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."

18 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 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)

  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?

  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 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
    3. 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."

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

  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 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.