Law Enforcement Still Wants Mandatory ISP Log Retention

And there it is... by sconeu · 2011-07-12 11:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

hinders law enforcement's ability to identify predators when they come across child pornography

The root password to the Constitution.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

Re:And there it is... by mandelbr0t · 2011-07-12 11:12 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.witchhuntmovie.com/
Sean Penn examines California in the early eighties, and a number of innocent people who spent a combined total of over 50 years in jail in the name of prosecuting "child pornography". It is an extremely disturbing movie. I can see why IMDb doesn't have it in their database.

--
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
Re:And there it is... by tsotha · 2011-07-12 11:15 · Score: 1

You'd think kiddie porn was the scourge of our time from all the press it gets.
Re:And there it is... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 11:21 · Score: 3, Informative

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1196112/
Is this not it?
Re:And there it is... by racermd · 2011-07-12 11:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

The part that bothers me about this is the unreasonable double-standard. Law enforcement typically keeps records of their phone calls and radio traffic for between about 1 to 2 years, which is usually driven by statues of limitations. After that, the records are gone. The reason is simple - they often need to keep that data for liability issues such as when someone sues the police for misconduct. They purge that data after that retention period for exactly the same reasons the ISPs do not want to hang onto it - having it means they become responsible for it and becomes more of a problem than the data is worth.
As a public agency, law enforcement agencies have clear retention period policies, as well as policies outlining exactly who can and cannot access that data, in order to serve the public. As private entities, why should the ISPs be held to some arbitrary standard outlined by an outside party? Honestly, if an ISP wants to purge that data after 6 months (or even less) to serve *their* public - their paying customers - let them! The convenience store down the street isn't required to keep a minimum amount of surveillance video in case someone does something shady in the bathroom. They keep that video to protect themselves and their business from people that want to do harm. When police are called, the video is shared voluntarily because it's in their best interests to do so.
The only thing I would be in favor of is requiring ISPs to simply define a data retention policy and make it public to everyone, including the law enforcement community. The ISPs can then live and die by the policy they set for themselves and law enforcement will know exactly how long they have before that information is purged. I would also suggest that once an ISP is made aware that a warrant for certain information is coming, the ISP should retain the relevant data regardless of the policy. They don't necessarily have to share it until they receive the warrant, but the request alone should trigger a temporary hold on the data for a set period of, say, 60 days. This is no different than how law enforcement handles their data retention when a request is made of them, so ISPs should be treated the same way.
I'm not sure what I would want the penalties to be if any of the data retention policies were violated (purged early or accessed inappropriately), but it should fit the severity and scope of the violation and be defined in actual law.

--
My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating. -- Ashleigh Brilliant
Re:And there it is... by betterunixthanunix · 2011-07-12 11:38 · Score: 2

The film came out in 2008, before Obama took office, so I don't really understand your point. Perhaps you should have instead pointed out the sort of things that the Clinton administration was doing (like turning popular TV shows into propaganda vehicles).

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:And there it is... by Attila+Dimedici · 2011-07-12 11:57 · Score: 1

I am confused as to how the failure of the ISPs to keep a log of their users' Internet usage could cause health problems for their users (or others). This law is not intended to protect the general populace. It is intended to allow law enforcement to prosecute people after the fact.
The laws and regulations governing food safety are not in any way equivalent to laws covering the ISPs retaining a record of their customers' activity.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:And there it is... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 12:34 · Score: 1

They should be required to publish a data retention policy so users are at least able to find out the privacy impact. The wording should be clear no retention is required. A failure to have a retention policy should prevent the use of any retained data by law enforcement or other public or private entities. There is no requirement currently that I am aware of in the USA to retain data. Most ISPs do and it really is unethical. I argued to a school once there was no requirement and that instead of handing over the data they should simply not retain it in the first place. I also pointed out that university students had additional legal protections against disclosure of such personal data which I believed they violated (actually that may not have been the case- I think they just disconnected students until the university could violate students privacy and remove any p2p programs a student was using, and possibly billed them for it and if that occurred 3x they got a permanent disconnect, or something like this).
The majority of situations are cases of abuse by the police or a corporation (usually going after copyright infringers). There just isn't justification to hamper the general public's well being with these kinds of nuisances given the nature of the Internet. While there are people who are arrested for real crimes based on this information it does not justify the invasion of innocent peoples privacy. Which is what storing this information does.
It might be argued that cameras also violate peoples privacy. It use to be that citizens rights were protected by a lack of resources and technology so these issues did not exist. Now we have let the supreme court rule in ways that negatively impact users essential liberties, rights, and freedoms. While public space is not private the intentional monitoring by government and private parties for the intentional use in security matters has violated reasonably assumable rights based on already existing amendments. There should be a constitutional amendment that prohibits the private or governmental use of cameras / detection / and other sensing devices in public places if intended for security purposes. Other sensing devices like used in toilet urinals and future such situations should be marked so users are aware. In addition to requiring a warning before all entrances to places which utilise cameras for any purpose and a clear retention policy for any stored video that may be taken. Think web cams and similar devices when entering a store (think the recent Apple case where an artist went in and took the pictures from computer web cams).
Re:And there it is... by vivian · 2011-07-12 13:28 · Score: 3, Insightful

Child porn is a scourge on society, and I strongly support any reasonable means of stomping on the bastards behind it, but we have to stop allowing any new law being justified on the basis of "Think of the children!" and then going on to allow that law to be used for anything beyond it's original intended scope.
The problem I have with this data retention proposal is that it is the digital equivalent of being required to keep a GPS tracker on everyone that records your every movement and keep records of those movements for 18 months, so the authorities can check if you were at the scene of any crimes that may occur.
It would not be acceptable to track people physically in this way with no cause, at least not in my country - so it should not be allowable to track them in the same way online either, without some kind of warrant or reason.
As long as this information is recorded and kept, it lies open to abuse by hackers who gain unauthorised access to the information, and also mis-use by those in authority, who use the information outside of the original scope for which it was intended (ie. to stop child porn)
Re:And there it is... by rtb61 · 2011-07-12 13:46 · Score: 1

The law is for data mining, fishing expeditions, trial by innuendo and guilt by association.
All that will happen, is people will add in random multiple internet connection attempts at random intervals within broad ranges of likely address hits, to confuse the record of their internet access and to flood out ISP databases.
It would add negligible additional traffic to seek out tens of thousands random web sites each day and not waiting for download content before moving on, just registering the connection.

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:And there it is... by epyT-R · 2011-07-12 14:13 · Score: 1

I agree with your comment, but your sig worries me.. obedience to what? faith in what? this seems to contradict it self..and obliquely, your post.
Re:And there it is... by Thing+1 · 2011-07-12 14:49 · Score: 1

Child porn is a scourge on society, and I strongly support any reasonable means of stomping on the bastards behind it [...]
I would disagree. "Child abuse is a scourge on society", yes. Video evidence? That's merely evidence. Evidence should never be illegal, it should be allowed to be presented to the court or other authorities with no fear of being used against one, so that one can help bring the actual criminals to justice (the people that injure the children). I'm somewhat surprised that I need to state that video evidence of a homicide is not illegal to possess...

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:And there it is... by inode_buddha · 2011-07-12 14:49 · Score: 1

It gets even more interesting if you want to consider the idea that law enforcement wants to treat ISP's like common carriers. Which they are not, under current law.

--
C|N>K
Re:And there it is... by sconeu · 2011-07-12 14:52 · Score: 1

That's the whole point. It does in fact contradict itself.
I lifted it from someone's comment on a TSA story ... I thought it was nicely ironic.
(Yeah, yeah, "ironic" might be the wrong term. You know what I meant).

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:And there it is... by DigiShaman · 2011-07-12 15:14 · Score: 1

Unless it's purely artificial, any Child Porn that involves real children is abuse. If I ever saw someone performing sexual intercourse on a young adolescent, I swear to God, I will fucking kill the predator with my bare hands, and stand trial by jury knowing I did the right thing.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:And there it is... by slick7 · 2011-07-12 16:00 · Score: 1

You'd think kiddie porn was the scourge of our time from all the press it gets.
You're looking in the wrong place, try youtube and all the bad cop videos.
Or better yet, all the bad mouth postings on /. How's that for paranoia?

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:And there it is... by blahplusplus · 2011-07-12 18:10 · Score: 1

"As private entities, why should the ISPs be held to some arbitrary standard outlined by an outside party?"
Because the internet is a political game changer, the business people and leaders fear political and social unrest as the plebians learn about their leader misdeeds.
i.e.
dailybail.com
Re:And there it is... by ShakaUVM · 2011-07-12 19:17 · Score: 2

>>If I ever saw someone performing sexual intercourse on a young adolescent, I swear to God, I will fucking kill the predator with my bare hands, and stand trial by jury knowing I did the right thing.
So if you saw a pair of 16-year olds having sex... you'd kill both of them? Or just one? In which case, which one would you pick? Yes, it's illegal in a lot of states for two consenting teens to have sex with each other.
If you saw a teen photographing him or herself with a camera, would you kill them or just want them thrown in jail for "producing child porn"? (http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2008_spr/online_exploit.htm)
In fact, given that the majority of teens have had sex before graduating from high school, doesn't this make you a potential mass murderer?
Please turn your ID and passport over to the local police, comrade. They'll be in contact with you quickly.
Re:And there it is... by AmiMoJo · 2011-07-12 21:02 · Score: 2

I don't think we will ever get away from the "think of the children" mentality, so what we need to do is use it to our advantage. Come up with a good argument as to why recording this data harms them.
It seemed to work when tracking kids for targeted advertising and SMS spam. I think it had a hand in the reduction in pornographic email spam too, once there were laws in place to punish people sending it to children.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:And there it is... by ultranova · 2011-07-12 23:00 · Score: 2

If I ever saw someone performing sexual intercourse on a young adolescent, I swear to God, I will fucking kill the predator with my bare hands, and stand trial by jury knowing I did the right thing.

I think this nicely demonstrates why child porn remains such a popular subject despite being very nearly nonexistent: it gives people an excuse to RRRAAAGGGE!!!!! and make death threats and feel proud of such behaviour.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:And there it is... by flyneye · 2011-07-12 23:38 · Score: 1

I'm not trolling, but I am angry at the inconsistencies of logic applied.I argue that law enforcement should wear brightly colored clown costumes with targets on them so that they may be more easily shot in the line of duty. Then they can be BIG heroes again and everyone can see everything in perspective. Hey, 9/11 was a long time ago. What have they done for us lately?.. Took our freedom for granted and chose totalitarianism in its place just like Hitlers SS solely for the purpose of making their nearly worthless jobs easier.
Cops, the new enemy, right alongside Republicratquiada.
Seriously, are cops so universally stupid that they choose unconstitutional methods to fullfill their oath to protect it?
I only see cops serving themselves and protecting their own. Occasionally grabbing pro-cop articles in the paper for doing something useful, yet still underhanded scumbags underneath who just want their job made easier by increased taxes and unconstitutional legislation.Well, it's their f**king job to bust actual bad guys, but in their absence, now they want to troll constitutionally protected documents(yeah , I defend that position and I'm right and you're wrong, my .45 agrees) so they can drum up business as if altered speed/radar wasn't bad enough.(if a cop has a tuning fork hanging out his pocket when you get that ticket, YOU BEEN HAD)
Police work is now an industry, and has been. It's for the profit to be self sustaining and even getting wealthy enough to buy cutting edge equipment so there's plenty of unnecessary overkill. All just to keep you safe, for your own good, really they need it, and more.
After all they are cops and a holy institution who can do no wrong.

--
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Re:And there it is... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-07-13 00:41 · Score: 1

You forgot the other root password "terrorism"

--
Time to offend someone
Re:And there it is... by QuantumRiff · 2011-07-13 01:53 · Score: 1

You know.. if only Mcarthy new what we know now. Imagine the trials he could have!!

--

What are we going to do tonight Brain?
Re:And there it is... by rjstanford · 2011-07-13 02:05 · Score: 1

If I ever saw someone performing sexual intercourse on a young adolescent, I swear to God, I will fucking kill the predator with my bare hands, and stand trial by jury knowing I did the right thing.
Sounds like most people (myself included) when we were adolescents ourselves. Glad you never saw us.

--
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Re:And there it is... by Devoidoid · 2011-07-13 02:47 · Score: 1

I don't know if 'teenager' is defined that way in the criminal code.
Re:And there it is... by entrigant · 2011-07-13 07:27 · Score: 1

ISPs are already required to capture traffic when a warrant is requested. Not having the capability in place to immediately execute warrants it punishable by severe fines. Look up CALEA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Assistance_for_Law_Enforcement_Act

Law Enforcement Tools by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 11:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why don't they mandate the city keep garbage for 6 months, so it can be used to prosecute poeple?

Re:Law Enforcement Tools by gcnaddict · 2011-07-12 11:58 · Score: 1

I feel like this analogy is the best shot any ISP would have at combating the law, or rather, unequal treatment under the law.

I honestly wonder, given that corporations are considered "persons" in the eyes of the government, if they can claim that discrimination by the nature of the service provided is unconstitutional. It would be an interesting approach. It seems the use of the first section of the 14th amendment may actually be a viable approach to this argument. My logic chain is as follows: If a law is more burdensome for one service provider (in this case, provider of internet access as a service) than another (say, garbage collection as a service) and both meet the lower, generic retention bar, should the ISP be prosecuted, it could be argued unequal protection under the law as the ISP would in fact be under attack by the law despite meeting retention policies for generic services such as garbage collection.

I'm curious for the opinions of others on this.

--
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Re:Law Enforcement Tools by ridgecritter · 2011-07-12 12:35 · Score: 2

I'm thinking that gov't counsel would note that retention of garbage could: a) present a public health hazard; b) incur high costs for safe retention, which would unduly burden all users of the service; c) present chain-of-custody issues that would be prohibitively expensive to avoid and that are only minimally presented in the retention-of-bits scenario. Hence, data retention by ISPs would not unduly burden them or their users. Pretty easy to distinguish between the costs of retaining bits vs. costs of retaining matter. Not saying I agree with what the LE folks want our ISPs to do, but I don't think your argument would sway a court.
Re:Law Enforcement Tools by Thing+1 · 2011-07-12 14:53 · Score: 1

Pretty easy to distinguish between the costs of retaining bits vs. costs of retaining matter.
Your b) applies to data retention. Data has to be stored on matter; that matter needs to be retained.

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:Law Enforcement Tools by drinkypoo · 2011-07-12 16:27 · Score: 2

We keep garbage a lot longer than six months. It's not very well-organized, though. On the other hand, it would be relatively trivial to put RFID tags in trashbags (fire 'em in there at collection time) which would make it possible (if non-trivial) to find them later.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Law Enforcement Tools by dotgain · 2011-07-12 21:49 · Score: 1

^ Meth. Not even once.
Re:Law Enforcement Tools by drinkypoo · 2011-07-13 00:21 · Score: 1

^ Meth. Not even once.
looks to me like you're doing it right now... watch out for that submit button, it'll get ya.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Would You Want To Be Followed Everywhere? by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2011-07-12 11:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Would you want the government following you everywhere, taking notes of everything you do, all with the intent that they can later prosecute you for pretty much anything that they can come up with? And this extends to private companies and interests who should never have access to such data (RIAA, MPAA) now able to get it through the courts because it now exists in the first place? That's what this is all about.

It becomes an argument for anonymous browsing on everything you do, until they figure out how to either track, or ban, that too.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."

Re:Would You Want To Be Followed Everywhere? by Dan667 · 2011-07-12 11:18 · Score: 1

people use to make fun of the CCCP for the "show me your papers" routine.
Re:Would You Want To Be Followed Everywhere? by TubeSteak · 2011-07-12 11:51 · Score: 1

And this extends to private companies and interests who should never have access to such data (RIAA, MPAA) now able to get it through the courts because it now exists in the first place?
There's no reason the law can't say "Any records legally required to be stored longer than [ISPs original retention policy] are only to be subpoenaed in child pornography investigations."
Such wording may or may not prevent Patriot Act requests, but it'll certainly keep the *IAAs and fueding spouses from subpoenaing records.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Would You Want To Be Followed Everywhere? by TheGratefulNet · 2011-07-12 12:17 · Score: 1

It becomes an argument for anonymous browsing on everything you do, until they figure out how to either track, or ban, that too.
100% chance that, in our lifetimes, this will come to pass, too ;(
a lot has been happening the last few weeks. I'm having a hard time keeping optimistic about the world, sigh. and just today, there was this:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/12/robocalls-spam-wi-democrats-telling-them-not-to-vote-in-recall-elections/
the world seems like its burning. (and where's moped jesus when you really need him?)

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Would You Want To Be Followed Everywhere? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-12 16:06 · Score: 1

Such wording may or may not prevent Patriot Act requests, but it'll certainly keep the *IAAs and fueding spouses from subpoenaing records.
What if *AAs claim that pirates of their products fund terrorists?
Re:Would You Want To Be Followed Everywhere? by houstonbofh · 2011-07-12 16:32 · Score: 1

people use to make fun of the CCCP for the "show me your papers" routine.
But they were much worse than the TSA! No, wait... (Facepalm)

It's ALWAYS about child pornography by euroq · 2011-07-12 11:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Every time there is a push to reduce our privacy rights online, it's ALWAYS in the guise of child pornography. I mean seriously, how serious of a problem is it? Why does law enforcement need to know I go to slashdot.com daily or watch porn every other day? Why don't they just store data for child pornography sites?

--
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.

Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-07-12 11:16 · Score: 5, Funny

Anybody who questions the seriousness of child pornography is probably a baby-raper, or a communist. True fact.
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by betterunixthanunix · 2011-07-12 11:36 · Score: 2
Why does law enforcement need to know I go to slashdot.com daily or watch porn every other day? Why don't they just store data for child pornography sites?
The argument is that by the time they locate child pornography sites and gain access to the server logs, it is too late to arrest past visitors because their IP addresses have changed and the subscriber data is not stored long enough. Now, anyone who is capable of thinking for themselves recognizes that:
1. The worst offenders are frequent visitors, and so there would be traces of recent activity
2. The really dangerous people who produce child pornography for years on end put serious effort into hiding their IP addresses; that is why they are not caught for years on end
Most people do not think for themselves, and will panic as soon as they hear "child pornography," and law enforcement agencies know that. Worse still, most people are terrified of the idea of law enforcement not having enough power to protect their children from those dangerous child predators who are hiding behind every bush and around every corner, and so all law enforcement agencies have to do is claim that they cannot possibly arrest dangerous people without having longer ISP logs. People also don't bother to look at the public record on these cases, and so they have no idea how pedophile rings are tracked down or arrested.

TLDR: lack of understanding of technology, lack of desire to understand anything, and susceptibility to fearmongering.
--
Palm trees and 8
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by Veetox · 2011-07-12 11:36 · Score: 2

All federal and state employees should be video monitored during work hours, with executive employees (e.g. governors and representatives) video monitored 24-7. Records should be kept for 5 years, and accessible to the public on demand.
This is necessary to prevent government employees from raping children. Please, let's think of the children.
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by Kjella · 2011-07-12 11:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

In the black and white world of "you're either with us or against us", you are either for this bill and against child pornography or you are against this bill and for child pornography. If you try bringing some sanity into it, they will pound that point and make it seem you're eluding it.
It'd be like starting an attack on this bill with "Are you in favor of Soviet-style mass surveillance of ordinary citizens?" and you can hear the question is loaded as all hell. It just turns into a game of piling up the most bad stuff on the other side.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-07-12 11:42 · Score: 3, Interesting

In the words of the great Jello Biafra:

"Want to see child porn? Join the Vice Squad."
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by future+assassin · 2011-07-12 11:44 · Score: 2

>Why don't they just store data for child pornography sites?
They don't want to. Its more profitable to keep the kiddie porn sites going. You bust a site and get one conviction you bust all the viewers and get a nice truck load of new prision stock for gov and privatelly owned prisons.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by Darkness404 · 2011-07-12 11:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

The only dangerous people who produce child pornography won't visit those sites because they already have it on local media

There, fixed it for you. If we spent as much time going after the producers as we do prosecuting thoughtcrime, we might be able to actually prevent child abuse, instead the police as always go after the non-harmful crimes rather than those who are actually abusing the children.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by Roachie · 2011-07-12 11:52 · Score: 1

Hey, I heard that AL Qaeda was going to use TSA agents to smuggle bombs through checkpoints in their anuses, deep deep in their anuses.
Spread the word.

--
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by interkin3tic · 2011-07-12 12:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Every time there is a push to reduce our privacy rights online, it's ALWAYS in the guise of child pornography. I mean seriously, how serious of a problem is it? Why does law enforcement need to know I go to slashdot.com daily or watch porn every other day? Why don't they just store data for child pornography sites?
See, I would phrase that as "So law enforcement is saying they are incompetent and utter failures at actually preventing children from being exploited in the production of child porn?" or "Why isn't law enforcement going after the source of this scourge?" or "Is Michael Brown, sheriff in Bedford County, Va., and a board member and executive committee member of the National Sheriffs' Association turning a blind eye to the production of child porn?"

Not because it's true, or those questions are at all logical, but because you need to fight fire with fire. Seriously. Someone should write an opinion piece and go on Fox news and say "By taking this route, Michael Brown, sheriff in Bedford County, Va., and a board member and executive committee member of the National Sheriffs' Association is essentially giving up on child molesters. This government intrusion into internet providers' business does nothing to stop children from being sexually exploited. It is his job to stop children from being sexually exploited, not tell small businesses how to to run themselves. This will only increase internet fees and cost American jobs, and will do nothing to stop child molesters from murdering your children."

Maybe tighten that up a little. It's a fine line between the type of crazy that those people believe and the type of crazy that even those people realize is crazy.
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by TheGratefulNet · 2011-07-12 12:23 · Score: 1

how serious is drunk driving? 'they' will have you believe its the scourge of the earth. that they HAVE to institute roadblocks and manditory searches (even mandatory blood-taking!) in order to 'keep society safe'.
I'm nearly half a century old (goml). I'm not sure I've seen more than 1 or 2 really drunk dangerous people on the road in my life (and yes, I've been to college, etc.) its just not the problem the authorities would have you believe. not widespread enough to PANIC over like we do. you can't even have a single beer after work for fear of getting a DUI. it didn't used to be that way, but now, law enforcement has declared war on its own people, in so many ways. you have to think defensively, now. no, I can't really have that social beer with you guys at work, even some alcohol on my breath, from 1 beer, could be financially ruining for you if you happen to go 5mi over the speed limit and pulled over.
we go nuts over the smallest things, mathematically speaking.
we are driven by emotion, not rational thought, sad to say. our laws are highly unbalanced and have long been disconnected with actual justice. really sad to see this country go this way.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by betterunixthanunix · 2011-07-12 13:06 · Score: 2

going after the collectors as well makes sense because a pedo in jail can't molest a kid.
Much like throwing a knife collector in jail, as a knife owner in jail cannot stab someone to death.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by smellotron · 2011-07-12 13:13 · Score: 1

"By taking this route, Michael Brown, sheriff in Bedford County, Va., and a board member and executive committee member of the National Sheriffs' Association is essentially giving up on child molesters. This government intrusion into internet providers' business does nothing to stop children from being sexually exploited. It is his job to stop children from being sexually exploited, not tell small businesses how to to run themselves. This will only increase internet fees and cost American jobs, and will do nothing to stop child molesters from murdering your children."

Maybe tighten that up a little. It's a fine line between the type of crazy that those people believe and the type of crazy that even those people realize is crazy.

Yeah, s/murdering/kidnapping/ and you're about par.
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by PPH · 2011-07-12 14:15 · Score: 1

And the extent of this sub-thread demonstrates how easy it is to redirect attention from the issue.
Its NOT about child porn. Its about downloading copyrighted content and to a lesser degree, tracking offshore financial activity. The child porn motive is just a straw man that's morally repugnant to argue against.
"What? You object to the surveillance? So you must be in favor of kiddie porn. Pervert! By the way, what's this Swiss bank account we see you logging into?"

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by inode_buddha · 2011-07-12 15:00 · Score: 1

[+3, Insightful], but I already commented so somebody else is gonna have to mod ya.

--
C|N>K
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by tompaulco · 2011-07-12 15:09 · Score: 1

It's a shame you posted anonymous. I agree with you. I would be interested to see the statistics of how many people who are in jail for possessing child porn have ever had sex with a child. I would like to compare that statistic to people who are in jail for having sex with a child and see how many of them have ever looked at child pornography.
People can derive pleasure from things without wanting to participate in those things, or even being disgusted at the idea of doing those things. Some people like to look at incest porn, but ask them if they would have sex with their sibling or parent. No way.
Another fallacy of child porn is that it doesn't have to involve real children. It can be just drawings of children. No children were harmed. Still illegal.
Another fallacy of child porn is that it doesn't have to involve children at all. Two 17 year olds having sex on a web cam is considered child porn even though they were both consenting and the act itself is not illegal.
Another fallacy of child porn is that it doesn't have to involve young people at all. A person of legal age to perform in a pornographic movie that dresses up with pigtails and wearing a schoolgirl outfit has been considered in some jurisdictions to be attempting to portray underage sex and deemed child pornography.
I'm all for protecting children, but these laws are not to protect children. They are there to control people.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by dgatwood · 2011-07-12 16:25 · Score: 1
Now, anyone who is capable of thinking for themselves recognizes that:
1. The worst offenders are frequent visitors, and so there would be traces of recent activity
2. The really dangerous people who produce child pornography for years on end put serious effort into hiding their IP addresses; that is why they are not caught for years on end
You forgot:
3. People who are actually guilty of deliberately downloading such content almost certainly will continue doing so, and thus the police should need no records at all. They need merely to have the right to take control of such a site and continue operating it as a honeypot.
And, as others have probably noted by now, the child porn laws at this point fail all of the traditional tests for the constitutionality of a prohibition anyway:
- The existence of child pornography do not represent a clear and present danger to public safety or health (e.g. munitions, FDA regulation, NRC, etc.).
- Because most porn in general is not downloaded for money, you cannot realistically use the threat of jail time and the promise of a light sentence to find out who the dealer is because the downloader has no idea.
- The laws are not written in such a way that they can be construed as a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce.
Worse, because of the stigma associated with it, child porn represents an excellent opportunity for extortion. The mere existence of records that could be used in a political witch hunt or to blackmail out political leaders into voting a certain way represents a credible threat to the democratic process in general.
Further, I'd be willing to bet good money that if we could sniff around the hard drives and networks of enough Congresspeople, we'd find more than a few files of a dubious nature, but right now, nobody outside of Congress knows that. Imagine how badly our political process could be corrupted if such records were mandated and could be retrieved by less than reputable members of the police and law enforcement, then used to pressure them into voting for laws that favor their own corrupt interests.
Finally, we've been combatting electronic child porn for at least two decades. It should be clear to anyone with common sense that if these laws were truly useful in protecting children from child porn, we'd already have them. Therefore these laws are simply an erosion of privacy that serve no legitimate law enforcement purpose.
To that end, I have a modest proposal: when anyone asks for laws like this, we should immediately use the word "un-American" to describe them. Only by using the same sort of empty rhetoric can we effectively combat such ridiculous laws in the minds of the simpletons who vote for them.
--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by vegiVamp · 2011-07-12 19:44 · Score: 1

It's a shame the child pornographers aren't engaging the US in a space race like the communists did.

--
What a depressingly stupid machine.
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-07-12 20:44 · Score: 1

Try the Internet Watch Foundation. They're not even a government body, yet they seem to be immune from prosecution.

--
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by AmiMoJo · 2011-07-12 21:16 · Score: 1

Or become a priest/scout master/teacher etc.
Paranoia over child abuse has really screwed us up. There is a huge shortage of male teachers in primary schools and a shortage of male volunteers for scout groups and after-school activities, which has been attributed to men worrying that showing an interest in children will get them branded a paedophile. There was a survey a couple of years back where the majority of men said they would not approach a child that looked lost for fear of these kinds of accusation, and as many people who were wrongly accused as part of the notorious Operation Ore discovered mere allegations can destroy you life and in some cases lead to suicide.
The police don't help matters, and there is some evidence to suggest that they use child porn as a weapon to wield against suspects. There was an incident where they raided the house of suspected terrorists who turned out to be completely innocent. One of the men was accidentally shot. Naturally the police came under a lot of criticism and suddenly it's "oh but we found child porn on his PC!" In the end they dropped that too, but it shows they are not above accusing people to cover their own incompetence.
Children are wonderful and we should all be able to enjoy interacting with them without fear of being judged or labelled a child molester.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by AmiMoJo · 2011-07-12 22:04 · Score: 1

Most people do not think for themselves, and will panic as soon as they hear "child pornography,"
Yes yes, and we intellectually superior types are the only ones who can see the truth.
People do think the witch hunt is wrong, they just don't want to be accused of supporting paedophiles.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by mehrotra.akash · 2011-07-12 23:24 · Score: 1

I guess that by eliminating the demand, they would eliminate the supply as well
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-07-13 00:46 · Score: 1

This is necessary to prevent government employees from raping citizens. Please, let's think of the citizens.
FTFY.
This might not be that bad of an idea after all.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by ImprovOmega · 2011-07-13 03:26 · Score: 1

The only way to counter sociopathic anti-logic is to do a better job at using sociopathic anti-logic. Your Soviet-style surveillance question is good, but the truly elegant will turn the original point back on its maker. i.e.:

This bill will help stop child pornography! Think of the children!

So you're in favor of putting tracking devices on little children to "protect" them? What a pervert! How dare you do that to a child and claim you're helping them! I see what you are!

Remember - the louder and more indignant you are, the more convincing. Double bonus points for finding a child who was hurt by being tracked constantly and show her cute little crying face to the public. Put a caption under it saying: do YOU want this to happen to YOUR child?

Dead bill. Winner: the person willing to be the most manipulative, evil sociopath.

Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by garcia · 2011-07-12 11:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

1. All speed traps are video recorded and offer the ability to clock the car with a stopwatch to verify it was actually speeding. Sort of like reverse VASCAR.

2. Every interaction with a police officer will be recorded with video and audio--they're doing this in Burnsville, MN. Thing is we need to have these videos recorded to WORM discs and those need to be made available to the public in every single situation without charge.

3. Anytime a law enforcement officer tells a lie to scare someone they can be sued.

---

I could continue but it's pointless. It's easier for the ISPs to simply tell them 'no'.

Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by sneakyimp · 2011-07-12 11:16 · Score: 2

Mod parent up.
Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by Tyr07 · 2011-07-12 11:25 · Score: 2

All officer cars have automatic public speed recordings and must have a case number assigned to each incident that a cop was either speeding or using their lights to run a red alight. Also dash cam recording, so we can see if they were warning someone or just being impatient. Heck if the people can be logged, let's start monitoring and logging all government activities too, and assign an international comittee to report any suspicious government acitvities, and habbits. So we can figure their agenda and day to day plans like they enjoy doing to us.
Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by gman003 · 2011-07-12 11:26 · Score: 2

1. Better yet, remove the "speed limit" laws entirely. They're pure profit-making laws - if it was anyone other than the government, it would be called rent-seeking. You can already cover the thing you're supposedly preventing via reckless driving charges. This could arguably make things even safer - most traffic [i]already[/i] does 5-15 mph over the speed limit, such that driving "legally" is actually more dangerous than keeping up with traffic. Maybe enforce limits in special areas - school zones, high-pedestrian areas - but we don't need a sign on every road.
2. Fully agreed. Now [i]that[/i] would be transparency and accountability in government.
Actually, let's expand that to include legislators. It would definitely cut down on the bribery we facetiously call "lobbying", for one.
3. I wouldn't make it [i]every[/i] case - after all, undercover cops need to be able to lie sometimes - but I would say that any time it's actual intimidation, especially to conceal a police action of any sort, definitely. But giving such a broad license to sue police would be a knee-jerk overreaction to our problems.
Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by initialE · 2011-07-12 11:53 · Score: 2

You're doing it wrong:
1. All speed traps are video recorded to make sure that there are no children being kidnapped for child pornography
2. Every interaction with a police officer to be recorded in case the said officer was going to abuse a child
3. Anytime a law enforcement officer tells a lie to scare someone they can be sued, in case they lie to a minor.
See what I did there? The only way to support your cause it to tie it to the "think of the children" clause.

--
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by TheGratefulNet · 2011-07-12 12:28 · Score: 1

4. Anytime a public elected or powerful appointed offical tells a lie to scare someone they can be imprisoned for manditory min of 15 years. no parole in the meantime. (and they have to be forced to listen to country music the entire time.)
I am NOT kidding. be glad I don't want to see worse done to them.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by TheGratefulNet · 2011-07-12 12:32 · Score: 4, Funny

doesn't it suck that slash uses proper html tags, yet we get conditioned to use that BRACKET SHIT on forums?

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by failedlogic · 2011-07-12 12:46 · Score: 1

Can't be all that bad. What kind of country music? I don't mind the lying part. Besides, its only considered a lie if you know the truth.
Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by mabhatter654 · 2011-07-12 13:23 · Score: 1

Every time a cop tells a lie to scare somebody the "tree of liberty" needs refeshed. They already have a badge and gun with ridiculous low standards for "properly" using either.. It's time for Sun Tso or Machavelli style discipline in the ranks.
For all those right wing Bible thumpers out there conviction of a crime in the Bible took two witnesses... The only punishment for lying was molten lead poured down your throat... Let's hold BOTH sides to the same book at least!!!
Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by RazorSharp · 2011-07-12 15:56 · Score: 1

Point 2 above. It has been reported on /. that several states have laws against recording a police officer either doing his duty or not........
Actually, they don't, because an unconstitutional law isn't a law.

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by qwak23 · 2011-07-13 00:26 · Score: 1

I would modify number 2 slightly - Make them available to the individual(s) interviewed/pulled over/charged without charge, but not the public as a whole. If the individual feels they've been wronged they can choose to make it public and press charges/sue. It's bad enough people get fired over stupid things they post on facebook, do we really need to include the times we've gotten pulled over for whatever reason?

Discount by mbone · 2011-07-12 11:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Any security claim that is solely motivated by child pornography I regard as bogus. Been to that well a few too many times.

Re:Discount by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2011-07-12 11:18 · Score: 1

Any security claim that is solely motivated by child pornography I regard as bogus. Been to that well a few too many times.
One is certainly left to ask just how many child pornographers Michael Brown, sheriff in Bedford County, Va. has successfully prosecuted in his own law enforcement career? One is left to wonder if it is even a crime he pursues normally?

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Re:Discount by El+Torico · 2011-07-12 11:22 · Score: 1

I'd also like to know who's donating to his campaigns since that is an elected office.

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
Re:Discount by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-07-12 11:44 · Score: 1

Well, those people who are guilty of an offense are often the most vocal critic... Oh. Wait, was that what you meant by pursues?

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:Discount by hedwards · 2011-07-12 12:18 · Score: 1

Aren't those public records. I'm not from VA, but aren't campaign contributions typically subject to recording requirements.
Re:Discount by TheGratefulNet · 2011-07-12 12:35 · Score: 1

yes, YOU see that. I see that. most here see that.
now, how do we get the rest of the dumb-fucks who live in this country to see that?
I don't have an answer to that. I see that you and I understand, but people like us don't run things. THAT is the problem. its power-hungry assholes that run the country (not talking about R's or D's; they're all about the same in this regard.)
your and my rights are not important to them.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Discount by betterunixthanunix · 2011-07-12 13:15 · Score: 1

now, how do we get the rest of the dumb-fucks who live in this country to see that?
Report child pornography possession en masse, in middle class communities. When the middle class sees its sons, fathers, uncles, and friends being thrown in prison and treated like the scum of the earth, things might change.

Disclaimer: The above suggestion may be illegal. Do not try this at home.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Discount by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-07-12 14:46 · Score: 2

now, how do we get the rest of the dumb-fucks who live in this country to see that?
In a properly functioning government, it would be irrelevant what the 'dumb-fucks' think because the government wouldn't have enough power to screw things up so badly.
Alas, it appears that it's impossible to have a Government-type organization that doesn't spiral out of control eventually. Time to use modern technology to make that 1700's model obsolete. Remember, Jefferson only called for the People "to provide new Guards for their future security", not necessarily provide a new Government.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Discount by RazorSharp · 2011-07-12 15:57 · Score: 1

I'd also like to know who's donating to his campaigns since that is an elected office.
People who care about the children. Duh. You must not care about the children.

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Re:Discount by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-12 16:16 · Score: 1

In a properly functioning government, it would be irrelevant what the 'dumb-fucks' think because the government wouldn't have enough power to screw things up so badly.
The government has however much power the majority of citizens is willing to give it. Your precious constitution is not a roadblock, but more like a stump in the road - it can still be amended given sufficiently many votes. And if supermajority are dumb-fucks (on any particular subject, not necessarily in general), then you get what you get.
Re:Discount by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-07-12 17:14 · Score: 1

How did you get from my characterization of government as obsolete to the Constitution being precious to me?

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Discount by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-12 18:38 · Score: 1

You did sound like a libertarian, and this being Slashdot, I rather took it for granted. My apologies.
What is your proposal with regard to not letting the "dumb-fucks" screw things up badly, then?
Re:Discount by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-07-13 02:56 · Score: 1

What is your proposal with regard to not letting the "dumb-fucks" screw things up badly, then?
Not quite sure, but governments killed half a billion people in the 20th century. That's unacceptable. This is all done in the name of having societal retribution against psychopaths, but the risks don't seem to be worth the 'rewards'.
Government systems have evolved over time to reflect the technology of the time period - a representative republic makes great sense when the cost of travel is very high and the cost of communication is reasonable. Now we have ~zero-cost communication and cheap travel. We need to be done with a 17th century model. I don't have all the answers but can see many of the deficiencies.
Just as one example: why have there been no calls for government regulation of eBay? I'd say it's largely because the reputation system works. Amazon and Newegg reviews work better than any consumer commissions could. Open source works. Slashdot does, mostly. All are examples of crowdsourcing decisions and judgements, using reputations. I think there's much more work to be done here - confederation of reputations and identities being a start.
I share non-violence, organic economics, and personal freedom goals with libertarians, but they imagine those within the existing scope of governments; libertarianism is a policy strategy, nothing more. As I mentioned above, even Jefferson imagined other possibilities almost a quarter millennium ago.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Discount by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-13 05:00 · Score: 1

The problem is that any description of utopian anarchism that I've seen to date is vulnerable to the same thing: it really can't stand up against an organized (= government) state. Proponents usually say otherwise, but when you ask, it boils down to "private security companies" (which serve the higher bidder, so not a real option), and, as a last resolt, a militia - true one, comprised of all citizens - fighting to preserve their society and its values. But this then presupposes that most people in that society would value it so highly that they'd be willing to kill and die for it - which, I believe, is in fact where it enters the utopia land somewhere alongside communism.
Re:Discount by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-07-13 06:23 · Score: 1

But this then presupposes that most people in that society would value it so highly that they'd be willing to kill and die for it
You don't need them all, but if their own property and way of life is threatened, people do tend to respond that way, provided they have a fighting chance (both literally and figuratively). I admit, given sticks against bazookas, surrender is not an unlikely outcome.
If you let people to what they want, for sure you'll wind up with some communes, some social democracies, etc., alongside regions of free people, but because some of those groups would use violence against their members (albeit voluntarily) the more peaceful ones would have to be prepared for eventual aggression from them as that human trait is re-enforced daily. Geez, look at the young men in the US who are eager to sign up to go fight in the Middle East ... for our 'freedoms' they think.
Anyway, I'm not sure how it works without geographic segregation, but then again, I'm not a political genius. A real panarchy seems difficult if violence is allowed by any of them. Then again, with good technology we can probably reduce the level of scarcity for humans to only one of land. But with education comes declining birth rates, and education comes from wealth which comes from technology, so the land problem might not be unsolvable either.
Anyway, some risks are warranted to avoid the genocide perpetrated on the human race by the government mechanism.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Internet Cafes by ShakaUVM · 2011-07-12 11:14 · Score: 2

Is there anything stopping potential criminals from just popping down to the local library or internet cafe?

Hell, whenever I would pull a practical joke on a friend back in college, I never logged into a machine from the computer in my dorm - made it too easy for them to find out who'd been messing with their account. I'd just go down to the local computer lab and do it from there.

Or does this law mandate that every computer require a valid driver's license to be swiped before logging on?

Re:Internet Cafes by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-07-12 11:18 · Score: 3, Funny

An excellent idea, citizen! We were actually thinking of using the Totally Unhackable(tm) biometric smartcards made by our cousin's defense contracting firm; but you get points for a good guess.
Re:Internet Cafes by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2011-07-12 11:19 · Score: 1

Or does this law mandate that every computer require a valid driver's license to be swiped before logging on?
It will, soon enough.

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Re:Internet Cafes by geekoid · 2011-07-12 11:20 · Score: 1

most criminal are lazy and stupid.
Also, it will still give them info about the rare criminal that actually thinks something through.
That alone can be very helpful in an era where attacks can come from anywhere.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Internet Cafes by Darkness404 · 2011-07-12 11:31 · Score: 2

And most people are not criminals and shouldn't be treated as such. Democracy only works with limited government, free press and privacy.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:Internet Cafes by nurb432 · 2011-07-12 11:43 · Score: 1

Is there anything stopping potential criminals from just popping down to the local library or internet cafe?
Yes, they become illegal, or at least allowing anonymous users will be illegal..

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Internet Cafes by geekoid · 2011-07-12 12:04 · Score: 1

I agree. I was just answering the question.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Internet Cafes by hedwards · 2011-07-12 12:20 · Score: 1

Why don't we just save some time and just arrest all the Democrats and civil libertarians as clearly they are opposed to incarcerating child molesters without a proper trial.
Re:Internet Cafes by TheGratefulNet · 2011-07-12 12:38 · Score: 1

remember the 'pentium serial number' bullshit we went thru just a few (well, more than a few) years ago?
the idea was to uniquely ID every 'internet guy'. it did not pass them.
so they try via different ways to keep at us.
be wary of this, people. they DO want to track you down to the last detail. google does and so does uncle LEO.
we see the internet as a way to learn and grow. they see it as a way to imprison citizens. I wonder how we end up sharing the planet with such neanderthals and not wipe each other out. the disconnect is too great!

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Internet Cafes by bobbabai · 2011-07-12 12:50 · Score: 1

Is there anything stopping potential criminals from just popping down to the local library or internet cafe?
Hell, whenever I would pull a practical joke on a friend back in college, I never logged into a machine from the computer in my dorm - made it too easy for them to find out who'd been messing with their account. I'd just go down to the local computer lab and do it from there.
Or does this law mandate that every computer require a valid driver's license to be swiped before logging on?
Well, yeah. All the libraries I know about have content filtering in place and policies that allow the library to kick out and/or call the police on a patron that is viewing objectionable material. The libraries also tightly control the PCs that are provided for public use. Same thing at coffee shops, and the clientele will do a good-enough policing job that will discourage the ickies.
Re:Internet Cafes by failedlogic · 2011-07-12 12:52 · Score: 1

Here someone else is ranting and raving on Slashdot without thinking.
Haven't you thought of the children in your post? Encouraging internet cafe use is bad. Cafe's serve coffee. Coffee has caffeine which stunts growth.
How dare you encourage a new generation populated by a majority of midgets* in order to screw over Big Brother for monitoring Internet use!!!!
*We know they will be a majority population because geeks won't go to a cafe. They have a coffee maker in their mother's basement next to their computers.
Re:Internet Cafes by IndustrialComplex · 2011-07-12 14:08 · Score: 1

Why don't we just save some time and just arrest all the Democrats and civil libertarians as clearly they are opposed to incarcerating child molesters without a proper trial.
The Democrats? Last time I checked, they were ALSO big proponents of unchecked government power. Let's put it this way, they had almost every branch of government under their sway for at least a few months. What liberties did they even try to restore during that time?
No, the best way to have a government that protects your liberty, is to not grant the government the power to infringe those liberties in the first place.

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Re:Internet Cafes by RazorSharp · 2011-07-12 16:02 · Score: 1

Is there anything stopping potential criminals from just popping down to the local library or internet cafe?
It's probably difficult to jerk off in an internet cafe or local library. Not to mention people that may look over your shoulder. Not that I support this bullshit law or anything. It obviously has little to nothing to do with child pornography and everything to do with giving cops more of their favorite thing: power.

Or does this law mandate that every computer require a valid driver's license to be swiped before logging on?
Don't give them ideas.

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Re:Internet Cafes by houstonbofh · 2011-07-12 16:38 · Score: 1

most criminal are lazy and stupid.
No, just the ones you see in the news. The smart ones never get caught. In spite of all the abuse to the general public.
Re:Internet Cafes by houstonbofh · 2011-07-12 16:39 · Score: 1

There are countries (such as Italy) where ID is required at Internet Cafe's, so it isn't such a far-fetched idea for some...
IDs are required at the US boarder, and nightclubs too... I wonder how well that works?
Re:Internet Cafes by ShakaUVM · 2011-07-12 18:20 · Score: 1

It's probably difficult to jerk off in an internet cafe or local library. Not to mention people that may look over your shoulder. Not that I support this bullshit law or anything. It obviously has little to nothing to do with child pornography and everything to do with giving cops more of their favorite thing: power.
Right. I was sort of... ignoring... the claim that this will be used to cut down on child porn, as it is quite obviously a pretense.
Doing a quick Google search, I see there's been 10,000 arrests in 15 years for child porn (666 a year), and a percentage of that has got to be for relatively harmless stuff like teens sexting each other.
More likely it is to try to stop people like Anonymous, with legislators not really realizing how hard it will be to destroy anonymity on the internet, and how much freedom and liberty that they'll crush along with it.
Re:Internet Cafes by foolish_to_be_here · 2011-07-12 23:29 · Score: 1

The pentium serial number scare was silly in light of unique mac addresses.

--
Please mod me 1 or troll. It's where the truth is these days, even on Slashdot. Beware the power of moderators everywh
Re:Internet Cafes by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-07-13 01:00 · Score: 1

Partially correct. The ones who are really smart get government bailouts when their schemes fail and have people falling over themselves defending them in the media. They even do their work out in the open.

--
Time to offend someone
Re:Internet Cafes by cffrost · 2011-07-13 13:25 · Score: 1

The pentium serial number scare was silly in light of unique mac addresses.
MAC addresses are easily changed; just a couple of clicks away in Windows Device Manager. Intel only backed off (BIOS toggle, off by default, eventual removal of PSN "feature") following pressure from EU, EFF, et al.

--
Thank you, Edward Snowden.

"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan

you cannot have a police state without this by Dan667 · 2011-07-12 11:17 · Score: 1

how about people scared to go out in the world just stay home instead of everyone give up their freedoms.

Re:you cannot have a police state without this by VortexCortex · 2011-07-13 02:00 · Score: 1

how about people scared to go out in the world just stay home instead of everyone give up their freedoms.
Implying that we don't already stay in our dark rooms, never venturing outside except to eat or shit.
They know we don't do anything other than use our computers and the Internet. Hell, it's cheaper to order both my hardware and groceries online... I work from home, have sever allergies this time of year, so I don't even venture outdoors to ride my zero-emission bicycle -- (Now I use DDR & Kinect UFC Trainer instead for aerobic/cardio).
The only place left they have to see what "crimes I may be committing" is in my ISP's logs -- and even those won't help them, because TOR (before you say "compromised nodes", I'll say "implying only one TOR network exists"). Next they'll want reports from Microsoft on the software I'm using on my computer, so MS will collect that during windows updates; That won't work because Linux, so then they'll get some hardware mfg like Intel to create on chip public key encryption to run encrypted code and have remote cellular kill switches for computers -- This way, even with Linux I still can't be sure what my computer is doing, but that won't work because AMD. Oh snap, I'm still not sure WTF my computer's doing because Binary Blobs (even in FLOSS video card drivers = full access to system).
I'm not paranoid, I don't care that they track everything I do, but I do care when that makes my ISP bill go up for no damn reason. For what? What's a hikikomri going to do that harms anyone? Crack into something? Won't the thing that gets cracked have logs? (they should: my router & other public exposed systems remote syslogs to another hardened machine... If yours don't that's your problem).
What does this have to do with abusing children again? If I wanted to abuse children I'd warp their brains by heavily censoring normal sexual activity in the media and instead make excessively violent perversions the norm for prime-time TV... Oh, wait.

Needle Location Solution: a bigger haystack? by retroworks · 2011-07-12 11:17 · Score: 2

I wonder if this is going to affect the price of space on server farms? And then we will need more officers to read the growing data. Sounds like inflation.

--
Gently reply

Re:Needle Location Solution: a bigger haystack? by failedlogic · 2011-07-12 12:57 · Score: 1

Its actually the same problem with intelligence agencies and heck the "information age" in corporations. We have more data that we have to look at. There's always more data. So we need more computers and more employees.
Its not bad for the economy in a sense. But it usually works out better for the firms that end up getting the contracts to add the computers. And in the case of government, great for the careers for those in departments that are trying to make themselves feel more important by getting more money to spend on important things. Important is subjective here. But its the way government spins.

Of course they do by geekoid · 2011-07-12 11:19 · Score: 1

it's there job. It's our job to fight thay don't get it. The best way is through codified rules.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 11:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Law Enforcement Still Wants Mandatory ISP Log Retention

Yeah? And I still want every law enforcement officer perpetually monitored and recorded to prevent abuse of power ect. Yet, they're still fighting simply being recorded.

Idiots by Iphtashu+Fitz · 2011-07-12 11:27 · Score: 1

What kind of logging are they going to expect to come from all the VPS's out there? I have two VPS's, each of which I use for two different domains I own. I also manage a third VPS for a non-profit group. Unless the ISP starts to log every single bit of data that comes into and out of my VPS this law is going to be absolutely useless to dealing with traffic that goes through a VPS.

There's no way in hell I'm going to forward the syslogs, mail logs, etc. of my linux hosts to an ISP for them to archive for an arbitrary amount of time. I'll simply pay a little bit more to use a VPS provided by a foreign provider that's outside of the reach of US laws.

And even if they did somehow manage to force VPS users to forward logs to the ISP for storage, how would they know that what I'm sending them is everything? I'm a pretty decent professional linux systems administrator. It wouldn't be all that hard to filter out some stuff and only send the ISP's log server what I want them to see.

Once again we see an excellent of an example of a proposed law that only makes things more difficult for the innocent and ignorant, and will have little effect on those who have the knowledge and desire to avoid it.

Re:Idiots by houstonbofh · 2011-07-12 16:43 · Score: 1

Easier solution. From TFA...

It says they must store for "at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account, unless that address is transmitted by radio communication"--language that amounts to a huge and unusual exception for wireless carriers.
So put your DHCP server on a wireless link. Done.
Re:Idiots by totallygeek · 2011-07-12 20:29 · Score: 1
That's my question as well. What level of logging is acceptable?
1. httpd access logs and mail syslog messages
2. Source addresses to destination 80/tcp and 25/tcp
3. IP headers that hit a mail or web server
4. Full packet captures for all daemons
5. Full packet captures of all traffic
This is not very well thought out. There are so many ways to proxy, encapsulate and encrypt traffic, logs would be useless.
--
Click here or here.

Same thing in Europe by moonbender · 2011-07-12 11:28 · Score: 1

Mandatory data retention is a current issue in Europe, too. There's a EU directive that requires member countries to implement data retention laws. It's one the biggest public issues in German telecommunication politics (way bigger than net neutrality, for example) and one of the biggest public issues in the overall field of privacy.

More info if anybody is interested: http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/content/view/46/42/lang,en/

And an article from the Irish Times titled "German evidence shows no justification for data retention": http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2011/0617/1224299068085.html

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.

Collect evidence before the crime? by vinn01 · 2011-07-12 11:37 · Score: 1

I read this as a government request to gather evidence in advance of a crime being committed. Is there any precedence for this?

I realize that many companies have security camera recordings and other records that could later used as evidence after a crime has been detected. But those are not government mandated.

Re:Collect evidence before the crime? by betterunixthanunix · 2011-07-12 11:42 · Score: 1

No, they are trying to force the private sector to collect the evidence in advance, and hold on to it for them. Totally different situation, if you believe the cops.

--
Palm trees and 8

when they come across child pornography by nurb432 · 2011-07-12 11:41 · Score: 1

Its always about the kids, as we give up our freedoms with fanfare and waiving flags.

This is how democracy dies.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Forget spam, viruses and scareware by future+assassin · 2011-07-12 11:41 · Score: 1

when this law comes in it'll be way more profitable to set up backdoors and use other peoples computers to visit specially set up child porn sites so that the ISP keep the logs and then sends them a nice message that say they $50K or you get reported for visiting child porn site.

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

Call me a new-age hippie by atari2600a · 2011-07-12 11:44 · Score: 1

But if we only made drug & CP possession only a misdemeanor with maybe some mandatory *Anonymous counseling or something, the prisons would suddenly stop overflowing. Then again, nearly half of the FBI agents would be out of a job. I suppose those jobs are more important than getting real help to people...

Re:Call me a new-age hippie by betterunixthanunix · 2011-07-13 02:47 · Score: 1

mandatory *Anonymous counseling
Except that the US government is prohibited from requiring any citizen, even a criminal, from engaging in religious activity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#United_States_Court_rulings

Not that it really matters, given the exceptionally poor success rate of 12 step programs.

--
Palm trees and 8

It's about kiddy porn because we beat terrorism by Animats · 2011-07-12 11:45 · Score: 2

In the black and white world of "you're either with us or against us", you are either for this bill and against child pornography or you are against this bill and for child pornography. If you try bringing some sanity into it, they will pound that point and make it seem you're eluding it.

Previously, the big excuse for surveillance was "terrorism". Now that a SEAL team not only killed bin Laden, but captured all his records, it's clear that he hadn't been accomplishing much besides hiding out for years. So the surveillance lobby has to fall back on kiddie porn again.

The biggest current threats to the United States are the Mississippi River system, the Federal deficit, and white-collar crime in the financial sector.

Re:It's about kiddy porn because we beat terrorism by houstonbofh · 2011-07-12 16:53 · Score: 1

The biggest current threats to the United States are the Mississippi River system, the Federal deficit, and white-collar crime in the financial sector.
But out of all those, only the river will recede. OK, maybe white collar crime will too...
Re:It's about kiddy porn because we beat terrorism by currently_awake · 2011-07-13 03:24 · Score: 1

When the US defaults, the currency collapses to peso levels, and unemployment reaches 70% I expect there won't be very much white collar anything.

Of course they do! by Vrallis · 2011-07-12 11:48 · Score: 1

Of course law enforcement wants yet another invasion on the public's rights!

If law enforcement had its way every person would have a surgically attached collar with GPS, microphones and cameras, and tampering it would trigger explosives (which could also be set off remotely at any time--without a judge's order, of course--by any LEO).

Then again, it worked for the Barast...

Change. by Jazari · 2011-07-12 12:11 · Score: 1

No need to worry. Obama would surely veto such a law if passed by Congress. He said we didn't need to make a false choice between our security and our liberty.

Another step on the way to 1984 by Eravnrekaree · 2011-07-12 12:16 · Score: 1

This is a really bad idea. A data breach WILL happen, i can gaurantee it. In fact, some with sinister motives will want to get that data, those of major corporations may want to get information on people who are trying to form a union, for instance, or a corrupt government official may want to get information on people critical of him.

What also concerns me is how this sort of thing will likely simply destroy privacy altogether and as well the system of search warrants may be rendered ineffective. Search warrants really need to be about particular people. Therefore you have to know who those people are already. If you ask for a search warrant for all who looked at a website, you dont know who those people are already, its basically just a blanket thing that pulls in massive amounts of data and allows massive survellance. It is indeed unconstitutional, of course. This is a very dangerous tendancy, and tis even possible they make up pages specifically for the purpose of people accidentily looking at the page, perhaps even, for instance, to develop a page about communism and then place a little bit of what is considered illegal somewhere on there, and viola, you get to arrest a bunch of communists.

Duty to take a governmental action by WebManWalking · 2011-07-12 12:26 · Score: 1

The element that makes an individual's actions the actions of government is duty. If you have a duty to take a governmental action, and you're in good faith performance of that duty, your actions are the actions of government. So you don't have to be a government employee to be an agent of government. You could be a government contractor (duty incurred by contract), a volunteer with the consent of government (duty incurred by less formal agreement) or even a conscript, forced to take a government action against your will, as in this case.

If ISPs are forced to retain these logs, that force would impose a duty to take a government action. They'd get in trouble if they didn't do it. That makes their actions the actions of government. And that means that the action has to obey the Constitution. In other words, it becomes a government search without probable cause that a crime has been committed. And that makes it subject to the Exclusionary Rule and the Doctrine of the Fruits of the Poisoned Tree.

The government cannot force you to do something that the government itself is not constitutionally allowed to do. Any attempt to do so by legislation would be unconstitutional, not a law, never was, IMVHO.

Re:Duty to take a governmental action by slick7 · 2011-07-12 16:17 · Score: 1

The government cannot force you to do something that the government itself is not constitutionally allowed to do. Any attempt to do so by legislation would be unconstitutional, not a law, never was, IMVHO.
Do you mean, like, bail out Wallstreet and their bankster buddies, or sending needed money to rogue governments to be our friends. Did you have any say in these discussions? Is your imput even necessary? What about the missing 14 billion dollars that went to the auto industry, is that important? I hope you are still working, have your home, not in some shitty foxhole in some G-D forsaken foreign land wondering if all the bullshit raining down on you fron an unseen enemy is worth it.

--
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Re:Duty to take a governmental action by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-07-13 01:19 · Score: 1

The government cannot force you to do something that the government itself is not constitutionally allowed to do. Any attempt to do so by legislation would be unconstitutional, not a law, never was, IMVHO.
If only this were the case. You do realize that previous to the War on Drugs the last time the government tried to ban a substance they needed a constitutional amendment to do so. The biggest issue is people simply accept what BS the government shovels in them. We finally have started to see some cracks in this with the push back on the Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obama Care). Those fighting it may be fighting it for the wrong reasons, don't like Obama, but are fighting against it. Even if one takes the most liberal (not the liberal political view) interpretation of the commerce clause or the general welfare clause of the US constitution it seems the individual mandate is unconstitutional. In my view single payer system would have at least been constitutional since congress has the power to tax and spend and great latitude has been given on what they can tax and what the can spend.

--
Time to offend someone

Here is who you complain to. by Greymoon · 2011-07-12 13:17 · Score: 1

Bitchin' on Slashdot is fun, but ....
If you really care, write these clowns who introduce nonsense legislation and your own Senator/Congressman/woman.

Congressman Lamar Smith
Washington D.C. Office
2409 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-4236 202-225-8628 fax
Hours: 8:30am - 6:00pm EST, Monday - Friday

San Antonio Office
1100 NE Loop 410 Suite 640
San Antonio, TX 78209
210-821-5024 210-821-5947 fax
Hours: 8am - 5pm CST, Monday - Friday

Washington, DC Office
Debbie Wasserman Schultz 118 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-7931
Fax: (202) 226-2052

Aventura, FL Office
Debbie Wasserman Schultz 19200 West Country Club Drive, 3rd Floor
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305) 936-5724
Fax: (305) 932-9664

Pembroke Pines, FL Office
Debbie Wasserman Schultz 10100 Pines Blvd.
Pembroke Pines, FL 33026
Phone: (954) 437-3936
Fax: (954) 437-4776

Re:Here is who you complain to. by RazorSharp · 2011-07-12 16:12 · Score: 1

Mod parent up. Bitching to your congressman actually works, especially when you get others to do so as well. If you live in their district they'll usually give you a personal response.
As much as I hate social networks, if you're on 'em use 'em for good. Make sure people you're connected with contact their congressmen as well.
The biggest problem with congress is that the most vocal citizens are the biggest idiots so that's who the congressmen listen to. Why do the brightest minds always end up being the lazy cynics? All it takes is an e-mail. One e-mail can change your congressman's mind regarding a issue. At the very least it will make them aware that a vocal constituent disagrees with them.

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Re:Here is who you complain to. by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-07-13 01:32 · Score: 1

All I ever get back from most of my representatives is a stand form letter du jour (a different one for each issue), and a request for campaign donations when the next elections comes around since I had contacted them. The only exception I have ever had on this was my local senator to the state of Minnesota (Senate district 37 Chris Gerlach) who actually writes back a letter addressing specific point I bring up. I frequently write, e-mail and call my representatives (each one probably 3-4 times a year) I receive and actually read the Minnesota government publication session weekly so I know what bills have been submitted and what is going on so I am probably the worst kind of constituent for a sitting politician, one that is actually informed and active.

--
Time to offend someone

Like copyright by Phillibuster · 2011-07-12 13:20 · Score: 1

once they have 18 months they'll say it's not long enough and they need 36 months. Rinse and repeat until logs are retained for the lifetime of the customer plus 70 years.

exempting wireless? by TheGratefulNet · 2011-07-12 13:31 · Score: 2

from a related TFA:

A Republican aide to the House Judiciary committee, who did not want to be identified, said the bill exempts wireless providers because their networks are designed in such a way that IP addresses are assigned to multiple users or accounts and they are "not technologically capable of retaining the type of data that law enforcement needs because that's not how their system works."

(emph mine).

so....

the ones they most want to catch will probably be aware of what avoidance tactics to take - and will migrate to where its 'safe'!

you've just dragnetted the whole population and missed who you SAY you are after.

of course, its a ruse. you are after US, not the bad guys, but the good guys, mostly. you want to be able to pull up dirt on anyone, on command, to use as it suits you.

pathetic what passes for 'law enforcement' these days.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."

Relevant quote by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-12 13:32 · Score: 1

The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.

--Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Because it causes people's brains to shut down by Sycraft-fu · 2011-07-12 14:17 · Score: 2

Child porn is one of those things that can make someone who is otherwise reasonably logical go in to total witch hunt mode. So if you go to them and say "We want your ISP to log everything you do so that we can examine it if we think you've committed any crime, drug use, tax evasion, etc." The person says "Hell no! You don't need that kind of access." However when they say "We want your ISP to log everything you do so that we can catch people who look at child porn," and the person says "Ya! Burn the pedos! I'll give up any rights to stop them!"

It is something that law enforcement has discovered is a great way to get normal people to just stop thinking and give them what they want. They use it to shut down argument because if someone argues against it they pull out the "So you don't care about children?" card and people get all witch-hunty and don't listen to arguments.

It is just one of those things that is extremely effective in America (terrorism is nearly as effective). You claim that you need to do X to prevent child pornography and people will give up rights that they wouldn't if you claim it is needed to prevent other kinds of crimes.

Re:Because it causes people's brains to shut down by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-12 16:12 · Score: 1

It is just one of those things that is extremely effective in America (terrorism is nearly as effective). You claim that you need to do X to prevent child pornography and people will give up rights that they wouldn't if you claim it is needed to prevent other kinds of crimes.
Not just in America. This is what Brits have to say on the subject.

This isn't even possible in the first place by qzzpjs · 2011-07-12 14:26 · Score: 1

It's one thing for the guy running a web server to keep logs for 18 months. That's probably easy given cheap disk and compression. But the web site host is not an ISP. They could be anybody, and they're probably not going to record logs if they have material they want to hide.

It would be impossible for an ISP to record all traffic though. I have a 100 Mbit/s connection to the internet now. Can they possible write a record to disk of every connection I make over HTTP? How about NNTP, SMTP, etc. Then, multiply that across tens of thousands of users at today's broadband speeds. It just can't be done!

For an analogy, have someone hop on a subway train and record in a notebook every time one person speaks to another person. Then, assume there are 200 people on each subway car, multiplied by 200 cars, multiplied by hundreds of cities... You'd exhaust the worlds paper supply in a week!

At best, they should be able to give a warrant to an ISP to record a specific IP address for a period of time just like a normal wire tap would happen.

Storage? by wfstanle · 2011-07-12 14:38 · Score: 1

I am surprised that there are not many comments about the amount of storage that would need. If EVERY packet that [asses through an ISP in the US was kept for 18 months. How many storage would be needed. Of course, the ISP would pass that extra cost on to the consumer. Internet connections in the US are expensive enough without adding the cost of that.

By the way, It is my opinion you can't convince the "think of the children" crowd on legal matters. They don't care if a proposed law might be unconstitutional, they will try to pass it anyways . If you mention how expensive the proposed law would be, there might be a chance of torpedoing the proposed law.

Just say "yes" by inode_buddha · 2011-07-12 14:44 · Score: 1

The ISP's should just say "yes" and then send them a bill for the data retention. Watch how fast it gets retracted when local voters have to foot the bill through taxes and etc.

--
C|N>K

Re:Another cop who doesn't know his job by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2011-07-12 15:51 · Score: 1

not just control freaks. They are fattening their wallet while on their job.

http://news.yahoo.com/arizona-town-disarray-mayor-alleges-corruption-012411346.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPY3BIsVQq8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C6uQ1O6dTk

Welcome to USSA!

--
New Economic Perspectives

Re:Just how much data are we talking here? by houstonbofh · 2011-07-12 16:52 · Score: 1

Assuming a 2 hour lease time, and 5000 customers, that is 60000 lines a day. That times 20 characters per line, is 1,200,000 bytes. Roughly 1 meg per day. So, 500 meg for the period in question.

Yeah, I was hoping too, but no dice here.

Re:Did anyone actually read the article/law? by houstonbofh · 2011-07-12 16:57 · Score: 1

No, my DHCP server is getting a wifi card!

not needed by Gravis+Zero · 2011-07-12 16:58 · Score: 1

if law enforcement can do their job in a timely manner then they wont need this level of logging.
if they cannot then perhaps we need better people in law enforcement.

the system serves the people, not the other way around.

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.

As long as it's only DHCP logs, I'm OK with this by Nonesuch · 2011-07-12 17:16 · Score: 1

People talk about this records retention issue like law enforcement is asking ISPs to store full packet captures of every session and decrypted SSL traffic, or even just netflow data on every customer's every transaction.

If you read the articles, they're really just talking about storing the dynamic IP address (DHCP) assignment records, showing when each customer was handed a particular IP to use, and when they stopped using it. So perhaps 1-2 records per week per customer, or less -- I still have the same "dynamic" IP from my cablemodem provider as when I first signed up a year ago. To oversimplify, it's the difference between asking a hotel to put a camera in every room versus just keeping a register of who has received a key and whether they've checked out yet. And this law lets the wireless carriers keep running their no-tell motel operation.

--

I do not deploy Linux. Ever.

Hippie will tell you what the real crime is by dugeen · 2011-07-12 21:19 · Score: 1

As far as I'm concerned it's very clear who the real 'predators' are in this scenario. That sort of ridiculous macho bullshit deprieves their claims of any credibility.

...and in other news... by spikedvodka · 2011-07-12 23:39 · Score: 1

The Pope is catholic, Water is wet, and stock in Hard Drive manufacturers is climbing

Really, I'm surprised they're not going for 24 or even 48 months. Of course law enforcement wants logs. (much easier to request than active taps/trace/wiretaps) and they can go back in time effectively.

my concern isn't primarily with law enforcement having access to logs that far back, but with 2 things
1) selling them for profit (see recent Supreme court case about dr.'s prescribing habits)
2) use in civil cases.

--
I will not give in to the terrorists. I will not become fearful.

Bet your ass by ThatsNotPudding · 2011-07-12 23:43 · Score: 1

they also want an exemption from this Panopticon for law enforcement officers and their families. Another one for lawmakers and their staff will be added during legislation. Pigs.

Agreed by WebManWalking · 2011-07-13 03:08 · Score: 1

The fact that the government did something doesn't mean that they're allowed to do it. The biggest problem is that people simply except BS.

doctor patient confidentiality by currently_awake · 2011-07-13 03:21 · Score: 1

Is monitoring the communications of a doctor a violation of doctor patient confidentiality rules? What about the clergy? If it is then becoming a priest of FSM should be a simple way to ensure no logging.

Not always by davidwr · 2011-07-13 05:15 · Score: 1

Terrorism, drugs, and "piracy" (copyright, not Somalia coastline) are sometimes used to justify new freedom-killing laws without even a mention of photos of children in adult situations.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

unreasonable search and seizure- by proxy by niftymitch · 2011-07-13 06:00 · Score: 1

This is unreasonable search and seizure by proxy.

To require retention for periods longer than needed
by the ISP is seizure of all our internet history.
Clearly to me ALL is unreasonable.

And while the data size is astounding it
is yet another liability that the ISP must
manage. For example the whitehouse.gov
ISP must retain this info for 18 months.
This gives hackers 18 months to hack the
data and punt it to an iranianwikileaker
or perhaps a koreanwikileaker...

Or perhaps this is a conspiracy by archive
media companies and data mining companies.

--
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.

And here it is... by cffrost · 2011-07-13 12:24 · Score: 1

https://btjunkie.org/torrent/Witch-Hunt-2008-DvDrip-English-Documentary-FxW/435873065e140ccdacc35c3ebb5c40bb81c27163dea7

--
Thank you, Edward Snowden.

"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan

Re:Save Yourselves! by mewshi_nya · 2011-07-13 12:56 · Score: 1

No snowflake in an avalanche has ever looked back and said, "Look what I did!"

Slashdot Mirror

Law Enforcement Still Wants Mandatory ISP Log Retention

158 of 226 comments (clear)