Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

FBI Renews Push for ISP Data Retention Laws

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the you-can-trust-us dept.

Privacy 179

mytrip brings us a news.com story about the FBI's efforts to make records of users' activities available to law enforcement for a much longer time. Several members of Congress also lent their support to the idea that such data retention should be mandatory for a period of up to 2 years. Quoting: "Based on the statements at Wednesday's hearing and previous calls for new laws in this area, the scope of a mandatory data retention law remains fuzzy. It could mean forcing companies to store data for two years about what Internet addresses are assigned to which customers (Comcast said in 2006 that it would be retaining those records for six months). Or it could be far more intrusive. It could mean keeping track of e-mail and instant messaging correspondents and what Web pages users visit. Some Democratic politicians have called for data retention laws to extend to domain name registries and Web hosting companies and even social networking sites."

cancel ×

179 comments

That means phone calls too, right? (4, Interesting)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175718)

Particularly the phone calls of our congressmen and presidents to lobbyists and such, top secret or not. As long as that provision is on the bill I'm fine with it because you know it will never ever ever get passed.

Re:That means phone calls too, right? (2, Insightful)

DogDude (805747) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175974)

Oh please. Are you serious? The President routinely ignores laws that apply to him already, via "signing statements". You really think that our Congressmen wouldn't include a loophole that their communications couldn't be archived? C'mon.

Congress First! (5, Funny)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176594)

After all, we know congress and the presidency are both crammed with child molesters and other predators. Will someone please think of the children and Xray those bastards daily?

Re:That means phone calls too, right? (2, Insightful)

doctorfaustus (103662) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176010)

There you go... Maybe we can defeat this new initiative by showing politicians that their own emails would be retained as well... As the parent implies, politicians hate transparency above all else. In Missouri, for example, Governor Blunt decided the open records act didn't apply to his office's email. Too bad for citizens trying to keep their eye on things.... One wonders what we'll find if those emails are ever able to be reconstructed. (Yeah, they were deleted too....) Now maybe if the ISP had been forced to retain them?

Re:That means phone calls too, right? (2, Funny)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176112)

>Particularly the phone calls of our congressmen and presidents to lobbyists and such, top secret or not.

yeah, yeah. They can bite my ass. Stick that up your datapipe and retain it for a while, uncle sam.

Re:That means phone calls too, right? (4, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176222)

Politicians make the laws so they don't have to be subject to them.

It would be madness to expect them to be subject to the same laws that we, the masses, are.

We drink and drive and we get a ticket, jail time and sky high insurance rates.

They drink and drive and the cops give them a ride home.

We kill someone and it is jail time.

They kill someone and they get re-elected.

Social order would be destroyed if there weren't paragons of non-virtue standing tall upon the backs of the masses.

Re:That means phone calls too, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23176280)

Look at it this way: if this were a law, there wouldn't be a problem with the "missing" whitehouse email, since the ISP would have a copy.

ok... (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175740)

...and will the FBI be helping subsidize the cost of storage solutions for ISPs too?

Finacing method. (1)

iamsamed (1276082) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175760)

They could finance the storage by selling the list of all the porn sites they'll be collecting.

Re:ok... (4, Insightful)

PoliTech (998983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176018)

Great, another Unfunded Mandate, but instead of bankrupting your friendly state or local governments with no funding to pay for the requirement, they are going to start hitting the citizenry directly.

ISPs will simply pass the cost of maintaining and storing all of that data right to their customers. Never mind the privacy implications.

What Political philosophy attacks perceived weakness of democracy, corruption of capitalism, promises vigorous foreign aid as well as aggressive military programs, and undertakes federal control of private business and economy to reduce "social friction"?

I won't supply an answer because I'm already flirting with Godwins Law.

Re:ok... (1)

moderatorrater (1095745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176242)

Great, another Unfunded Mandate, but instead of bankrupting your friendly state or local governments with no funding to pay for the requirement, they are going to start hitting the citizenry directly.
Whereas with a Funded Mandate they would just hit the citizenry indirectly through the taxes, thereby adding another few layers of bureaucracy that would require paying for. Much more efficient.

As long as Congress clearly specifies what needs to be stored, and as long as what's being stored isn't ridiculous, then I have no problem with this. Storing which IP addresses are assigned isn't that big of a deal. My IP address changed maybe once a month, for dialup maybe even 3x per day. Worst case scenario, less than 1 megabyte / month / customer. That's less than 30 gigabytes of storage per customer to keep two years worth of records; somehow, I think the ISPs will be able to afford it. Much more than that, however, and it gets ridiculous.

Re:ok... (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176728)

Are you serious? Even by your 30gig estimate which is a conservative figure you still have millions of subscribers. There are over 80 million subscribers in the U.S. alone. That's 2400 million gigabytes to store all that information to accomplish what?

Re:ok... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23176756)

I'm already flirting with Godwins Law.

Don't sweat it -- the whole "Godwin's Law" bullshit is a joke anyway. It got transmogrified from a simple, humorous observation into a fatuous "law" in a simple-minded attempt to terminate discussion in favor of the moron who cites it. People ought to grow up and just stop the shit -- it's about as adult as the lunatic attempt to "frist psot" and should just be retired, as being the mark of a retard.

Re:ok... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23176190)

hope not.. that might start a fad on capitol hill of passing whatever snooping/spying laws anybody wants so long as its "funded".

Clog those logs (4, Interesting)

Teran9 (1163643) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175776)

If web page requests are added to logging I'll start running an idle process on my router that crawls the web. I might just do that anyway.

Interfering with police investigations? (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176174)

I see some Rubber Glove Love in your future.

Interfering with a terrorist investigation? Guantánamo Bay has nice weather.

Re:Clog those logs (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176254)

If web page requests are added to logging I'll start running an idle process on my router that crawls the web. I might just do that anyway.
You might want to consider what could happen if your crawler accidentally landed on a page of kiddie porn.

Thanks Dems! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23175784)

Good thing November is just a few months away!

I am not 'their' citizen... (5, Insightful)

TheLazySci-FiAuthor (1089561) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175800)

...they are MY government.

At least I thought this is supposed to be 'my' government. If it were, then why can't I see everything they are doing? Why when documents are 'declassified' is 90% of the text blanked-out?

It's for my own good? Well, how can I refute that when I have no evidence, and no evidence can be obtained.

One of those double-binds, eh?

Re:I am not 'their' citizen... (1, Insightful)

peipas (809350) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175910)

Most things that stay classified are probably just to hide hemorrhaging incompetence.

Re:I am not 'their' citizen... (1)

Watson Ladd (955755) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176052)

Judges can and do hear cases where evidence must be surpressed, for instance litigation over confidential contracts. Of course, something involving the CIA might require Congress to specifically commission an investigator. IANAL, and someone who is can say more about this than I can.

Re:I am not 'their' citizen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23176766)

Im not your government consumer!

Re:I am not 'their' citizen... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23176790)

Now comes the question, do I really want to post something here? and if I do, will I pay for it later, and will it be used against me in the court of "law"?

I remember reading somewhere... (5, Insightful)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175804)

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

Now , where was that? , I can't quite place it, maybe it was in a fairy tale my mom read me as a child?

Oh well, I know that I remember it from somewhere.

Cheers

Re:I remember reading somewhere... (5, Funny)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175928)

That document version has been phased out for the 2.0 version.

Re:I remember reading somewhere... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23176348)

That document version has been phased out for the 2.0 version.
Possible translation: In the interest of freedom all original copies have been secured and ALL public copies will all be migrated to ISO approved OOXML demontrating the level of Federal support for Freedom of Information.

Re:I remember reading somewhere... (1, Funny)

megaditto (982598) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175938)

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "
A couple of things:
i) notice how it says "against unreasonable searches and seizures," which means that unreasonable searches OR seizures are perfectly legal so long as you do one but not the other.
ii) persons, houses, etc. does not include electronic data or transmission thereof.
iii) all of the above is trumped by Article 2 anyways, which says the Prez can ignore the Constitution in order to uphold the Constitution
iv) if you got nothing to hide you are not a paedophile.
v) would you rather the Govt collected your emails or your dead bodies? terrorists LOVE the Constitution
vi) think of the children

Re:I remember reading somewhere... (3, Insightful)

EMeta (860558) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175966)

Not that I agree with the proposal, but it doesn't relate to the 6th Amendment particularly. The FBI wants the ability to get a warrant for the information if they find they may need it, up to 2 years later. ISPs would imply alter where they put these numbers to permanent storage (if they don't already; they very well may).

The significant dangers of this proposal come from the FBI (and others) not abiding by constitutional protections. The fact that this proposal would make it easier for them to do bad things doesn't change the inherent constitutionality of the proposal.

Re:I remember reading somewhere... (1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175992)

Not that I agree with the proposal, but it doesn't relate to the 6th Amendment particularly.
lolwut?

Re:I remember reading somewhere... (1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176022)

Not that I agree with the proposal, but it doesn't relate to the 6th Amendment particularly.
And for a real post. Not shit it doesn't since the 6th Amendment deals with your right to have access to a speedy jury trial.

Re:I remember reading somewhere... (1)

mosinu (987941) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176590)

Not that I agree with the proposal, but it doesn't relate to the 6th Amendment particularly.
And for a real post. Not shit it doesn't since the 6th Amendment deals with your right to have access to a speedy jury trial.
Ummm next time google it before you correct someone. From http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm [constitution.org] Article the sixth The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Re:I remember reading somewhere... (4, Interesting)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176050)

The only hope for taking our country back is to recompile our government from the source code and start again. Have you ever been at a point in a project where you just have to stop and reassess why you're doing things the way you are? Project America needs a serious rethink.

Re:I remember reading somewhere... (2, Interesting)

Narpak (961733) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176356)

Not a bad point as such. The current tangle of government (laws, regulations, bureaucracy and the election process) is the result of centuries of minor changes and adoptions (and some big ones). It is far from an optimal system and I think it would be prudent to actively research and debate improvements that could make the various aspects of nation management better and more democratic.

Laws should always be reasonable and solid, as it is, it seem to me, there are loopholes and cracks that can be exploited by anyone with the resources to do so. One of the fundamentals should always be to ensure that the system itself is running as well as it can; based on experience, research and citizen input.

Re:I remember reading somewhere... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23176398)

That sounds like a good idea, but the last time someone tried for fork Project America, there was a good deal of bloodshed. The Project America leads tend to act like Theo when they get crossed...

Re:I remember reading somewhere... (3, Insightful)

bendodge (998616) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176520)

Project America needs a serious rethink.
Like a Ron Paul.

Re:I remember reading somewhere... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23176588)

That's so two months ago.

Such easy questions. (1)

jd (1658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176162)

You have to remember, however, that the Government is paranoid when it comes to the citizenry, making all searches (and indeed activities) entirely reasonable, as viewed by those subject to such paranoia. Besides which, the President gave himself powers, oh, 2001-ish, in which he can declare anyone he so chooses to be a de-facto terrorist on his word alone, and it's obvious to any judge (especially those not wanting to be arrested) that terrorists may have any posession or personal information confiscated and used as the Government pleases.

After Rockall was given independence from the United Kigngdom, you will probably find it has the best record on democracy of any western nation.

Re:I remember reading somewhere... (2, Insightful)

okmijnuhb (575581) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176382)

Don't forget the word "unreasonable" in the context of this current administration. The fact, is there is not much they consider unreasonable.

democrats? (3, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175806)

Some Democratic politicians have called for data retention laws to extend to domain name registries and Web hosting companies and even social networking sites.

I thought we had established the republicans as the evil enemy.

you mean the democrats are also evil?

data retention is for spying. spying is ALWAYS a crime against man and fundamentally evil. data retention will come back to bite you, make no mistake about it. this is worrying (but sadly not unexpected).

still, no matter how bad it gets, it could only be worse in australia or england (I'm NOT kidding about that, either).

Re:democrats? (5, Insightful)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175834)

Also lending their support for data retention were Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla., who said that Internet chat rooms were crammed with sexual predators, and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary committee and a previous data retention enthusiast.
This law has bipartisan support. Anyone who is trying to paint this as if only one side or the other pushing it is just playing politics. Not to mention this idea was originally pushed by our wonderful friend Alberto Gonzales.

Re:democrats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23176154)

I thought we had established the republicans as the evil enemy.
This law has bipartisan support. Anyone who is trying to paint this as if only one side or the other pushing it is just playing politics.

I think it would be best if we just started calling them "people" and time to start holding these "people" accountable for their values and not their political affiliation. "Bipartisan" means jack diddly.

Re:democrats? (1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176188)

I totally agree. I was just trying to head off the pass where people try to contend that it's the Democrats only pushing this idea. In fact two other bills proposing the same thing were sponsored by Republicans.

Re:democrats? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23176200)

This law has bipartisan support.
No, it just has the support of one party: the Republican/Democrat one.

Anyone who is trying to paint this as if only one side or the other pushing it is just playing politics.
True, but since it's everyone's civic duty to play politics, so I won't fault anyone for doing that. What's important, is that it is just one side who is pushing it: them. The side opposed to it: us.

Re:democrats? (2, Insightful)

EMeta (860558) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176074)

Forced detention is also a crime against man. But it can be used to prevent greater crimes. [If used responsibly with rehabilitation as a primary goal, etc.] I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the access to phone records by police agencies has done more good than harm over the last 40 years. IP information is certainly of the same type.

That said, I don't think this proposal is prudent. Our major law enforcement agencies have not shown themselves to be trustworthy of late, and our congress does not seem to have the will to stop their abuse. Therefore the only rational choice would be to deny this proposal, as it is at the time being likely to do more harm than good.

Re:democrats? (1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176138)

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the access to phone records by police agencies has done more good than harm over the last 40 years.
I guess it depends on what your priorities are. If you think that the protected rights of the citizens should be tantamount then such things have done far more harm than good. If you're more caught up in the "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" mentality you'll probably view it the opposite way.

Re:democrats? (1)

EMeta (860558) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176444)

Let me be more specific. I think that the great majority of the time wherein investigators have requested warrants for phone records, the results they received were used more for crime detection and prosecution than political/personal non-crime reasons. I don't have any data to back up this claim, but I haven't even heard the most rabid conspiracy theorists claiming otherwise. If you had reasons to think otherwise I would honestly very much like to know them.

Re:democrats? (1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176538)

I don't doubt that the end results have probably lead to many positive thing. The issue is that these ends do not justify the means that is used in many cases to reach these ends. And in the end our freedoms have been damaged greatly due to us being constantly told that our freedoms should take a second seat to the search for pedophiles, terrists, etc.

Re:democrats? (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176422)

Forced detention is also a crime against man. But it can be used to prevent greater crimes.

no, the 'end justifies the means' is EXACTLY how we got into iraq and other quagmires.

sorry, but I have to strongly disagree. some freedoms should be so basic as to be BEYOND a power-grab for politicrats and police-creatures.

if we keep this trend up, even a quiet whisper between friends will not have any privacy protections to it.

the gov NEVER has a 'right' to wiretap or spy. I feel so strongly about this, but sadly few others seem to care. and that's exactly the slippery slope that we are on right now. no one seems to value privacy to the level we once HAD.

technology should never remove basic human rights. the right to convey a thought, privately and NOT have it come back to haunt you later should never be taken away. people should have the right to communicate freely. why would you think otherwise? are you brainwashed by the 'think of the children!' idiots??

Re:democrats? (1)

Dusty00 (1106595) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176442)

First of all, in theory forced detention is something that we only use once a person has been convicted of a crime. Secondly, big problem with your analogy is the information that can be inferred from telephone records and from IP records are very different. A telephone call is a two-way, dynamic communication. Recording such at best generates a record of those you have discourse with. Communication across the internet, at least what can be established via IP, is more static. Retaining IP records is more akin to the library keeping a record of any book you've so much as looked at.

Re:democrats? (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176598)

First of all, in theory forced detention is something that we only use once a person has been convicted of a crime.


Really? What do you call it, then, when a suspect is sent to jail while awaiting trial and is refused bail because of being considered a flight risk or because one of the things they're accused of is jumping bail? I think your theory requires a little more work.

Re:democrats? (2, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176462)

you did hit on a key issue.

yes, our (and every!) LEO dept out there loves this new power grab.

yes, it will be highly abused. we will have no say in how we are targeted by politicos with an agenda.

the fact that its conceivable (or even directly experienced!) that LEO will abuse this is reason to not give it to them.

not every 'crime' must have a trampling of citizens' rights. I believe rights are far more important that 'zero tolerance'; and ZT is exactly the goal of modern governments.

ZT is harmful and yet we keep fueling LEO with more and more tools that they can abuse to no end. wasn't PATRIOT scary enough??

Not again... (0, Redundant)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175814)

"Records retention by ISPs would be tremendously helpful in giving us a historic basis to make a case on a number of child pornographers who use the Internet to push their pornography" or lure children, Mueller said.
Privacy rights be damn! WON'T SOMEONE SAVE THE CHILDREN?!?!?

not that troubling (1, Troll)

theMerovingian (722983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175818)


The FBI's access to the materials will still be limited by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the constitution.

Re:not that troubling (3, Insightful)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175868)

You mean just like how the NSA is limited by the 4th amendment from snooping on U.S. citizens? Oh wait...
Please, they'll bypass the 4th amendment any time they want to get access to the data.

Re:not that troubling (1)

theMerovingian (722983) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176032)


Please, they'll bypass the 4th amendment any time they want to get access to the data.

As a criminal defendant, your best hope is that the government did in fact violate the Fourth Amendment while procuring evidence against you. All evidence, acquired directly or indirectly as the result of an illegal search, must be excluded as the fruit of the poisonous tree. Wong Sun v. U.S. [findlaw.com]

Re:not that troubling (2, Informative)

H3lldr0p (40304) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176228)

You didn't happen to see where the SCotUSA decided that doesn't apply anymore today, did you?

From yahoo [yahoo.com] .

Re:not that troubling (1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176284)

I can't believe you would actually think that the police would have to follow their own state laws. Silly you.

I'm against this (4, Insightful)

Bryansix (761547) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175828)

I'm against this not because of the privacy implications but because government shouldn't make it more expensive for a business to run by requiring them to keep information that is of no value to them past a certain period of time.

East Germany... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23175866)

Keeping meticulous records was established with the Nazi's and carried on in that great tradition into East Germany. The cold war is barely over and already the lessons many noble people died for are being brushed under the carpet. I suspect that the real reason Western civilizations are turning their malice towards their own is simply because the dollars that used to go to our enemies now have to go somewhere. Inward. After all, you can't shrink the military-industrial complex - the beast won't let you do that.

Re:East Germany... (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176474)

Keeping meticulous records dates back to the Romans.

Is the FBI going pay for it? (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175876)

Is the FBI going pay for it?

Double Standard (5, Insightful)

pfleming (683342) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175898)

So the administration that can't keep its own email records in accordance with Federal Law wants to pass a NEW Federal Law mandating that all of OUR records be retained for 2 years?

Re:Double Standard (3, Informative)

BenJCarter (902199) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176100)

The administration is Republican. The article says this bill is sponsored by Democrats.

Re:Double Standard (1)

pfleming (683342) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176136)

It also said the biggest proponent was FBI director Mueller and Alberto Gonzalez

Re:Double Standard (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176218)

What a relief, that if they try to pass it this year, we can count on a veto.

Re:Double Standard (1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176374)

You mean except for the fact that the Administration approves such a thing? Bush's man Alberto was pushing this thing for nearly 2 years before resigning.

Re:Double Standard (1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176244)

Also lending their support for data retention were Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla., who said that Internet chat rooms were crammed with sexual predators, and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary committee and a previous data retention enthusiast.

As attorney general until last summer, Gonzales rarely passed up an opportunity to call for data retention. In April 2006, he said Internet providers must retain records for a "reasonable amount of time" and the issue "must be addressed." In September 2006, he added: "This is a national problem that requires federal legislation."

Multiple proposals to mandate data retention have surfaced in the U.S. Congress. One, backed by Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, said that any Internet service that "enables users to access content" must indefinitely retain records that would permit police to identify each user. Another came from Wisconsin Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a close ally of President Bush, and a third was written by Rep. Smith, who endorsed the idea again on Wednesday.
This particular bill might have been, but it has great support among Republicans. Not to mention two previous proposals to do the same thing were sponsored by Republicans. Yep, it's definitely only Democrats pushing this.

Re:Double Standard (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176326)

The government has multiple entities, you know.

Ask the FBI what they think about the White House having "missing" e-mails.

Re:Double Standard (1)

pfleming (683342) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176506)

Probably nothing. Only Congress can properly address this. The Directory of the FBI is appointed by the President. What do you think the FBI thinks about it?

Sweet (4, Funny)

BigGar' (411008) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175900)

Time to buy some stock in manufacturers of storage solutions.

Sounds like a good idea to me (4, Interesting)

phorm (591458) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175916)

How about we start with the whitehouse? Remember all those missing emails?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.

depends on the scope (1)

sloth jr (88200) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175918)

I'm adamantly opposed to any required data retention such as mail logs, web logs, etc. I'm less opposed to retention of DHCP lease records - I don't think that'd pose that significant of a burden on ISPs.

On the whole, I oppose government's attempt to mandate what a private business does with its data.

sloth jr

Re:depends on the scope (1)

pfleming (683342) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176160)

I'm adamantly opposed to any required data retention such as mail logs, web logs, etc.
Especially since according to your emails you have been chatting with a "tired gilr" and sent before and after photos of yourself to some web site.

Chat rooms are the new police hangout (1)

QCompson (675963) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175920)

Also lending their support for data retention were Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla., who said that Internet chat rooms were crammed with sexual predators
And also crammed with law-enforcement agents posing as sexually curious 14 year old girls (and boys).

Re:Chat rooms are the new police hangout (0, Flamebait)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175960)

And probably a congressman or two. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley [wikipedia.org]

Re:Chat rooms are the new police hangout (1)

Uncle Focker (1277658) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176498)

What is flamebait about my post?

Re:Chat rooms are the new police hangout (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176194)

Sexual predator is the new "Communist" on capitol hill or the modern day witch. The way they portray them, its like they are hiding in every bush and under every rock around playgrounds and schools.

Not only are the numbers inflated to whip the voter base into a fury, if they actually need a sexual predator to put on a show trial, the evidence is circumstantial and often crimes of conspiracy (thought crimes) in which are used to simply create the crime to prove their point.

All this is done to pass legislation that infringes on the rights of people who have no desire to engage in illicit activity on the net.

It bothers me to no end... If Sexual Predators actually commit a crime then yes catch them and throw away the key, but to set up a sting to catch week willed men by actually inviting them into such situations creates a crime that would not have happened otherwise.

Then when they pass such legislation on the rest of us who have been minding our own business and breaking no law, its just more salt into the wound.

Somebody working there (1)

omfglearntoplay (1163771) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175978)

I wish somebody working at the ISPs should frequently accidentally leak IP and other info on the jerks requesting these laws out to the public. Give them a taste of their own damn medicine. Controlling soul sucking crap that they must be.

There is no privacy on Internet anyway (3, Informative)

iamacat (583406) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175988)

All your data is transfered unencrypted and, with Web 2.0 "revolution", on servers accessible to outsourced personal in jurisdictions with questionable privacy laws. I hope this is a wake up call for widespread adoption of IPSec/SSL and return to hosting content on your own machine, like it was meant to be at inception of Internet and World Wide Web. Opportunistic encryption solutions can exchange public keys with assumption of trust during the first communication between two given users. Law enforcement or black hats who start to listen in later will not get much once your circle of online friends is established.

Thank god for Tor... (1)

SiriusStarr (1196697) | more than 6 years ago | (#23175994)

...exit nodes and plausible deniability.

Re:Thank god for Tor... (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176740)

What?! You are using a terrorist tool like Tor?! You should be locked up and the key should be thrown away!

Forign business opportunity (3, Funny)

davidwr (791652) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176028)

Advertisement aimed at businessmen traveling to Europe:

Attention American Businessmen:
Are you concerned about your government making your ISP keep records of where your employees surf when they are at home? Are you worried your Vice President will get in the news because he's surfing porn at a site that later turns out to host terrorist blogs?

Fear not!

For $20/month each, your employees can enjoy the security of EuroProxy(TM). Based on Super Secure Layering technology, we provide untraceable unbreakable internet surfing to your employees.

Our servers are located in North Elbonia which has among the strictest privacy laws on the planet.

Call Now!

Re:Forign business opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23176086)

Er. Except the EU already brought in the Data Retention Directive (though it's being challenged in court in at least Germany and Ireland).

While we're at it... (2, Interesting)

Jim Robinson Jr. (853390) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176082)

let's implant GPS/RFID units in every man, woman and child so we can track movement, require positive ID for book and movie purchases, and mandate health-club memberships.

Yeah... life will be good as soon as our benevolent government can track and dictate everything we do. After all... it's for our own good.

NOT!

Seriously though, as soon as any government determines that every movement needs to be tracked in a virtual world, how quickly will that translate to the real world?

Bill of Rights... (4, Interesting)

headkase (533448) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176108)

Including the Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution was controversial at the time as some feared that it may come to be interpreted that the list would come to be seen as the only rights a Citizen possesed. The exact opposite is what was originally intended, the Federal government only has a small set of rights while Citizens are assumed to have unnumerated rights with the Bill of Rights as only listing a few. Under the Constitution it is not only their responsibility but even more importantly their duty to provide a conclusive and pressing need to curtail the Rights of the People of the United States of America when it comes to renegotiating the Rights and Freedoms of said Citizens. The anonymity of the original Federalist Papers strikes a chord here - this government sees people who are working for change as "homegrown terrorists". How ironic is the historical comparison to British rule over the Americas and those who oppose the status-quo with the Federal government today.

Re:Bill of Rights... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176270)

IANAL, but as a professional in another field (medicine) that has a lot to do with lawyers these days, we're forced to take some legal courses.

I'll always remember having it explained to me in my legal medicine class:

Citizens have the right to everything possibly imaginable. Laws are created to put certain limits on citizens, for their own or others' protection. However you are "born" with the "right" to anything unless there is a law that specifically prohibits it.

Government, on the other hand, has absolutely NO RIGHTS whatsoever - unless a law is created that specifically gives them a right - for example the right to lock you up if you're proven guilty of a crime, the right to tax you, etc.

      However from what I read online, in the US I am seeing it interpreted as being the other way around more and more frequently. Government can do what it wants, and the citizen is limited to what the "Bill of Rights" says. Anything else is a "privilege". Bullshit. And I'm glad I don't live in the US. Call me when the next revolution starts, I might help fund some of it.

Re:Bill of Rights... (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176644)

Your ideas are relevant to my interests. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Potential for abuse (2, Insightful)

QCompson (675963) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176114)

"Records retention by ISPs would be tremendously helpful in giving us a historic basis to make a case on a number of child pornographers who use the Internet to push their pornography" or lure children, Mueller said.
This would also be tremendously helpful in compiling a complete profile on anyone law enforcement or the government deems to be suspicious or suspected of committing a crime.

The potential for abuse here is huge. Mueller is trying to distract politicians and the pitchfork-wielding public with scenarios where John E. Pedophile is able to be apprehended because the FBI can see he visited Underage-illegal-pornography.org thanks to the wonders of data retention. But imagine how much information about our lives can be gathered from our ISP records... private medical information, marital problems, embarrassing yet legal sexual predilections, books we read, videos we rent, political groups we favor, and on and on. The government will be able to obtain a vast amount of private and personal information after they gain access to years of our ISP records. And with 4th Amendment loopholes like national security letters in existence, there's no guarantee that this information will only be accessed upon suspicion of serious criminal activity.

The end just doesn't justify the means. The FBI seems to be doing a fine job in stopping the production of child pornography with the data retention policies that are in place. Are there any child pornography websites on the internet anymore? Are child pornographers really "pushing" their product on random internet users? Of course, no one knows the answers to these questions, and it is impossible to independently verify the government's claims without putting yourself in jeopardy of facing severe criminal charges, but it seems doubtful that child pornography is such a rampant problem that it requires opening up a pandora's box of privacy concerns.

Re:Potential for abuse (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176450)

"The FBI seems to be doing a fine job in stopping the production of child pornography with the data retention policies that are in place."

They're good at catching the dumb ones, at least.

It's a real problem they're basing this on: in the course of an investigation, the information to be used at trial often includes logs of activity going back months or years that is either from the suspect's machine or from legally-acquired logs. Anything referred to by IP address must be mapped to real people, though, and ISP logs are necessary for this. So you can easily run into the question, "Who had this IP address at X time?", where X is a year in the past.

Reading the article, IP-customer associations are all they're actually asking for in this. The article author makes the claim that they "might want" a lot more, but as pointed out, there are no specifics.

A second, but substantially more difficult-to-require step is to maintain permanent records of who sends packets to whom and when.

Actually recording and storing the contents of any communications is both nearly impossible to require and of limited use. While seeing every packet that's come from your machine could certain tell someone all sorts of private information, parsing, summarizing, and storing that information in a reasonable amount of work and storage space is not likely. Further, it can be easily circumvented by using SSL (or any other encryption). It's better to have the ISPs log what they're easily able to log -- assigned IP addresses and maybe connection logs -- and then require the entities who know how to summarize usage data (e.g., make Myspace log Myspace communications) keep those records. No sense in having the ISP try to summarize Myspace communications of their customers.

Retention == abuses (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176148)

Retention is a very big privacy deal. Think about exactly when abuses like fishing trips happen -- long after the fact when it is desired to tar the target.

Law enforcement is about discovering criminal perpetrators and increasingly (horrors in certain violation of civil rights and dilution of the law) in preventing certain criminal activities. For this they certainly needs _some_ records to do detective work after a complaint. But crimes are generally discovered quickly, and police are well aware that detective work has to be fairly prompt or it is likely to be ineffective. So no reason for long retention.

How about... (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176184)

...we demo this system, but for snailmail? As our Congress-critters are so eager to make this happen, let's start with them. Each "representative" would be personally responsible for keeping ALL copies of incoming AND outgoing mail for their entire term. Those found in violation would be stripped of their office, flogged with 3-day-dead trout, and made to work in the mailroom for a period of not less than 6 months... sitting next to the guy with the flatulence problem.

No, it won't happen, but it gets a little irritating to think that they believe that email is sufficiently different than "normal" mail to warrant treatment that they'd not put up/deal with themselves.

Now we see the problem with the Internet (3, Insightful)

zymano (581466) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176192)

Either the gov wants to track a few people or they want to track everyone. Giving this kind of power when not in wartime is irresponsible. I could see a judge letting them check on certain profiles but EVERYONE???

Funny in that they CAN'T STOP FUCKING MURDERS & OTHER CRIMES IN THEIR OWN PISSHOLE CITY : WASHINGTON D.C.

...and the vice president's e-mails? (2, Insightful)

ivanmarsh (634711) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176216)

Here's a little advice for all you ISPs out there: The records were accidentally erased and the backup tapes were accidentally destroyed.

If it's good enough for Cheney it's got to be good enough for you.

I'm really beginning to hate my government!
(Now you make sure to keep this statement on record for at least two years there Cowboy Neal).

Working as it should (1)

Xelios (822510) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176264)

At the moment, Internet service providers typically discard any log file that's no longer required for business reasons such as network monitoring, fraud prevention or billing disputes. Companies do, however, alter that general rule when contacted by police performing an investigation--a practice called data preservation. A 1996 federal law called the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act regulates data preservation. It requires Internet providers to retain any "record" in their possession for 90 days "upon the request of a governmental entity." In addition, Internet providers are required by another federal law to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is in turn charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency.
Looks like everything's working as it should. Thanks for wasting time and taxpayer money again guys, enjoy a well deserved vacation on me.

Responsibility first, privileges later (4, Insightful)

Odin's Raven (145278) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176332)

It might sound trite, but as long as the FBI behaves like a child, it should be treated like a child. Right now it seems like if we give them a baseball bat for little league then the next morning all the mailboxes along the street are smashed. If we lend 'em the car keys so they can go to youth prayer sessions, two hours later we're getting a phone call about how they wrapped the car around a telephone pole as they tried driving to the liquor store after getting thrown out of the local bar. And what's particularly galling is that they come back afterwards and ask if they can have a new Porsche because the old car doesn't go fast enough.

Let the FBI go a year without abusing their existing powers before they even get to ask for anything new. (Child equivalent: "No dessert until you clean your room.") Or use a more immediate reward/punishment system - if anyone abuses any privilege, the agent responsible is disciplined and the situation rectified (evidence tossed, etc). Otherwise the whole agency loses that privilege for a week the first time, a month the second time, then six months, then a year, etc. (Child equivalent: "If whoever threw that spitball doesn't fess up, the entire class is getting detention.")

I mean, seriously, it seems like my two-year old nephew has a better understanding of rights and responsibilities than the FBI does.

The one problem (1)

Sylos (1073710) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176512)

I see today is that most people just.don't.plain.care. Most of the people I've talked don't really care that they have no privacy. They say "So? They'll get a list of porn sites and tech sites?" I know anecdotal evidence doesn't prove much, but I fear that most people just don't care enough.

Great News So The Lost E-Mail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23176584)



of the Torturer [whitehouse.org] can be recovered.

PatRIOTically,
Kilgore Trout

Just turn it off (1)

PenGun (794213) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176664)

You don't have to run logs. If you do not you have nothing to save.

  Simple Server Tricks.

Quis custodiet? (2, Interesting)

brre (596949) | more than 6 years ago | (#23176720)

Does this apply to the executive branch [google.com] ?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...