Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Law Enforcement Still Wants Mandatory ISP Log Retention

Posted by Soulskill on from the they-know-how-often-you-google-bieber dept.

schwit1 writes with this snippet from CNet: "Law enforcement representatives are planning to endorse a proposed federal law that would require Internet service providers to store logs about their customers for 18 months. ... Michael Brown, sheriff in Bedford County, Va., and a board member and executive committee member of the National Sheriffs' Association, is planning to argue that a new law is necessary because Internet providers do not store customer records long enough. 'The limited data retention time and lack of uniformity among retention from company to company significantly hinders law enforcement's ability to identify predators when they come across child pornography,' according to a copy of Brown's remarks. Any stored logs could, however, be used to prosecute any type of crime."

39 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. And there it is... by sconeu · · 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.
    1. Re:And there it is... by mandelbr0t · · 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
    2. Re:And there it is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1196112/

      Is this not it?

    3. Re:And there it is... by racermd · · 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
    4. Re:And there it is... by betterunixthanunix · · 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
    5. Re:And there it is... by vivian · · 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)

    6. Re:And there it is... by ShakaUVM · · 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.

    7. Re:And there it is... by AmiMoJo · · 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
    8. Re:And there it is... by ultranova · · 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.

  2. Law Enforcement Tools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Law Enforcement Tools by ridgecritter · · 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.

    2. Re:Law Enforcement Tools by drinkypoo · · 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.'"
  3. Would You Want To Be Followed Everywhere? by Nom+du+Keyboard · · 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."
  4. It's ALWAYS about child pornography by euroq · · 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.
    1. Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Anybody who questions the seriousness of child pornography is probably a baby-raper, or a communist. True fact.

    2. Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by betterunixthanunix · · 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
    3. Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by Veetox · · 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.

    4. Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by Kjella · · 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
    5. Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In the words of the great Jello Biafra:

      "Want to see child porn? Join the Vice Squad."

    6. Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by future+assassin · · 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*
    7. Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by Darkness404 · · 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.
    8. Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by interkin3tic · · 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.

    9. Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography by betterunixthanunix · · 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
  5. Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by garcia · · 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'.

    1. Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by sneakyimp · · Score: 2

      Mod parent up.

    2. Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by Tyr07 · · 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.

    3. Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by gman003 · · 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.

    4. Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by initialE · · 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.
    5. Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules by TheGratefulNet · · 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."
  6. Discount by mbone · · 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.

    1. Re:Discount by bill_mcgonigle · · 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)
  7. Internet Cafes by ShakaUVM · · 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?

    1. Re:Internet Cafes by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · 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.

    2. Re:Internet Cafes by Darkness404 · · 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.
  8. Needle Location Solution: a bigger haystack? by retroworks · · 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
  9. Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  10. It's about kiddy porn because we beat terrorism by Animats · · 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.

  11. exempting wireless? by TheGratefulNet · · 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."
  12. Because it causes people's brains to shut down by Sycraft-fu · · 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.