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!

House Panel Approves Bill Forcing ISPs To Log Users

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the uncle-sam-wants-to-know-you-better dept.

Government 277

skids writes "Under the guise of fighting child pornography, the House Judiciary Committee approved legislation on Thursday that would require internet service providers to collect and retain records about Internet users' activity. The 19 to 10 vote represents a victory for conservative Republicans, who made data retention their first major technology initiative after last fall's elections. A last-minute rewrite of the bill expands the information that commercial Internet providers are required to store to include customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses. Per dissenting Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): 'The bill is mislabeled... This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It's creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes.'"

cancel ×

277 comments

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

DUPE! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926504)

We just had this same story "Posted by timothy on Friday May 13, @07:57PM".

Re:DUPE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926618)

Are you fucking retarded?

Yet another nail in the coffin (1)

Froeschle (943753) | about 3 years ago | (#36926508)

Do I see a pattern?

No kidding (5, Insightful)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | about 3 years ago | (#36926510)

'The bill is mislabeled... This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It's creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes.'

Conyers hit the nail on the head.

Re:No kidding (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926558)

No thanks to the copyright brigade. If this isn't a good reason to totally abolish copyright I don't know what is. We're getting totalitarianism as a result of commercial capitalism trying to protect its interests using the state. This is why free market fundamentalists are such fuckups, this is the natural result of free market principles taken to their natural conclusion in a human society.

Re:No kidding (1, Insightful)

Culture20 (968837) | about 3 years ago | (#36926714)

No thanks to the copyright brigade. If this isn't a good reason to totally abolish copyright I don't know what is. We're getting totalitarianism as a result of commercial capitalism trying to protect its interests using the state. This is why free market fundamentalists are such fuckups, this is the natural result of free market principles taken to their natural conclusion in a human society.

To play Devil's advocate, how exactly is "state intervention" equatable to "free market principles" as defined by the "free market fundamentalists"? Isn't the use of law to define commerce (patents/trademark/copyright) the antithesis of the absolute-free-market folk's point of view?

Re:No kidding (2)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 3 years ago | (#36927176)

Lets draw a distinction here.... there is the THEORY of free markets and the proponents/practitioners of it.

The Proponents/Practitioners are corrupting the free market theory of economics to fit the ideals of Fascism but calling it free market capitalism. The people are stupid and believe [private company = free market].

Re:No kidding (3, Insightful)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | about 3 years ago | (#36927210)

I agree--in a true free market, all parties are supposed to be equally well-informed and in equitable positions of power so that they aren't forced to make decision, right?  In such cases, employees would be able to freely move from country to country just as well as employers/corporations.  I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist anywhere, but I could be wrong.  In the US case, the "free-market" people really just mean, rules that allow me to legally screw other people--e.g., a kleptocratic corporate plutocracy.

Re:No kidding (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926576)

this will be applauded until the ISP databases full of user info for years are stolen

And keeping credit card info? (1)

khasim (1285) | about 3 years ago | (#36926592)

Great. Now every ISP has to store information that Congress should be focusing on NOT storing.

Wasn't this "new" Congress supposed to be against "unfunded mandates" from D.C.?

Who is going to be checking compliance for this?

Just another government requirement that small businesses have to pay to follow.

Re:And keeping credit card info? (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 3 years ago | (#36927082)

every AMERICAN ISP.

I'm moving my data offshore. maybe switzerland, maybe germany, maybe sweden. but NOT in the US anymore.

anyone have any good pointers to secure offshore email/isp hosters? so far, I've been reading about 'countermail' but not sure I like using java applets.

I've been thinking of dumping gmail; and this kind of congressional 'push' just pushed this to the top of MY list.

thanks congress fuckwads; you just helped move an american's data OFF the US and out of your grubby fingers.

anyone else with me, on this?

Re:No kidding (2, Insightful)

Batmunk2000 (1878016) | about 3 years ago | (#36926676)

Every year I have to fill out countless government forms detailing every facet of my personal finances and business finances so the State & Federal government can collect taxes "fairly" from businesses and employees alike.
Now suddenly Mr. Conyers isoutraged over ISP tracking? People need to be consistent with their privacy thoughts. The ISP tracking is absolutely ridiculous, but it is nothing compared to what the Feds already collect from people. This battle was long lost.

Re:No kidding (5, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#36926776)

This is not all or nothing. Having to fill out forms to calculate taxes seems fine. That data should also not be used for anything else. Keeping track of citizens speech is not any where near the same thing.

Re:No kidding (2)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 3 years ago | (#36926800)

If you think your 1040 is a big deal, try an SF86.

Re:No kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926908)

SF 86 is easy. Just whip out the last one you completed and re-enter the data...

Re:No kidding (2)

grimmjeeper (2301232) | about 3 years ago | (#36926940)

There's a big difference. Everyone who earns some minimum income in this country is required by law to fill out the 1040. You only need to fill out an SF86 if you want to get a government clearance. If you don't fill out the form, you don't get the clearance and nothing else. If you don't fill out your 1040 and the government figures it out, men with guns come to your house and lock you up.

Re:No kidding (1)

squidflakes (905524) | about 3 years ago | (#36927330)

You believe that? There are hundreds of thousands of people in the US who either owe money on their taxes or simply refuse to file. Very very very few of them will ever see men with guns coming to lock them up.

Re:No kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926830)

But at least now it is a way easier to collect the data from the ISP without your consent, and maybe the not evil google will help them to index all this data, only maybe...

Re:No kidding (4, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | about 3 years ago | (#36926892)

Detailed? Really? Like what the name of the person who checked you out at Lowes was? You submit that you bought 16 feet of duct tape right before you went and bought those sleeping pills? Which, coincidentally, was a week before that girl was found tied up and drugged in your area.

The level of detail your ISP would be logging would far outweigh any amount the IRS keeps about you.

Re:No kidding (1, Redundant)

Batmunk2000 (1878016) | about 3 years ago | (#36927246)

I take it you have never had to keep paperwork for a business. Never been audited?
I have had to produce receipts for transactions years in the past to make the IRS happy. Who I bought something from and when isn't any of their business, but they make it.

Sure they don't collect it all - they just make us do it for them and be able to ask for it at any time. Without a warrant, without charges, just because they can.

Your argument is just semantics.

Re:No kidding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926796)

So what? Honest, intelligent politicians never accomplish anything.

The world continues its slow descent into insanity, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

Re:No kidding (2)

llindy (1030642) | about 3 years ago | (#36926820)

So, I wonder what reasons can be given to obtain this information, and then how will that be done? Will they have "trigger" words in their data bases to look for online suspicious activity? Warrants? Illegal wiretapping? And then all that need be done since this will be a database is simply type in a name? Why stop there? Oh, I see "so-in-so" facebook page talks about WikiLeaks and posts docs, they could be a threat to US security... or, maybe, next proxies will be forbidden. Who knows. Land of the free my a**

Re:No kidding (0)

jo42 (227475) | about 3 years ago | (#36926922)

It's creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes.

"Heil GOP!" somehow comes to mind right about now... :|

Re:No kidding (2)

tsotha (720379) | about 3 years ago | (#36927336)

The party out of power tends to rail against things that the party in power is doing. You'd think, therefor, that when they party out of power becomes the party in power they would make some changes. But you'd be wrong.

Remember USA PATRIOT? When the Democrats were swept into power you'd have thought, based on their campaign rhetoric, they would make substantive changes. Maybe even repeal it outright. And then... they extended it, with even more powers.

It's almost like... and stay with me here... it's almost like both parties want essentially the same thing, which is a more powerful central government, and they allow members to vote against that more powerful government when those votes aren't going to matter. So your 51-49 senate vote really represents, say, a 90-10 vote with 39 senators voting "nay" because that's what their constituents want. But willing to flip if the measure has a chance of failing.

Look out anyone who is married! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926538)

And just wait till the subpoena’s start flying from divorce lawyers

Dropped the flag (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926542)

There's a lot of undue hate on Republicans 'round here.

This case? The hate is perfectly justifiable.

Re:Dropped the flag (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926582)

Lmao @ "undue". This is a perfect example of why it isn't undue. But carry on.

Reciprocal? (4, Interesting)

Teun (17872) | about 3 years ago | (#36926544)

As CP is a global issue it has a clause to share this data with EU authorities.

No? I thought so...

Veto (1)

glorybe (946151) | about 3 years ago | (#36926548)

If the senate fails to crush this bill Obama may well veto it. The privacy issue is one item but assigning that kind of expense to ISPs does not seem reasonable.

Re:Veto (1)

haruchai (17472) | about 3 years ago | (#36926832)

Obama's administration hasn't been good at all about protecting freedoms. The only way I seem him threatening a veto is as a bargaining chip.

Re:Veto (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926912)

If the senate fails to crush this bill Obama may well veto it. The privacy issue is one item but assigning that kind of expense to ISPs does not seem reasonable.

LOL

Two and a half years and Obama has only vetoed two bills. One was some political game with defunding and the other was a bill regarding forcing federal court recognition of notaries from states different from where the court is. Lowest percentage since Lyndon Johnson.

In other words, the odds every reader of this text will win the lottery is slightly better than our doormat president vetoing this one.

P.S. this is the same kind of "free pass" that works for warrants... the amount of warrant requests that are denied are amazingly small.

What could possibly go wrong?! (2)

djkitsch (576853) | about 3 years ago | (#36926562)

Can't see any issues with this. Nope, I've got [huffingtonpost.com] nothin' [techdirt.com] .

I'm a bit confused about this bill ..... (4, Informative)

King_TJ (85913) | about 3 years ago | (#36926570)

I read an article about this earlier today (I think it was on BoingBoing?) and despite trying to follow several govt. web site links to read the actual bill's contents, I wasn't able to view the whole thing anyplace?

If I visit the link the EFF suggests, for example, and click the link claiming to offer the "text of legislation" (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1981:), I get what seems to only be notes about changes made throughout it? Under "Section 4" though, it appears this was put in:

`(h) Retention of Certain Records- A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account, unless that address is transmitted by radio communication (as defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934).'.

That makes it sound like they're simply wanting to collect the IP addresses issued via DHCP of all the customers, not anything else?

Re:I'm a bit confused about this bill ..... (2)

Sponge Bath (413667) | about 3 years ago | (#36926692)

That's my reading as well.

The bill amends Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code.
Section 2703 of title 18 says the government can, with a warrant, ask for records from ISPs.
The amended part says 1) the ISP must keep a record of temp IP addresses and 2) records must be stored securely to protect customer privacy.

Re:I'm a bit confused about this bill ..... (1)

achenaar (934663) | about 3 years ago | (#36926746)

That's nice. Records must be kept securely so they can't be snooped on, unless we want to snoop on them.
Yay for security.

Re:I'm a bit confused about this bill ..... (1)

achenaar (934663) | about 3 years ago | (#36926726)

And if that wording is a copy paste, surely holding the IPs I've been assigned for the last 18 months is worthless. See, I'd hold that data no problem, just wouldn't associate any timestamps with it.

Re:I'm a bit confused about this bill ..... (1)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 3 years ago | (#36927192)

It is completely worthless because IP addresses don't identify individuals just a piece of hardware.

It sounds like this is needed to track users of honeypots.

Re:I'm a bit confused about this bill ..... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926878)

The entire text of the bill is on the gpo.gov site:

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1981ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr1981ih.pdf

Re:I'm a bit confused about this bill ..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36927184)

`(h) Retention of Certain Records- A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account, unless that address is transmitted by radio communication (as defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934).'.

So, if I insert a wireless path between my cable modem and my router, the address would be transmitted by radio communication. Wouldn't this invalidate the rule? How would the ISP be aware that there is radio communication in the link?

ISPs Log You Anyway (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926586)

What the hell kind of business doesn't keep track of their subscriber's name, address, phone number and billing info?

And furthermore, ISPs already log which IPs they assign to customers. They keep logs for abuse purposes, so they know that at 4:57PM, Subscriber X was given the IP address 172.20.36.173; Webmaster Y said his website came under attack at 5:03PM from IP address 172.20.36.173; and Subscriber X wasn't given a different IP until the next day.

This shit is routine. If you think your ISP isn't already keeping a log of what IP address you have and when, you're delusional.

Re:ISPs Log You Anyway (2)

PickyH3D (680158) | about 3 years ago | (#36926754)

Not to mention, how do people think that ISPs are able to forward cease and desist letters to people downloading stuff illegally, when they are caught by the *AA?

If anything, this merely provides a minimum requirement. One that practically everyone was clearly doing anyway.

I cannot help but wonder why this is a current focus of Congress, but I cannot help to wonder if the random hackings et al have helped lead down this path faster than we might otherwise have?

But are they keeping it for 18 months? (1)

Chirs (87576) | about 3 years ago | (#36927116)

I could see keeping it for a week. 18 months is a different story. And there's no reason for my ISP to store my bank account or credit card numbers.

Partisanship? Please... (5, Insightful)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | about 3 years ago | (#36926610)

This bill will sail through with bipartisan support. Point me to the privacy-invading bill that was unilaterally forced through. The worst and biggest ones were bipartisan, namely the DMCA, which no one would even sign their name to, and the PATRIOT Act, which very few voted against.

Yep, this is not a Dem/Rep issue... (2)

alispguru (72689) | about 3 years ago | (#36926758)

It's a scare-the-voters-silly-to-expand-surveillance-powers issue. The Democratic administration won't veto this.

Not just Republicans (3, Informative)

yog (19073) | about 3 years ago | (#36926650)

The DOJ wants to collect data, too. And some Republicans like Rep. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin [cnet.com] oppose data retention.

Basically, people need to get off their duffs and agitate to prevent these bills from becoming law. This is so typical of law enforcement, going after the lowest hanging fruit which is the privacy of innocent civilians rather than doing the difficult detective work of hunting down that tiny fraction of criminals.

As for child porn, I don't see how we can possibly prevent its use. It's out there, the internet is huge and uncontrollable, and it's going to continue to be passed around. All we can really do is try to limit its spread and impact on society. There have always been sick individuals and there has always been sexual abuse of minors. We should be focusing on better education and moral training from an early age.

Obviously, just blanket sweeping the usage statistics of every user out there is a huge step toward a totalitarian control over information and that's not acceptable in a free society. China tries to do it in a bumbling, paranoid manner and mainly they're shooting themselves in the foot. We should be better than that.

Some of my favorite liberals are cosponsors (1)

Quila (201335) | about 3 years ago | (#36927040)

I don't mean I like them, but they are just so far out insane crazy whacked-out liberal that they provide entertainment value, like Wasserman Shultz and Jackson Lee.

But there is a copyright enforcement angle. Republican dinosaur Howard Coble is a MAFIAA butt-buddy, and a cosponsor. I'd also be very suprised if the wholly-owned Democratic MAFIAA subsidiary known as Howard Berman didn't vote for it.

I foresee the raise of VPN services. (3, Insightful)

Eglembor (598622) | about 3 years ago | (#36926652)

this is akin to place a gps on every single person in the States and keep track of where they are going, when, how, etc. I am amazed how civil liberties are constantly being eroded by the "anti big government" party.

19-10 vote (2)

SatanClauz (741416) | about 3 years ago | (#36926656)

in other words, 19 out of 29 of them know how to use TOR

tor everywhere? (1)

hendrikboom (1001110) | about 3 years ago | (#36926918)

It would surprise me if someone hasn't already embedded tor into a botnet.

Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party... (3, Insightful)

Assmasher (456699) | about 3 years ago | (#36926706)

...seems to consist of people who truly believe that whatever you can get away with is kosher. F*** I can't stand them. I can't fathom how a middle class or lower person could even dream of voting for them - all that bullsh** about family values - they couldn't care less, they'll say whatever you want to hear. There are some dems like that as well, Nancy Pelosi (for example) - that b**** is the devil.

Step one to a better USA - abolish the party system entirely. Your only affiliation should be to individual constituents.

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (3, Insightful)

Atzanteol (99067) | about 3 years ago | (#36926772)

Considering a Democrat president ordered the assassination of a US citizen I'd say the Democrats are just as evil as you think the Republicans are.

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926866)

I thought it was Hoover who ordered JFK's demise...?

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (2)

Assmasher (456699) | about 3 years ago | (#36927020)

Yeah, that's right, Obama orders the assassination of a Yemeni/US dual citizen who happens a senior Al Qaeda member, that's EXACTLY the same as Republicans holding the country hostage over 'raising the debt ceiling' (which they did every year for that a**hat Bush without question - suddenly it's critical to the future of the nation's economy to be fiscally conservative LOL.) The same as the Republican, sorry NeoCon party using every dirty trick known to man to enact "Tort Reform", to elect/steam-roll State Supreme Court judges around the country. The same Republican party that is vociferously anti-gay and yet several times recently has congressional leaders being outed as paying or participating in luridly gay sex. The same Republican party that eviscerated the EPA, that lied to us to go to war in Iraq, that created this national debt issue, that outed a CIA operative in revenge for her husband speaking the truth, that is anti-regulation in Wall Street, that has no problems with taxes on the poor, or middle class, but demands that tax cuts for the wealthy continue despite tax shortfalls nationally! FFS, I could go on an on.

F***, like I said before, I don't like Democrats either, but at least they just come across as either stupid or bleeding heart. Republicans come across as Machiavellian, greedy, and downright evil.

Abolish the party system entirely. NO Democrats, NO Republicans, NO business contribution, individual contribution caps.

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (1)

hypergreatthing (254983) | about 3 years ago | (#36927090)

I happen to agree with your first sarcastic sentence. The value of a life is more important than money.

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about 3 years ago | (#36927288)

Of course it is, but unless you think no one ever deserved assassination what is your point? If you believe no one ever deserves assassination then you're what I would refer to as a zealot.

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36927154)

Obama orders the assassination of a Yemeni/US dual citizen who happens a senior Al Qaeda member

Let me bring it down to the important part for you:

US citizen

There are no circumstances whatsoever in which it is acceptable to wantonly assassinate a citizen of the United States.

Kindly get the fuck out of my country.

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 3 years ago | (#36927248)

I've said it before. Just put Linus Torvalds in charge and it will sort itself out.

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about 3 years ago | (#36927366)

He'd never take that job...

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | about 3 years ago | (#36927390)

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

6th amendment to the US constitution [wikipedia.org]

Some of us take those words seriously. I imagine you would have too had GWB been the one to do it.

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (1)

halfEvilTech (1171369) | about 3 years ago | (#36926792)

A full list of the criminals erm congress critters that voted in favor of the bill. I would even wager this may get snuck into the debt increase bills floating around if they really wanted to be sneaky as one of them has to pass eventually -

Lamar Smith, Howard Coble, Elton Gallegly, Bob Goodlatte, Dan Lungren, Steve Chabot, Randy Forbes, Steve King, Trent Franks, Tim Griffin, Thomas Marino, Trey Gowdy, Dennis Ross, Sandy Adams, Howard Berman, Sheila Jackson Lee, Pedro Pierluisi, Mike Quigley, Ted Deutch

we have 14 replicans and 5 democrats in that list.

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926794)

you act as if the democrats don't on poewr grabs too. sorry to see that your head is in the sand. but i will agree that the party system needs to be abolished.

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about 3 years ago | (#36927086)

Funny, I seem to recall calling Nancy Pelosi the f***ing devil...

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (1)

Petron (1771156) | about 3 years ago | (#36927098)

Both Democrats and Republicans voted FOR this.
Both Democrats and Republicans voted AGAINST this.

I don't know why the author decided to attach this to "Evil Republicans are doing this" when both sides are. What shocks me Hank "Guam will tip over and capsize" Johnson voted against this. I'm shocked he wasn't voted out of office.

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (1)

Assmasher (456699) | about 3 years ago | (#36927270)

3:1 Republicans to Democrats

Re:Democrats are idiots but the Republican Party.. (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about 3 years ago | (#36927360)

I can explain for myself. I'm not trying to open a debate, but just to give an explanation:

My primary reason is that Republicans generally vote against abortion rights, and Democrats for them. (Let's not debate this here; there's no hope of changing each other's minds right here and now.)

That being said, I'm finding it harder to justify voting for either Republicans or Democrats now. Republicans strike me as amazingly short-sighted regarding environmental issues and workplace safety. They appear clearly in the pockets of oil companies and others. And they almost never end up following through on their grandiose claims about state's rights and smaller federal government.

The Democrats, on the other hand, are also acting so unwisely in my mind that I can't happily vote for them either. There's the abortion thing as mentioned above. But I think there's lots of evidence that their desire for a welfare state just doesn't work well. And Obama fulfilled none of my hopes for him: prosecuting the NSA for illegal wiretaps; prosecuting the CIA for torture; etc. And they appear to have made extremely poor decision regarding economic stimulus and bank bailouts. In fact, the bank bailouts appear to have greatly favored bank welfare over borrower / mortgage-holder welfare, which betrays the populist reputation the Democrats' seem like holding.

Don't forget the Senate (1)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | about 3 years ago | (#36926716)

It would have to pass there too and the Senate is controlled by degenerate Democrats (I kid, I kid). There's still hope.

Re:Don't forget the Senate (2)

j4ckknife (1222282) | about 3 years ago | (#36926822)

...well, it hasn't passed the House, for that matter. The vote just means it made it out of committee.

Re:Don't forget the Senate (1)

goldspider (445116) | about 3 years ago | (#36926894)

As if they aren't just as on-board with freedom-robbing "think of the children!" legislation as Republicans.

Re:Don't forget the Senate (1)

dnahelicase (1594971) | about 3 years ago | (#36926956)

This will pass through like every other piece of BS they like to shove through instead of working on anything that actually matters.

If you protest, they call you fringe protestors, and the rest of the country won't care because they think the real issue right now is the debt ceiling.

Congress knows it can do anything it wants in times of great turmoil over something else

Anyway, this just makes it easier for the real child pornographers. I mean sure, it'll catch the newbies or casual deviants, but the real bad people just use this for cover.

Like copy protections and DRM, it only stops the ones that don't know how to get around it.

Now it will be easier than ever for someone to frame someone else and hide the real trail.

Don't put your hope in the Senate (1)

Quila (201335) | about 3 years ago | (#36927290)

There are enough big-government authoritarian Democrats there to pass it too.

Sign this: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926724)

https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=497 [eff.org]

Why this link wouldn't be posted in the summary, I don't know.

And why Slashdot can't automatically turn addresses into links, I'll also never know.

H.R. 1981? Why not H.R. 1984 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926728)

Or is that the one that's really going put the boot on our necks?

Emigrate (2)

elsurexiste (1758620) | about 3 years ago | (#36926734)

Laws in the US resemble an authoritarian police state. The usual thing to do is to go away. Europe is the first and obvious choice (just don't go to London, the place is as full of cameras as 1984 described). Alternatively, go to South America, either Brazil, Chile or Argentina: people are more open and easygoing, if not chaotic :). The culture shock may be greater with Asia. Run while the state still issue passports!

Re:Emigrate (1)

iONiUM (530420) | about 3 years ago | (#36926826)

Canada? We're uh, right there, you know. We also don't suck, like the US.

Re:Emigrate (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 3 years ago | (#36926982)

Canada? We're uh, right there, you know. We also don't suck, like the US.

I have been to Canada many times, and I assure you that there are sucky bits. Just not the same sucky bites. Mostly.

Re:Emigrate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926992)

Shhhh! Ignore this guy, move to Europe, South America, or Asia. Anywhere but here.

Re:Emigrate (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | about 3 years ago | (#36927072)

Good point. I read Montreal is a nice cosmopolitan city, with a lot of ethnicities.

Re:Emigrate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36927198)

if you find a country that will let you live there indefinitely without a lot of red tape let us know... been waiting to bail on the US for years but there's nowhere to go

Not me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926762)

I don't surf porn, and I don't do anything illegal online or otherwise, but this is WAY too SS for me. I'll simply quit using the internet. I got along fine before it, I'll get along fine without it.

Damn Tea Party! (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 3 years ago | (#36926764)

Where the hell is the tea party? They talk about keeping the government out of our lives, but when it really matters they aren't anywhere to be found.

They can hold the entire country hostage with this ridiculous debt limit kabuki (it's ridiculous because congress already authorised the spending when they passed the bills spending the money earlier this year), they are trying to have their cake and eat it too) but they can't stop one minor bill that directly contradicts their stated ideology? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Re:Damn Tea Party! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926952)

Koch bros don't care about this.

Re:Damn Tea Party! (3, Interesting)

hazem (472289) | about 3 years ago | (#36926976)

Where the hell is the tea party? They talk about keeping the government out of our lives, but when it really matters they aren't anywhere to be found.

That was my thought. When I used to fit more within conservative politics, the idea of limiting government monitoring of citizens an appealing part of the ideology.

Now I fit more within the liberal side of things (I've drifted to the left, but I think the country had drifted right), but I still don't like the idea of all of the eavesdropping and records retention used to monitor citizens. The right still talks about how evil and communist-like we liberals are. But it's sad to me that it's the right that's been implementing all these things that I consider hallmarks of a totalitarian regime. It's funny and sad that it's one of the more extreme Democrats (commie that he is, right?) that's challenging this bill.

Re:Damn Tea Party! (1)

marxmarv (30295) | about 3 years ago | (#36927362)

Heh, the same commie that tried to lock up [slashdot.org] a bunch of government-paid medical research for private profit, which fortunately died in committee...

Re:Damn Tea Party! (2)

characterZer0 (138196) | about 3 years ago | (#36926998)

You are making the common mistake of thinking the tea party and the Tea Party are the same. The former is a group of people fed up with government excess. The latter is a PR arm of the GOP. The former is against HR.1981. The latter is playing chicken with the Democrats over the budget and the debt limit.

Re:Damn Tea Party! (2)

marxmarv (30295) | about 3 years ago | (#36927292)

No, the Tea Party talks about keeping the government out of the Koch brothers' lives.

Seriously, though, forget the existing power structure for solving your problems. Anyone who stands a chance of gaining any advantage for the little guy gets shot, poisoned, tortured or hit with manufactured rape charges. It's long past time for the class war to get hot again. Okay, actually, the class war's always BEEN hot, but the besieged masses have been too busy playing WoW or watching tv to fight back...

They'll be sorry (2)

ivandavidoff (969036) | about 3 years ago | (#36926786)

This is clearly an attack on Democrat sleazebags, who use the internet to carry out their peccadillos. Republican sleazebags are smugly confident this won't affect them, since they're still rocking it old-school in airport bathroom stalls. But the next generation of Republican sleazebags will be much more tech-savvy -- and they will rue this day.

In related news.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926890)

...Russian cyber crime organizations have signaled a change in market focus. "The ISP now represents the Walmart of data shopping. They have everything we need: names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, and bank account numbers. Why should we attack anyone else?"

 

Dub it the HEA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926926)

Dub this the Hacker Empowerment Act of 2011 and see how quickly it goes down. I mean, that's what they're effectively doing. They're telling ISPs to turn themselves into nice juicy targets for hackers.

Posted online in 3..2..1.. (1)

oik (790336) | about 3 years ago | (#36926932)

Once this is in place how long before [insert hacking group of the month] breaks into an ISP and posts this online? The more of this stuff which is collected the more Sonyesque cases we are going to see. The eternal optimist in me says that maybe that will cause a rethink of these types of laws; the pessimist has a quite different opinion...

This is a really BAD idea. (1)

gstrickler (920733) | about 3 years ago | (#36926938)

Requiring them to store names, addresses, credit card and banking info, and even phone numbers????? The ONLY thing they should store in the logs are a user account ID, the user's IP address, and maybe the destination IP address. Names, addresses, and phone numbers should be kept completely separate from the logs, not even stored on the same machine, and preferably not on the same network. Storing CC and banking info should be discouraged, or at the very least require that is be stored separately from the previous 2 categories, that it's not accessible from the network, and that it be encrypted all times when stored.

BTW, keeping that information will not protect a single child, ever! This is complete nonsense.

Re:This is a really BAD idea. (1)

Sir_Eptishous (873977) | about 3 years ago | (#36927056)

They're just trying to make it that much easier for the hacker arm of the Peoples Liberation Army to get your data.

I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926948)

What Anthony Wiener thinks about this bill? Wasn't he a congressman who was having nefarious internet photo sharing sessions with teenage girls? Maybe the republicans are trying to protect children from liberal politicians!

Is this what they had in mind? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36927002)

So, is this what the Republicans meant when they said they believed in 'small government'?

HR 1981 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36927078)

Write your applicable representative and give them a piece of your mind about HR 1981 [loc.gov] .

In case you haven't figured it out (1)

assertation (1255714) | about 3 years ago | (#36927204)

The Republicans are out to service the rich and powerful, by making them more of each at the expense of all other Americans.

If you think otherwise you are either stupid, simply ignorant of what is going on or you have an emotional loyalty to the GOP blinding your otherwise good faculties ( i.e. being born into a GOP family ).

This gonna be funny (1)

Torino10 (1369453) | about 3 years ago | (#36927206)

It will be really funny once these ISP's get hacked and all the dirty little websites these congressmen have been visiting get posted to the internet. The unintended consequences of there actions will most certainly end up destroying there political careers.

When (*****) Engages In Spying On Its Citizens... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36927218)

When China engages in spying on its citizens it is Totalitarianism.

When U.S.A engages in spying on its citizens it is Public Safety.

When China engages in spying on its citizens it is Suppressing Freedom Of Expression.

When U.S.A. engages in spying on its citizens it is Protecting Public Morals.

Is there any difference at the bottom line?

Is it time to change our form of government? Back to what it Constitutionally designed?

Is it safe to say things like this on the internet still today?

Will slashdot need a credit-card number from me before it can post it tomorrow?

Will I need to show ID to listen to the satellite-radio musak at Burger King?

Just askin'...

Small government Tea Partyers at your service (5, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | about 3 years ago | (#36927340)

Yep, this is what the small-government people want. More regulation and requirements on business so it can continue to innovate. This is government getting out of the way.

I hate the way this group lies blatantly. The rampant hypocrisy and lying is endemic to this movement. I hope you small government fiscal conservative types take note here. Or maybe you should stop telling yourselves that's what you stand for.

Well as long as... (1)

Roogna (9643) | about 3 years ago | (#36927372)

As long as the bill also requires the ISP's and connections of all members of the Federal government, Congress, Senate, Whitehouse, everyone, to be tracked to the same level of detail and published openly (Since we the tax payers actually pay for those connections we should know what they're being used for...)

Oh wait, it doesn't? Well, think we found where all the vile stuff is being downloaded... When's the raid on the House Judiciary Committee?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>