incest+homo porno. But obviously Americans love it.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

That gave me an idea for an album cover! This [WARNING. Possibly NSFW: article includes an image of an album cover featuring a prepubescent girl, naked, in a vaguely suggestive pose.] isn't enough anymore. We need a picture of a naked child, drawn, not a photo of a real child, smoking pot, holding a stick of dynamite in one hand, and picture of Stalin in the other. The album title? How about "Censor This!"

Re:Think of the kids

[BarryJacobsen]

The thing is...for how much they go after the child pornography viewers...is it really that much of a problem?

It is much more rare that I see stories about the actual pornographers being caught and while the viewers are certainly depraved (and you can argue that by consuming the child porn, they encourage those who make it), aren't the pornographers the ones we would rather catch? It wouldn't surprise me if the amount of children actually being forced into child porn is VERY small since the already existing library of images probably contains enough to keep the perverts trading for a long time.

If that is true...then this definitely is an excuse to encroach on peoples rights and use the old "think of the children" excuse because if this much effort was really being put in to catching so few potential criminals...it would be a huge waste compared to what those officers could be doing elsewhere.

Agreed that the producers are much more of a problem. To that end, wouldn't a much better law be that all digital cameras have embedded 3g that transmits all taken images to the FBI directly?

Re:Won't someone please think of the children

[ShaunC]

Funny Pete Townshend should come to mind when someone brings up CP.

Re:For God's sake..

[Locke2005]

If we could just get some people to stop thinking of the children, there wouldn't be so much child porn in the first place!

Yes officer

[PPH]

We have those log hard copies right here.

Dammit! Who forgot to put a new ink cartrige in the printer last year?

Re:Won't someone please think of the children

[cenc]

I wonder if they will threaten to pull out of the United States like they did China.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children

[glwtta]

From a logical perspective, it's completely valid. From an ethical perspective, it's completely appalling.

From a pedophilia perspective, it's completely arousing.