Beta
×

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!

Law Enforcement Still Wants Mandatory ISP Log Retention

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the they-know-how-often-you-google-bieber dept.

Privacy 226

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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And there it is... (5, Insightful)

sconeu (64226) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742310)

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

The root password to the Constitution.

Re:And there it is... (3, Informative)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742362)

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.

Re:And there it is... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36742498)

"This is a chilling story about American law-enforcement run amok and untethered. It's particularly timely in the wake of revelations about the way the Bush administration has trampled American civil rights. A movie that can't help but move you - to tears and to action."

Socialist film critics can't resist getting the boot in whenever possible, ignoring that Obama has kept on doing warrantless wiretaps.

Re:And there it is... (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742714)

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).

Re:And there it is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743416)

It looks like we've got another one trick pony troll. I propose we nickname this one "Big Red."

Re:And there it is... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36742500)

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

Is this not it?

Re:And there it is... (0)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743018)

OK, that's the one. A lot later than I expected.

Re:And there it is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743194)

I put in "witch hunt" and found this in about 10 seconds.
Probably less time than it took you to type the last sentence of your posting....

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

Re:And there it is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743542)

I can see why IMDb doesn't have it in their database.

Take off the tinfoil hat. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1196112/

Re:And there it is... (1)

tsotha (720379) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742410)

You'd think kiddie porn was the scourge of our time from all the press it gets.

Re:And there it is... (3, Insightful)

racermd (314140) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742668)

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.

Re:And there it is... (1)

MichaelKristopeit413 (2018846) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742764)

As private entities, why should the ISPs be held to some arbitrary standard outlined by an outside party?

perhaps for the same reasons that my butcher is held to some arbitrary standard outlined by an outside party about the amount of rat feces that can be present in the products they provide for my consumption.

you're an idiot.

MichealLOLKristopeit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36742902)

you still post here?

Re:And there it is... (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742924)

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

Re:And there it is... (1)

MichaelKristopeit418 (2018864) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743102)

you're claiming that a law that specifically targets "predators" of the general populace is not intended to protect the general populace? you're an ignorant hypocrite.

i didn't claim food safety regulations were were equivalent to laws covering the prosecution of "predators". i presented the example to show that outside parties often outline standards that others are held to. you're an idiot.

Re:And there it is... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743286)

They should be required to publish a data retention policy so users are at least able to find out the privacy impact. The wording should be clear no retention is required. A failure to have a retention policy should prevent the use of any retained data by law enforcement or other public or private entities. There is no requirement currently that I am aware of in the USA to retain data. Most ISPs do and it really is unethical. I argued to a school once there was no requirement and that instead of handing over the data they should simply not retain it in the first place. I also pointed out that university students had additional legal protections against disclosure of such personal data which I believed they violated (actually that may not have been the case- I think they just disconnected students until the university could violate students privacy and remove any p2p programs a student was using, and possibly billed them for it and if that occurred 3x they got a permanent disconnect, or something like this).

The majority of situations are cases of abuse by the police or a corporation (usually going after copyright infringers). There just isn't justification to hamper the general public's well being with these kinds of nuisances given the nature of the Internet. While there are people who are arrested for real crimes based on this information it does not justify the invasion of innocent peoples privacy. Which is what storing this information does.

It might be argued that cameras also violate peoples privacy. It use to be that citizens rights were protected by a lack of resources and technology so these issues did not exist. Now we have let the supreme court rule in ways that negatively impact users essential liberties, rights, and freedoms. While public space is not private the intentional monitoring by government and private parties for the intentional use in security matters has violated reasonably assumable rights based on already existing amendments. There should be a constitutional amendment that prohibits the private or governmental use of cameras / detection / and other sensing devices in public places if intended for security purposes. Other sensing devices like used in toilet urinals and future such situations should be marked so users are aware. In addition to requiring a warning before all entrances to places which utilise cameras for any purpose and a clear retention policy for any stored video that may be taken. Think web cams and similar devices when entering a store (think the recent Apple case where an artist went in and took the pictures from computer web cams).

Re:And there it is... (1)

E.I.A (2303368) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743160)

I think rather than "root", it is 'immutable'.

work faster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36742312)

18 months is a pretty long time to catch someone doing wrong, how about working faster? jeeeeeeze

Re:work faster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36742476)

Doesnt "narus" know all?? Cough cough.. lol, ATT's little black room lol

Re:work faster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743112)

Logs, Schmogs. Give me those logs. I'll prove the Gov't did it.

Law Enforcement Tools (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36742328)

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

Re:Law Enforcement Tools (1)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742934)

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

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

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

Re:Law Enforcement Tools (2)

ridgecritter (934252) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743290)

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.

Would You Want To Be Followed Everywhere? (5, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742330)

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.

Re:Would You Want To Be Followed Everywhere? (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742464)

people use to make fun of the CCCP for the "show me your papers" routine.

Re:Would You Want To Be Followed Everywhere? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742866)

And this extends to private companies and interests who should never have access to such data (RIAA, MPAA) now able to get it through the courts because it now exists in the first place?

There's no reason the law can't say "Any records legally required to be stored longer than [ISPs original retention policy] are only to be subpoenaed in child pornography investigations."

Such wording may or may not prevent Patriot Act requests, but it'll certainly keep the *IAAs and fueding spouses from subpoenaing records.

Re:Would You Want To Be Followed Everywhere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36742930)

They should go for broke and require the ISP's to record checksums of files downloaded. Then they can just compare the logs with the massive child porn checksum database they have already built. If they are already invading our privacy, they may as well take measures that will really reduce child porn on the internet.

I should just keep my mouth shut.

Re:Would You Want To Be Followed Everywhere? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743134)

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

100% chance that, in our lifetimes, this will come to pass, too ;(

a lot has been happening the last few weeks. I'm having a hard time keeping optimistic about the world, sigh. and just today, there was this:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/07/12/robocalls-spam-wi-democrats-telling-them-not-to-vote-in-recall-elections/ [rawstory.com]

the world seems like its burning. (and where's moped jesus when you really need him?)

It's ALWAYS about child pornography (5, Insightful)

euroq (1818100) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742336)

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?

Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography (5, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742430)

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

Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography (2)

Veetox (931340) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742696)

All federal and state employees should be video monitored during work hours, with executive employees (e.g. governors and representatives) video monitored 24-7. Records should be kept for 5 years, and accessible to the public on demand.

This is necessary to prevent government employees from raping children. Please, let's think of the children.

Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography (3, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742774)

In the words of the great Jello Biafra:

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

Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography (1)

Roachie (2180772) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742884)

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

Spread the word.

Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742688)

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.

Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742808)

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.

Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography (-1, Flamebait)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743452)

you like little kids or something? they do go after the makers of kiddie porn. going after the collectors as well makes sense because a pedo in jail can't molest a kid.

Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743528)

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.

Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography (3, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742702)

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.

Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography (2)

future assassin (639396) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742794)

>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.

Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743172)

Shut up, idiot. The government only thinks about the good of people. There's no way they'd waste tax dollars on corrupt, private contracts. That sort of behavior would lead to constant resource wars, and fake terrorist attacks. It would also mean that the government would have to raise the amount of debt that they're allowed to incur, devaluing our dollars, while giving the newly created ones to those same private companies, all in the name of saying "F*** you" to efficiency, and accountability. If you don't believe me that our government is trustworthy, why don't you check the news. Other countries, like Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan (one of our finest allies), Russia, and the rest of the East give us raving reviews for all the humanitarian work we do there.

Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography (5, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743128)

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

See, I would phrase that as "So law enforcement is saying they are incompetent and utter failures at actually preventing children from being exploited in the production of child porn?" or "Why isn't law enforcement going after the source of this scourge?" or "Is Michael Brown, sheriff in Bedford County, Va., and a board member and executive committee member of the National Sheriffs' Association turning a blind eye to the production of child porn?"

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

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

Re:It's ALWAYS about child pornography (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743182)

how serious is drunk driving? 'they' will have you believe its the scourge of the earth. that they HAVE to institute roadblocks and manditory searches (even mandatory blood-taking!) in order to 'keep society safe'.

I'm nearly half a century old (goml). I'm not sure I've seen more than 1 or 2 really drunk dangerous people on the road in my life (and yes, I've been to college, etc.) its just not the problem the authorities would have you believe. not widespread enough to PANIC over like we do. you can't even have a single beer after work for fear of getting a DUI. it didn't used to be that way, but now, law enforcement has declared war on its own people, in so many ways. you have to think defensively, now. no, I can't really have that social beer with you guys at work, even some alcohol on my breath, from 1 beer, could be financially ruining for you if you happen to go 5mi over the speed limit and pulled over.

we go nuts over the smallest things, mathematically speaking.

we are driven by emotion, not rational thought, sad to say. our laws are highly unbalanced and have long been disconnected with actual justice. really sad to see this country go this way.

USA Partriot Act (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36742352)

How is this any different than the "library records provision" in the USA Partriot act?

Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742370)

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

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

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

---

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

Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules (2)

sneakyimp (1161443) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742432)

Mod parent up.

Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules (2)

Tyr07 (2300912) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742560)

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

Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules (2)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742564)

1. Better yet, remove the "speed limit" laws entirely. They're pure profit-making laws - if it was anyone other than the government, it would be called rent-seeking. You can already cover the thing you're supposedly preventing via reckless driving charges. This could arguably make things even safer - most traffic [i]already[/i] does 5-15 mph over the speed limit, such that driving "legally" is actually more dangerous than keeping up with traffic. Maybe enforce limits in special areas - school zones, high-pedestrian areas - but we don't need a sign on every road.

2. Fully agreed. Now [i]that[/i] would be transparency and accountability in government.

Actually, let's expand that to include legislators. It would definitely cut down on the bribery we facetiously call "lobbying", for one.

3. I wouldn't make it [i]every[/i] case - after all, undercover cops need to be able to lie sometimes - but I would say that any time it's actual intimidation, especially to conceal a police action of any sort, definitely. But giving such a broad license to sue police would be a knee-jerk overreaction to our problems.

Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules (4, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743264)

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

Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules (2)

initialE (758110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742894)

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.

Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36742982)

Point 2 above. It has been reported on /. that several states have laws against recording a police officer either doing his duty or not........

Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743238)

4. Anytime a public elected or powerful appointed offical tells a lie to scare someone they can be imprisoned for manditory min of 15 years. no parole in the meantime. (and they have to be forced to listen to country music the entire time.)

I am NOT kidding. be glad I don't want to see worse done to them.

Re:Cool, let's make new law enforcement rules (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743362)

Can't be all that bad. What kind of country music? I don't mind the lying part. Besides, its only considered a lie if you know the truth.

Discount (5, Informative)

mbone (558574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742384)

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

Re:Discount (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742460)

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

One is certainly left to ask just how many child pornographers Michael Brown, sheriff in Bedford County, Va. has successfully prosecuted in his own law enforcement career? One is left to wonder if it is even a crime he pursues normally?

Re:Discount (1)

El Torico (732160) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742504)

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

Re:Discount (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743146)

Aren't those public records. I'm not from VA, but aren't campaign contributions typically subject to recording requirements.

Re:Discount (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742798)

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

Re:Discount (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743294)

yes, YOU see that. I see that. most here see that.

now, how do we get the rest of the dumb-fucks who live in this country to see that?

I don't have an answer to that. I see that you and I understand, but people like us don't run things. THAT is the problem. its power-hungry assholes that run the country (not talking about R's or D's; they're all about the same in this regard.)

your and my rights are not important to them.

Internet Cafes (2)

ShakaUVM (157947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742404)

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

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

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

Re:Internet Cafes (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742462)

An excellent idea, citizen! We were actually thinking of using the Totally Unhackable(tm) biometric smartcards made by our cousin's defense contracting firm; but you get points for a good guess.

Re:Internet Cafes (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742474)

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

It will, soon enough.

Re:Internet Cafes (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743312)

remember the 'pentium serial number' bullshit we went thru just a few (well, more than a few) years ago?

the idea was to uniquely ID every 'internet guy'. it did not pass them.

so they try via different ways to keep at us.

be wary of this, people. they DO want to track you down to the last detail. google does and so does uncle LEO.

we see the internet as a way to learn and grow. they see it as a way to imprison citizens. I wonder how we end up sharing the planet with such neanderthals and not wipe each other out. the disconnect is too great!

Re:Internet Cafes (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742492)

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

Re:Internet Cafes (2)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742638)

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

Re:Internet Cafes (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742990)

I agree. I was just answering the question.

Re:Internet Cafes (1)

kernelphr34k (1179539) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742538)

Really, looking at child porn from a net cafe? What is law enforcement going to do about these wack jobs that use anon interwebs in the privacy of there home?

I really have to question law enforcement and there actions if they always give the "child pr0n" argument. It's a horrible thing, but come up with a better reason why you want to obstruct our privacy.

Re:Internet Cafes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36742576)

There are countries (such as Italy) where ID is required at Internet Cafe's, so it isn't such a far-fetched idea for some...

Re:Internet Cafes (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742782)

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

Yes, they become illegal, or at least allowing anonymous users will be illegal..

Re:Internet Cafes (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743164)

Why don't we just save some time and just arrest all the Democrats and civil libertarians as clearly they are opposed to incarcerating child molesters without a proper trial.

Re:Internet Cafes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743044)

Or leeching off next-door-neighbor wide-open WiFi since he bought his WRT54G v1.0 when it came out and it sets up wireless with the default SSID and zero security and hasn't looked at it since, and doesn't have any geeky friends to tell him that it's not exactly safe?

Re:Internet Cafes (1)

bobbabai (651088) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743400)

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

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

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

Well, yeah. All the libraries I know about have content filtering in place and policies that allow the library to kick out and/or call the police on a patron that is viewing objectionable material. The libraries also tightly control the PCs that are provided for public use. Same thing at coffee shops, and the clientele will do a good-enough policing job that will discourage the ickies.

Re:Internet Cafes (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743408)

Here someone else is ranting and raving on Slashdot without thinking.

Haven't you thought of the children in your post? Encouraging internet cafe use is bad. Cafe's serve coffee. Coffee has caffeine which stunts growth.

How dare you encourage a new generation populated by a majority of midgets* in order to screw over Big Brother for monitoring Internet use!!!!

*We know they will be a majority population because geeks won't go to a cafe. They have a coffee maker in their mother's basement next to their computers.

you cannot have a police state without this (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742444)

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

Needle Location Solution: a bigger haystack? (2)

retroworks (652802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742446)

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.

Re:Needle Location Solution: a bigger haystack? (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743454)

Its actually the same problem with intelligence agencies and heck the "information age" in corporations. We have more data that we have to look at. There's always more data. So we need more computers and more employees.

Its not bad for the economy in a sense. But it usually works out better for the firms that end up getting the contracts to add the computers. And in the case of government, great for the careers for those in departments that are trying to make themselves feel more important by getting more money to spend on important things. Important is subjective here. But its the way government spins.

Of course they do (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742472)

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

Yeah? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36742516)

Law Enforcement Still Wants Mandatory ISP Log Retention

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

Idiots (1)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742582)

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

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

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

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

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743004)

No the US state department will just go to that country and scream "kiddie porn" until it hand over your records. It's already happened.

Same thing in Europe (1)

moonbender (547943) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742602)

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

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

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

Collect evidence before the crime? (1)

vinn01 (178295) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742698)

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

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

Re:Collect evidence before the crime? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742762)

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

when they come across child pornography (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742748)

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

This is how democracy dies.

Re:when they come across child pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743040)

Democracy is long dead and deceased.

Forget spam, viruses and scareware (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742754)

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

Call me a new-age hippie (1)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742784)

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

Re:Call me a new-age hippie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743360)

I'm not sure being counseled by Anonymous would have the desired effect at all. Been to /b/ lately?

Just how much data are we talking here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36742786)

18 months of tracking info for all of your customers. That seems like quite a quite big log. Anybody have an idea of about how much data that would actually come out to?

It's about kiddy porn because we beat terrorism (2)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742816)

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.

Of course they do! (1)

Vrallis (33290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742832)

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

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

Then again, it worked for the Barast [wikipedia.org] ...

Reverse transparency (1)

E.I.A (2303368) | more than 3 years ago | (#36742980)

Anyone see a serious trend toward reverse transparency? They've recently attacked the FOIA process, thoroughly exploited CALEA, FISA, and things like "room 641A", as well as given the FBI supra powers to do basically anything they fancy. Can someone point out even a single example of duplex transparency? This all seems exceedingly stupid unless ridiculed viciously.

How far? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743008)

Isn't it easy enough for them to get email records, search records, cellphone records, facebook access, access to any cloud storeage, the persons HARD DRIVE ITSELF. They don't need anymore resources for catching these types of people. They do lust after new ways of cheaply exploiting technology to spy on people however.

Save Yourselves! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743032)

If you care about your rights, save yourself. Join an anti-government cause to protect your rights, and the rights of your children. It's not about politics, and never has been. It's about control. If you think the things that have happened to every great nation in history can't or *won't* happen to us, you're in for a surprise. If you think they can happen, but you think you can't make a *huge* difference, you're wrong. It takes courage to stand up to oppressors, and it's not the job of our elected officials to protect our rights. It's yours. You, the one reading this.

Change. (1)

Jazari (2006634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743074)

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

Another step on the way to 1984 (1)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743122)

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

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

Did anyone actually read the article/law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743130)

The only thing the ISP would have to retain is the "the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account, unless that address is transmitted by radio communication". This is the tantamount to archiving the dhcpd.leases file for 18 months. This in no way logs any user activity, dns requests, or a customers data stream.

Storms a'brewin (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743158)

What's just goddamn dandy is that, when the depression DOES finally kick us in the balls due to economic and political ransacking, this type of oppression (storing very personal information in something that can easily be indexed and reviewed) will still be honkin' CHEAP.

Law Enforcement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743186)

It's a sad day when Peace Officers became the perverted Law Enforcement Officers. There was a time when the laws of the land were obeyed because the citizenry saw them as just. Then, to coin Stephen Hawking, something happened, laws no longer had an air of justice about them. Laws were enacted to protect the lawmakers who believed they were above the law, corporations had laws enacted to protect their bottom line regardless if their product was at fault or not. Abuses by a few bad Peace Officers cast a dreary pall over all Peace Officers.
As more and more people saw the stupidity of the laws being enacted, fewer and fewer people saw any reason to obey them when others basically got away with the crime. This is when Peace Officers became Law Enforcement Officers. The lawmakers said that all people are equal, but that we, the lawmakers, are more equal than you! Drug Enforcement Officers bust dealers and users that were and are being supplied by the CIA. I could go on, but this is already on the net.
Now, about child pornography, this is the partyline, protect the children. Where were the laws, law enforcement officers, the courts when Casey Anthony went missing and was subsequently killed. THIS country harps on the phrase "No Child Left Behind", unless it's in a swamp. An unknown number of children are missing each year, This is the real obscenity. By pushing laws through the Congress (the opposite of Progress), the lawbreakers use misdirection to trivialize the real issue, that this government is out of control. It refuses to see the reality of an unbalanced budget, refuses to see the stupidity of war, refuses to hear the cries of its own people, refuses to come to its collective senses.
Our nation is foundering, all the while "NERO" plays his fiddle.

Simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36743206)

Want in one hand, shit in the other.

This time I hope law enforcement just ends up with a pile of shit

Duty to take a governmental action (1)

WebManWalking (1225366) | more than 3 years ago | (#36743208)

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

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

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

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?