Lamar Smith's bill's language is ambiguous. It requires, at a minimum, the retention of personal identification linked to IPs. The contention that that Smith's bill does not explicitly mandate the retention of IM and chat logs ignores a very important fact. The Attorney General gets to interpret the bill.
Alberto Gonzales is the man that recently advocated revocation of Habeus Corpus, citing the lack of its specific constitutional foundations. Gonzales has an expansionist view of the Constitution, as evidenced by his moronic opinion that specific protections not enumerated in the constitution are open season for federal government. I have a feeling that his interpretation would augment the executive branch's power. This is just is one major problem with this bill-- it's ambiguous language is too broad, and Gonzales could liberally interpret the legislation however he feels.
More generally, this bill is part of a national problem-- the belief that politicians are justified in sacrificing our privacy. This "struggle" they face, balancing individual liberty against security, is a nonexistent red herring. We can be both safe and free.
The bill also represents a scary possibility. If passed, it would establish a legal precedent for acceptable invasion of personal privacy. Socially, this precedent has already been established. The technology industry has already justified, and is currently implementing, the widespread, viral invasion of our personal computer-- in the form of DRM protection of music and software.
All of this must be qualified by the following--Smith's bill is aimed at stopping child predators, and I understand and wholeheartedly support his desire to protect our children. This bill's reach extends far beyond the sick and twisted world of pedophiles, though-- it requires retention of everyone's records. Alberto Gonzales could theoretically interpret the bill to include widespread monitoring of internet use. Including AIM conversations and E-mails.
I do not believe this bill will make us safer. I am interested to see how many times an ISP could not produce personal information on their customers, and how many times failure of an ISP to produce personal information translated into the loss of a conviction for child predators. My guess is none.
One of two things can happen with Lamar Smith's bill in the short term. First, it could die, or second, It could be amended-- perhaps with limits on the retention of records to convicted sex offenders.
This bill represents the beginning of a slippery slope for internet privacy, and a more general affront on free speech. We must not let our leaders continue the abolition of rational thought.
I interpret bills for a major civil rights lobby, and this bill's language is ambiguous. It requires, at a minimum, the retention of personal identification linked to IPs. Whereas I do see your point, that it does not enumerate retention of IM and chat logs, this draft bill is STILL scary. If the legislation passes, it is up to Alberto Gonzales to interpret it. This, the man that recently advocated the revoke of Habeus Corpus, citing the lack of its specific constitutional enumeration. The problem is that the bill's language is broad, and the AG could ASSSUME that it gives him certain powers. The bill would be less scary if it was amended with language that limits the amount of liberal interpretation that could take place.
In the end, this draft represents a common problem, and a scary possibility. Politicians struggle balancing individual liberty and safety, and if passed, this bill could establish a precedent of invasion of personal privacy. All of this must be qualified by the following-- I understand the desire to protect our children at all costs. It is an emotionally charged issue, but we must not allow rational thought to be trampled by emotionally charged debate.
I do not believe this bill will make us safer. I'd be interested to see how many times and ISP could not produce personal information on the IPs they regulate, and how many times failure of an ISP to produce personal information translated into the loss of a conviction for child predators.
This bill represents the beginning of a slippery slope for internet privacy, and a more general affront on free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Lamar Smith's bill's language is ambiguous. It requires, at a minimum, the retention of personal identification linked to IPs. The contention that that Smith's bill does not explicitly mandate the retention of IM and chat logs ignores a very important fact. The Attorney General gets to interpret the bill. Alberto Gonzales is the man that recently advocated revocation of Habeus Corpus, citing the lack of its specific constitutional foundations. Gonzales has an expansionist view of the Constitution, as evidenced by his moronic opinion that specific protections not enumerated in the constitution are open season for federal government. I have a feeling that his interpretation would augment the executive branch's power. This is just is one major problem with this bill-- it's ambiguous language is too broad, and Gonzales could liberally interpret the legislation however he feels. More generally, this bill is part of a national problem-- the belief that politicians are justified in sacrificing our privacy. This "struggle" they face, balancing individual liberty against security, is a nonexistent red herring. We can be both safe and free. The bill also represents a scary possibility. If passed, it would establish a legal precedent for acceptable invasion of personal privacy. Socially, this precedent has already been established. The technology industry has already justified, and is currently implementing, the widespread, viral invasion of our personal computer-- in the form of DRM protection of music and software. All of this must be qualified by the following--Smith's bill is aimed at stopping child predators, and I understand and wholeheartedly support his desire to protect our children. This bill's reach extends far beyond the sick and twisted world of pedophiles, though-- it requires retention of everyone's records. Alberto Gonzales could theoretically interpret the bill to include widespread monitoring of internet use. Including AIM conversations and E-mails. I do not believe this bill will make us safer. I am interested to see how many times an ISP could not produce personal information on their customers, and how many times failure of an ISP to produce personal information translated into the loss of a conviction for child predators. My guess is none. One of two things can happen with Lamar Smith's bill in the short term. First, it could die, or second, It could be amended-- perhaps with limits on the retention of records to convicted sex offenders. This bill represents the beginning of a slippery slope for internet privacy, and a more general affront on free speech. We must not let our leaders continue the abolition of rational thought.
I interpret bills for a major civil rights lobby, and this bill's language is ambiguous. It requires, at a minimum, the retention of personal identification linked to IPs. Whereas I do see your point, that it does not enumerate retention of IM and chat logs, this draft bill is STILL scary. If the legislation passes, it is up to Alberto Gonzales to interpret it. This, the man that recently advocated the revoke of Habeus Corpus, citing the lack of its specific constitutional enumeration. The problem is that the bill's language is broad, and the AG could ASSSUME that it gives him certain powers. The bill would be less scary if it was amended with language that limits the amount of liberal interpretation that could take place. In the end, this draft represents a common problem, and a scary possibility. Politicians struggle balancing individual liberty and safety, and if passed, this bill could establish a precedent of invasion of personal privacy. All of this must be qualified by the following-- I understand the desire to protect our children at all costs. It is an emotionally charged issue, but we must not allow rational thought to be trampled by emotionally charged debate. I do not believe this bill will make us safer. I'd be interested to see how many times and ISP could not produce personal information on the IPs they regulate, and how many times failure of an ISP to produce personal information translated into the loss of a conviction for child predators. This bill represents the beginning of a slippery slope for internet privacy, and a more general affront on free speech.