Slashdot Mirror


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."

11 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. Won't someone please think of the children by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year?

    It's getting so old.

    1. Re:Won't someone please think of the children by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year?

      Yes, because it works so well. Just try passing "The Invasion of Privacy Act of 2010" and you'll get laughed off the Senate floor. Present the exact same bill, only change the title to "Child Protection Against Predators Act of 2010" and it'll pass easily. If you can link your bill to child porn, then everyone who even dares to say a word against it is instantly labeled as a supporter of the sexual abuse of children. This is because whenever you say anything about child porn or child predators, the entire electorate completely loses the ability to think rationally and responds in a completely emotionally reactionary way. Emotionally reactionary people are extremely easy to manipulate.

      It's sort of funny how so many people who decry the loss of civil liberties in the name of "socialism" will gladly give up their civil liberties in the name of "protecting children".

    2. Re:Won't someone please think of the children by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously though, what happens when you don't use the dns provider of the ISP (either running your own, or using a 3pd DNS provider)?

      I'm using Google's open DNS, but the ISP could still figure out where I was going. Which means the FBI can track anyone who doesn't know how to use TOR. And I'm guessing one of those three letter agencies figured out a man-in-middle type attack for that. So I guess that means you'll have to do the really nasty surfing at McDonald's, Starbucks or some other unsecured wi-fi connection.

      Whew, that was tough. I'm sure some of you could come up with even better alternatives. And to put people through that meager effort they're going to require your ISP to keep massive volumes of individually identifiable information for two years.

      Time for the FBI to face up to the fact they're only going to catch the stupid ones.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    3. Re:Won't someone please think of the children by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If child molestation is actually your concern, how come we don't see Bradley tanks knocking down Catholic churches?
      ~ Bill Hicks, 1993, referencing the Waco siege

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  2. Evidence Already? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Will the FBI give us some evidence already that mandatory retained data has been essential to actually solving some significant fraction of crimes, or some convincing evidence that its lack is the only reason some significant fraction goes unsolved?

    Without that evidence, their insistence on invading our privacy instead of protecting it as they're instructed by the Constitution that gives them their powers should just be laughed at.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:Evidence Already? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That isn't an argument. That's a contradiction.

      That's why we have to demand evidence. The more we let the police have power without evidence, the more our police state abuses our rights instead of protecting them. A faithy police state is precisely what the Qaeda wants. And exactly the opposite of the government our Constitution creates.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  3. This just in: by honestmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All stores and restaurants will have to keep logs of every customer that comes in, whether they buy anything or not, including full video of them while they were in the store. Microphones must be set up at every table in the restaurant to record all dinner conversation. All of this data must be kept for ever and a day, and available to anyone who appears to be in law enforcement. Why is real life any different than the web?

    --
    Everything you know is wrong, Just forget the words and sing along.
  4. somehow i just don't believe this statement ... by neonprimetime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  5. This will be a good idea by florescent_beige · · Score: 5, Insightful

    until someone offers $100,000 to a $15/hr tech to give them two years of Senator X's browsing records. After that, it will have "served its purpose" and will "no longer be in the public's interest".

    --
    Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
  6. Monitoring is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have an even better idea. Let's have all law enforcement officials be required to wear audio and video recording equipment at all times, which are available for all citizens to watch. They do work for us, after all, and I think this would help curb police brutality. I know that most officers are good people, but there are a few bad apples, so we can't be too vigilant.

  7. The 4th ammendment weeps. by Trerro · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The 4th amendment is supposed to require a warrant to BEGIN surveillance. The law doesn't say "they can tap your phones and record all of your conversations, but they can't actually listen to them until a warrant is issued against you." No, they can't tap until they have the warrant.

    This shouldn't be any different.

    Then again, we all know the results of the last large-scale warrantless wiretapping incident (no one was punished, and it's likely still occurring), so I guess it is, in fact, not any different.