Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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

Thank you!

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

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

U.S. Pressures ISPs on Data Retention

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the because-they-needed-more-to-do dept.

221

packetmon writes "According to Wired's Declan McCullagh 'In a private meeting with industry representatives, Gonzales, Mueller and other senior members of the Justice Department said Internet service providers should retain subscriber information and network data for two years ... A more extensive mandate would require companies to keep track of e-mail messages sent, Web pages visited and perhaps even instant-messaging correspondents.'"

cancel ×

221 comments

wow (5, Insightful)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415221)

that's a lot of data... I wonder how many hard drives it would take to keep that much. besides, it would be so much data that it would be really had to sort through it all in order to try and prevent any crimes (I'm assuming this is an anti-terrorist thing - as most crazy freedom reducing laws these days are)... all this would do is after someone had blown themselves up and you knew who they were you could say "so in this instance "flower" meant bomb... but because of the cellular nature of these groups we're no closer to stopping any other attack"

Re:wow (2, Insightful)

jacksonj04 (800021) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415270)

If yuo run a mid-sized network just get your router/firewall to log everything that goes past to gat an actual idea of how much this is. I tried it a while back on my home network (3 users, slightly above average on each) and got some stupidly large volume of data.

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415302)

it would be so much data that it would be really had to sort through it all in order to try and prevent any crimes

I really think this should be delegated to the technical experts at the RIAA-headquarter. Only they have the technical expertise and legal competence to use this data to prevent gross crimes against humanity (like stealing $5 from George Lucas, thereby completely ruining him).

Re:wow (1)

SargeantLobes (895906) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415331)

Exactley, searching through two years of (pgp encoded) data is impossible. Especially if people make sure there's a lot of it (by seeding linux iso's for instance). And stopping terrorism (which I'm presuming this bill is being 'marketed' with) is even more impossible.

This does nothing, the criminals will start using encryption, and we'll have to start paying our ISP's for all that storage. It will only make the internet more expensive and Western Digital a lot richer.

Re:wow (2, Informative)

jcupitt65 (68879) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415385)

The UK (and now the EU, thanks T. Blair!) have data retention already in law (though not yet implemented AFAIK).

They don't retain the data: the volume would be far too high (as you say). They just (!!) track who mails who, who IMs with whom, and the websites you visit. Just liike an itemised phone bill, but covering the internet. The websites thing is unclear: I don't know if they're planning to just keep www.mybank.com, or whether the whole mybank.com/transaction.php?cardno=2345876349583498 will be retained.

Anyway, data volume isn't a particular problem, and I imagine the US is planning the same idea.

Re:wow (1)

mattpointblank (936343) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415395)

If that's how they pass their variables, they certainly won't be MyBank.

Re:wow (0, Flamebait)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415438)

that's a lot of data... I wonder how many hard drives it would take to keep that much.

I'm sure the NSA will conveniently offer a high bandwidth pipe into all the ISPs to collect the data for them and store it in their datacenter. I can't wait until 2008 so we can vote these clowns out of office and forget about this whole terrorism nonsense. If you ignore those jokers and don't give them the attention they want they'll eventually go away, but if you keep fighting them like Israel does they'll keep attacking to stay in the headlines. For example, where is the IRA these days? I haven't heard them bombing many places lately.

Just keep thinking that buddy... (1)

Stoutlimb (143245) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415443)

"(I'm assuming this is an anti-terrorist thing - as most crazy freedom reducing laws these days are)"

Honestly, how many terrorists are they going to catch? How many have they caught so far? How long do you think it will take them to find other uses for your information?

If you think it's ok for them to do this to 300,000,000 + Americans just to catch 5 or 6 terrorists, you deserve everything you get.

It's not an anti-terrorist thing. It's an anti-American thing.

Never forget that.

Re:wow (2, Insightful)

Cicero382 (913621) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415535)

Well, I can't speak for "them", but our firewall saves *every* packet that passes through it for security reasons (don't ask - it's a client thing). It's mirrored, but I dug my heels in when they wanted backups.. Why?

We ran a trial period to look at the issues (who wouldn't?) What we found was this:
(Hops over to firewall to get the stats..)

Over the 4 week trial period we captured 521Gb of data. Since we had only allocated 500Gb for the whole thing - this was worrying.

BTW - we use a full-duplex satellite link 'cos DSL isn't available in this part of Italy and also it has a *ridiculously* wide bandwith. We don't really care about latency. Well, some of my staff who would rather be playing Quake probably mind..

Sorry - I digress.

My point is: We are a company which is geared towards storing and processing very large amounts of data (>120 Tb). We use the internet to access various DBs for our work. We're not what one would call a large organisation. But there are plenty like us and many more even *bigger*! And this is just corporate use.

So, how the hell is *any* ISP expected to store even the most trivial details of IP transactions run through it? Just "FTP from here to there"? What use is that?

If we're struggling to deal with saving this type of transaction data for ourselves (with our storage capacity) I can guarantee that the "powers-that-be" haven't got a snowball in hell's chance of retaining anything useful.

Even if the collection of the data was justified.

Even if there was any way they could process it.

Hard Drives? Bah! (3, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415693)

If they want that data, each packet should be printed out and mailed to them!

Re:wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415725)

Instead of claiming this is for National Security, then are claiming it is to help stop things like pediphiles and child abuse. Of course we all know that whatever they claim it is for, will only be used for that, and that only the FBI would be able to request such data...all in the name to protect privacy of citizens and other civil liberties.

Why not just follow the formula in 1984? (5, Insightful)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415233)

Rather than put all of the onus on spying on the population on third parties, such as telcos, credit card companies, ISPs and airlines, why not just implement the solution in 1984. You just install two-way TVs in everyone's homes and offices. That way you can efficiently monitor what everyone is doing in a centralised fashion. The data would be recorded for later playback if needed. As a safeguard, officials would only be able to examine the recordings if they obtained a court order (unless, of course, the President decided it was necessary to the fight against terror to waive the requirement for a court order). After all, if you are not doing anything wrong, why object to such a system?

I don't know wheter to mod you insightful or funny (1)

xmodem_and_rommon (884879) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415239)

I don't know wheter to mod you insightful or funny. So i'll reply instead and it won't be my problem.

Re:Why not just follow the formula in 1984? (5, Insightful)

BobSutan (467781) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415258)

Why not? Because they haven't boiled the frog slowly enough yet to get away with it.

Laugh (2, Insightful)

Mark_MF-WN (678030) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415620)

I swear, it's a laugh a day with the Americans. Never was there a people more accepting of their oppression. Even Iranians stage riots. What's America got? Disgruntled forum posts.

Admittedly it would be a lot funnier if I didn't live a stone's throw from the US (I checked once, and the local transit system goes to within 300 metres of the US border... although there is no border crossing at that location). It would be funnier still if I wasn't aware that Canada's latest batch of census data is being processed by a US business, and is therefore considered property of the US government. Oh well, c'est la vie, long live rock, and all that.

Re:Why not just follow the formula in 1984? (1)

Fire Dragon (146616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415289)

After all, if you are not doing anything wrong, why object to such a system?

That would just be their way of not paying for my famous home videos.

They could also boost their finances be creating new pay-per-view system. I mean, if the techonology is already there and nobody has nothing to hide, why shouldn't they support their goverment by allowing other people to watch you.

There's no difference. (3, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415296)

They are talking about taking Carnivore out of the secret room. The "records" of everything you do will be available without warrent already. New laws will do away those pesky constitutional concerns. Sooner or later the collection machinery will be specified and owned by the feds, though still payed for by the ISP. The "evidence" will stand up better in court when someone decides to dissapear you with kiddie porn or some other disgraceful crime. The currently proposed system will eliminate the "stove pipes" in the current corporate owned spy network. You private papers and personal effects are owned more effectively than Eric Blair imagined they would be.

Re:Why not just follow the formula in 1984? (1)

Alicat1194 (970019) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415297)

After all, if you are not doing anything wrong, why object to such a system?

Because no one, no matter how heinous their crime, deserves to have to see me watching tv in my dodgy PJs.

Re:Why not just follow the formula in 1984? (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415306)

You just install two-way TVs in everyone's homes and offices.

Do you have a webcam?
Just askin...

Re:Why not just follow the formula in 1984? (1)

da (93780) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415375)

Without wishing to blow my own trumpet (pa-paah! dammit!) I remember observing in conversation a couple of years ago that when enough people have webcams, 1984 will have arrived...

Re:Why not just follow the formula in 1984? (1)

pjay_dml (710053) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415356)

Oh it's comming don't you worry [usatoday.com] , they are just waiting for the right moment, when everyone is too scared to say anything against such ideas, after all "if you are not doing anything wrong, why should you worry about it?"

We could scar the viewers as protesting (1)

electrosoccertux (874415) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415688)

I don't think they'd be interested in checking my feed out further seeing as I would just beat off in front of it to piss them off. :)

Do they realize the scope? (5, Interesting)

mentatultima (926841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415241)

Considering that more email is generated every year then snail mail; nevermind that just logs alone can overflow hard drives (happened to quite a few systems I encountered). Not even counting the privacy considerations this will create traffic jams and increased costs for internet usage (The extra hard drive space has to come from somewhere).

Not to mention that all that extra has to be pored through. The FBI had gotten information on a case from homeland security, unfortunately they did not parse it down and the FBI agents lamented that they spent a majority of time chasing down pizza deliverys instead of spending more time on the actual case.

Image the uproar when (not if) a cracker gets into the database and abuses all that information.

The information gathered from users can also be used(abused) for blackmailing.

You might be asked to testify against someone, if not then well your employer and spouse might accidently find out about your surfing habits.

All in all, this sounds like a lose-lose situation for almost all involved.

Re:Do they realize the scope? (3, Insightful)

Mostly a lurker (634878) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415262)

I will just add that one of the most important uses of the information will be to go after those who "put national security at risk" by revealing illegal actions by the security services.

Re:Do they realize the scope? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415322)

Even if they implemented the system, and figured they did have enough space to store it all, couldn't everybody just start sending and receiving garbage 24 hours a day in order to clog the system. Some kind of P2P clog the log system?

Do they realize the scope?-Random clogs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415336)

"Even if they implemented the system, and figured they did have enough space to store it all, couldn't everybody just start sending and receiving garbage 24 hours a day in order to clog the system."

We have that already. It's called spam.

I need an analogy referee please (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415654)

More email than snail mail..

what's the basis-- # of pieces of each or amount of data contained within or 3-d mass volume of actual mail?

if you mean # of pieces.. if (fer analogious example) I had to store 1000 copies of of postal mail, or 100,000 pieces of email per person-- I know which would be simpler to arrange&store... the email.. I think the comparison to postal mail is useless..

Whos going to pay for this dumb idea? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415245)

As long as the government is willing the pay to keep all this data then i don't see why not...

Oh wait, no you want ISPs to pay? HAHAHAHA

Re:Whos going to pay for this dumb idea? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415281)

They're actually trying this in the EU, where it has already been agreed that data retention should be implemented for at least 6 months or so.

Personally I don't see little that can be really achieved with this approach to actually prevent terrorist, since there are dozens of ways that can be used to circumvent this data mining approach.. and even a 12-year old can think of them.

I think one might only be able to do something with when something has actually happened, parsing these amounts of data in real-time andextracting something you didn't know from it is extremly hard.

Note number 1: The famous Dutch ISP xs4all has started a counter [xs4all.nl] in the beginning of september 2005, giving an indication of how much cd's one would need to store only their traffic (~6% market share AFAIK). As I write this, the counter approaches 62 million cd's.

Note number 2: I once saw someone make a small calculation on the back of an envelope about how much physical space would be needed to store all this information using hard disks.. and how many disks would fail every day given their MTBF of such a large 'warehouse filled with disks'. IIRC, one would need about 10 FTE only to replace the failing disks..

Note number 3: It's obvious that these ideas are not made up by people with technical expertise

Note number 4: perhaps it's not a bad idea to start buying shares of companies that provide storage solutions ;O

Note number 5: I'm really wondering how this whole non-sense would hold up against the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea. If I'm innocent, why am I being tracked?!?

Re:Whos going to pay for this dumb idea? (1)

jdbartlett (941012) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415637)

"Note number 5: I'm really wondering how this whole non-sense would hold up against the 'innocent until proven guilty' idea. If I'm innocent, why am I being tracked?!?"

In a court, you're innocent until proven guilty. That doesn't mean detectives can't dig up evidence to present in court.

This only applies to the legal system. As is my understanding, American citizen or no, someone can be taken prisoner after having been declared an "enemy of state". Any takers?

conflicting goals (5, Insightful)

runlevel 5 (977409) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415253)

FTA

"I will reach out personally to the CEOs of the leading service providers and to other industry leaders," Gonzales said. "Record retention by Internet service providers consistent with the legitimate privacy rights of Americans is an issue that must be addressed."

Privacy rights and citizen-snooping mix worse than water and oil.

Re:conflicting goals (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415269)

You'll notice that this is Gonzales speaking. With him "Legitimate privacy rights" means, approximately, "We deign to allow you to keep your clothes on in public."

Simple Solution (3, Informative)

massivefoot (922746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415271)

Is this not exactly the sort of problem public key cryptography is well-suited to combatting?

Re:Simple Solution (1)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415321)

Do you want to explain to me exactly how you encrypt an http GET command? They're talking about tracking what sites you visit - just like China. At least we know they can count on Google for help.

Re:Simple Solution (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415358)

Maybe you could use a new technology called HTTPS to ecrypt your HTTP Get command. Sure they could track which server you connect to, but not which pages are requested, nor the data that is sent back. A proxy system that did the requests for you would hide who was getting which pages.

Re:Simple Solution (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415682)

Better solution: Tor. They can't tell what web server you accessed.

Re:Simple Solution (3, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415326)

No. They talk about the information. e.g. that I connected to http://politics.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] not the fact that I actually wrote this.

Compare it to the fact that phone companies keep records of whom you called when. Not what you said on that phonecall.

That is another department. Oh and no matter if it is the ISP or the governement who is paying, you are going to pay for it. Either by taxes or by price increase.

Re:Simple Solution (1)

Cyclops (1852) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415350)

No. They talk about the information. e.g. that I connected to http://politics.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] not the fact that I actually wrote this.
So you are a politically interested terrorist^Wcitizen, hmss? Slashdot... give us the user id corresponding to IP address w.x.y.z on 12:48 PM EST, CST or WST. Oh, here's the court order. How did we find the IP? Oh... we didn't need to tap anyone for that, ya... see... it's lawfull to snoop on all citizens, ya see?...

Re:Simple Solution (1)

packetmon (977047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415442)

You're incorrect about what they actually want... The government hasn't made clear what information they want retained. They're not sure if they want entire sessions of just session information. I wonder if the government is going to subsidize monies for companies to build their infrastructures to accomodate the information the government is soliciting. If I were a small business and did not have the money in my budget to fill this task should I be fined?

Not So Simple Solution (1)

packetmon (977047) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415426)

While it may seem to be the solution, how long before companies are pressured to place something on the operating system level, say a keylogger? Wouldn't be the first time the government went this route (Google FBI +Magic Lantern). As a whole I would think too much crypto usage would create a boon in cybercriminals using crypto for malice thereby giving the government justification for passing laws to ban cryptos. Akin to gun laws... Guns don't kill people...
This two-part article series looks at how cryptography is a double-edged sword: it is used to make us safer, but it is also being used for malicious purposes within sophisticated viruses. Part two continues the discussion of armored viruses and then looks at a Bradley worm - a worm that uses cryptography in such a way that it cannot be analyzed. Then it is shown how Skype can be used for malicious purposes, with a crypto-virus that is very difficult to detect.(SecurityFocus [securityfocus.com]

Re:Simple Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415482)

No, they will just make a law requiring you turn over your encryption keys like Europe does http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/18/141 9202 [slashdot.org]

Restoring huge backed up log files (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415275)

could take a really long time assuming the goverment could even find working tape drives for your backup media. And using striping only RAIT, because backing up that volume of data needs the speed, means you need lots of tape drives and all the tapes better be good. Message to goverment: Be careful what you ask for. You just may get it.

Constitutional Amendments? (3, Interesting)

Threni (635302) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415279)

Sadly I'm not American, but this seems like the sort of thing that would be pretty early on in the list of rights you guys have - freedom of speech, not incriminate yourselfs in court etc - so is there any possibility that you could have a new amendment - the right to have private communication with people without having to tell - or without the carrier having to tell - the government? It sounds a bit much to me.

Also, from a technical point of view, why isn't Linux and other Open Source software using encryption by default? If emails are hard to encrypt as a matter of course, perhaps it's time for another system which handles messages strongly encrypted. I've heard about TOR from the EFF, and I remember the short-lived Triangle Boy system - it really sounds like this sort of thing needs to be made up and running sooner rather than later.

Re:Constitutional Amendments? (2, Insightful)

Bobzibub (20561) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415463)

Happily, I'm not American. = )

But I do live in the US. From what I can gather, they want to create big nets or maps of people. Who contacts whom. They don't particularly care what people say initially. That comes later if something strikes their fancy. There was a story once where they ID'd some 911 people on a big chart using this info, but they did not keep the info; the military was not allowed. Now the legislation is catching up with the technology...Nevermind that the 911 person was only fingered along with a gazillion others....This story is the driving motivator, I'd bet.

Encryption will not help you here because an encrypted email still fingers your pals as pals of you. Probably not triangle boy either because they will have info on both ends, as long as the communication is domestic to the US.

You might be able to network directly with the peers on your subnet and "distribute" before your ISP gets the info? The ISP would have to sniff every subnet. Might as well make 'em work for their data eh!

The ISPs they're talking to are major companies. And as we know, the lobbyist's lawyers write the legislation. So it will actually happen if the ISPs can get someone else to pay for it. Watch the money. Mean time, support your local yokel ISP, the ones who cannot possibly have the resources to do this. Or start your own.

I agree on the "get a system up and running" part. 96 bits for two IPs and a date stamp? We can do better! Really, one needs to consider a distributed network where all the major protocols are mimicked. One "FTP" packet there. One "HTTP" packet there. One "telnet" packet there. Couple of fake "ssh" packets over there. This way we could make the amount of data to be retained extremely expensive, because you don't get a single couplet of points for a whole tcp stream. Also, with data jumbled, assembly will require actual CPU power, not just DMA transfers from NIC to hard drive. And if we could get that module into the kernel to do some opportunistic distributedness.. That would be ideal.

I dunno. It is unfortunate to watch what can happen in five short years. You should start putting your foot down Yanks. Don't count on me: if the #@*($& hits the fan, I'm outa here.
= )

Cheers,
-b

Re:Constitutional Amendments? (1)

Secrity (742221) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415520)

The US Government had earlier found that simply appealing to the populace to "think of the children" can get the populace to tolerate a great amount of unconstitutional intrusion. The real key to getting the population of the US to allow total government intrusion is simply the word "TERRORISM".

Re:Constitutional Amendments? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415543)

That would be the 4th [findlaw.com] .

Given the time of writing, it seems fairly obvious (though apparently much debated) that it is intended to include all forms of communication (since it lists them, given the time period), rather than those explicitly outlined.

An amendment adjusting the wording of the 4th to include "and all private communication" would certainly be benificial however, considering how often it's been argued that a new method of communicating should not be, or is not, covered under by the 4th amendment. (see the various arguments regarding, for instance, the telephone.)

See also: UNITED STATES v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) [findlaw.com] regarding the current debate about such things (and the other references for the other arguments about it).

Encrypting all electronic communication is a rather complicated social/technical problem (all users need keys, all users need the means to retrieve the public key of any other party, etc). Given the failure of PGP to achieve this among the general public, it seems clear that it not only needs to be possible, but in fact easy to do this. Not least, there's a critical mass of non-technical people making extensive daily use of email and associated forms of communication, a method of encrypting same would require significant marketing and effort to give it any particular usefulness.

Re:Constitutional Amendments? (1)

thisissilly (676875) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415737)

Also, from a technical point of view, why isn't Linux and other Open Source software using encryption by default?

The short answer? Interoperability. If only 1 in 10 of my friends and family can read email from me, do you think I'll bother to use Linux?

instant-messaging correspondents? (1)

jginspace (678908) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415280)

It's lifted from the TFA but I guess this is supposed to mean 'instant messaging correspondence' (...in addition to logging the correspondents)?

log size (3, Interesting)

alzoron (210577) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415283)

Based on logs i've seen of similar information 2 years of logs would easilly be 26 gbs for a single person. That's just a conservitive number for the types that check their email a few times a week and look at the Lost forums every now and then.

Multiply that by 100s of thousands of users and you're looking at warehouses full of tapes and/or hard drives. That's if you're conservitive.

Re:log size (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415292)

"Multiply that by 100s of thousands of users and you're looking at warehouses full of tapes and/or hard drives. That's if you're conservitive."

If thats how many hard drives you would need if you're conservative, just imagine how many would be required to log the liberals (or be logged by the liberals, your choice)!

Log size and a full time person to manage it (2, Interesting)

usurper_ii (306966) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415423)

I work at a small WISP. Wireless Internet is secondary to our primary business, so anything to do with the Internet gets put on hold when a primary job comes up. The practical result of that is, we barely have a spare minute to work on the network side of the WISP (the result is also crappy customer service, but that is a different post).

Should something like this actually happen, it would take not only a large amount of space, but for us, probably a full time person just to manage backing up the logs. For a large ISP it would take probably a couple of people or more. Not to mention the fact of the cost of the network monitoring software it would take to record all of this information.

We are already on the edge, something like this would just do us in.

But maybe that is an intended result, as having a few AT&T's that give you a straight pipe right onto their backbone, is a hell of a lot easier to monitor than a whole bunch of mom & pop ISPs who could not possibly to even begin to comply with these monitoring requirements.

Let the cry be heard: V for Vendetta

Usurper_ii

   

Re:Log size and a full time person to manage it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415585)

>Let the cry be heard: V for Vendetta

Let the cry be heard: G for Get a life, it's f**king movie.

Re:log size (1)

slashflood (697891) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415569)

Based on logs i've seen of similar information 2 years of logs would easilly be 26 gbs for a single person.

26 GB is what I generate on one single evening surfing pr0n^H^H^H^Hwikipedia!

Data Storage (2, Insightful)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415286)

I'm sure the ISPs wouldn't mind - as long as the government provides the data storage center and pipe to the same. I just don't want to be the poor sucker that's expected to develop an algorithm to efficiently search the steaming pile of crap that results from that sort of requirement.

Re:Data Storage (1)

Cheeze (12756) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415475)

Enter google.gov

i'm scared.

More correctly, I'm sure AT&T wouldn't mind (2, Insightful)

usurper_ii (306966) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415514)

They are already doing it, and they know how many small ISPs would have to shut down because of the cost and complexity of doing something on this scale, if it became law. Big monopolistic-type businesses loves big government, because it puts up a large barrier for entry into the market.

Usurper_ii

Re:More correctly, I'm sure AT&T wouldn't mind (1)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415526)

BINGO.

You've just put all the "Little Fish" out of business.

Private Meeting? (4, Insightful)

badlikeacobra (903612) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415290)

I wonder if they have some privacy issues about the content of their private meetings showing up on the internet?

Distraction? (4, Insightful)

m1ndrape (971736) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415295)

are we sure this story isn't just to distract us from the AT&T + NSA snooping headlines? if they need to ask ISP's to retain all this data, then surely the NSA isn't doing what everything thinks they are doing.

Freedom and Cost (5, Insightful)

Sqreater (895148) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415299)

The cost of freedom and rights is paid not just on the battlefields of the wars we fight, but in our everyday lives. When we become so weak that we cannot accept that cost, then we cannot have rights and freedoms.

In Massachusetts, USA, we now have State Police on television, threatening the citizens of the State over seatbelt use. In the mad desire to save the last life, our government and police oppress and threaten not murderers or rapists, not armed robbers or burglars, but citizens commuting to work, mothers doing shopping, and old people on the way to bingo.

You can be sure that the requirement to hold all ISP information on individuals will extend from 2 years to 5 to 10. Then there will be a lifetime requirement on all communication by an individual.

They justify these incroachments on rights and freedoms by saying they are fighting crime and saving lives. We have to be strong enough to accept the consequences of our freedom to chose in our lives and tell them we are not mere cells in the body of society. We must tell them that we are not all "uncaught criminals" who must be monitored and spied upon by the government for our own good. We must tell them to go to hell.

Re:Freedom and Cost (1)

Canth7 (520476) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415346)

While I agree in general with your sentiments that we steadily complain less about freedom encroaching laws and practices, I don't agree with your seatbelt analogy.

1) Not wearing your seatbelt affects more than just you. If you have to swerve or brake suddenly or both while not wearing your seatbelt then it's possible that you could end up losing control over your vehicle causing you to crash into me. By wearing your seatbelt, you drive more safely and in control and you are performing a public good.

2) If you really don't want to wear your seatbelt, don't. The cops can't stop you for not wearing your seatbelt - they can only fine you for not wearing it if they pull you over for another infraction and then catch you not wearing it. Your privacy in your vehicle is far more secure than your email or your browsing habits which you have little control over who sees, given the nature of the internet.

Comparing seatbelt laws with say executive orders that allow a US citizen to be detained without right to concil, family, challenges to his detention, and without being charged with a crime is an entirely different ballgame. In latter case, we should not only tell them to go to hell, but throw the bums out.

In Connecticut non-seat-belt-use is just cause. (1)

FatSean (18753) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415364)

If you don't wear it, the cops have a legit reason to pull you over.

Your argument that this law is just because I can negatively affect others through non-use of a seatbelt is a bit reaching, don't you think?

Re:In Connecticut non-seat-belt-use is just cause. (1)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415405)

At least he didn't trot out the "your injuries will raise my health insurance premiums and the government will have to care for you or your widow" argument. Seatbelt and helmet laws are just one symptom of the outrageous disregard for freedom that allows this once great country to stomach the passage of laws regulating conduct that affects only oneself.

Re:In Connecticut non-seat-belt-use is just cause. (1)

lagerbottom (704499) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415421)

At least he didn't trot out the "your injuries will raise my health insurance premiums and the government will have to care for you or your widow" argument.

What about that though. I have always kind of considered it a legitimate gripe. I am not trolling I was looking for an honest opinion on the matter. Usually when I am trying to determine freedoms I use the litmus test: "You can do whatever you like, as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others". And rasing health care costs does kind of suck for other people.

So if you have a good argument I'd like to hear it, because I really don't like the alternative. It always smells to me like laws that are protecting me from myself, which makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Re:In Connecticut non-seat-belt-use is just cause. (1)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415501)

What about that though. I have always kind of considered it a legitimate gripe

If the government has the right to keep us from doing anything that might cause ourselves harm or shorten our lives, then government has a right to tell us not to eat high cholesterol, drink wine, participate in sports, you name it. That argument gives the politically correct safety police unbridled power. I wouldn't be surprised if our citizenry is idiotic or apathetic enough to let it happen, either.

In Connecticut we have a stupid state legislature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415518)

"I have always kind of considered it a legitimate gripe...rasing health care costs does kind of suck for other people"

Only thing I can think of is that as a society, we need to admit that life is potentially dangerous and that we shouldn't penalize individuals for actions that primarily affect themselves. You can make the same public cost argument against skydiving, bungee jumping, or just about anything other than sitting at home with the doors locked. One way to look at it may be to ask whether the person already has adequate incentives to act in a safe manner. The decision about whether to drive with a seatbelt should be left to a well-informed driver; the driver without a seatbelt is far more likely to suffer unpleasant consequences than anyone else involved. There's enough of a disincentive to leave the belt off that, should they choose to take that risk, they ought to have a good reason for doing so. (In essence, we should _educate_ people about the importance of seatbelt use, but not require it.)

The opposite case may be comparing small cars to very large SUVs. Small cars fare alright in accidents involving other small cars, but in SUV-small car accidents, the small car gets creamed while the SUV suffers little damage. The person who decides to drive the SUV improves their safety, but at everyone else's expense. The SUV owner has no incentive to maximize everyone's safety, just their own. So we should be more concerned about limiting access to SUVs, not worrying about seatbelts.

Re:In Connecticut non-seat-belt-use is just cause. (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415488)

Seatbelt and helmet laws are just one symptom of the outrageous disregard for freedom that allows this once great country to stomach the passage of laws regulating conduct that affects only oneself.
Natural selection of idiots who don't wear seatbelts should not be allowed to run it's course because it impact upon others - from the children in the care of idiots to other road users. When it gets down to it, laws are there for the good of the state and luckily the state is at least theoretically there in a democatic state to carry out the collective will of the citizens. Idiots becoming pavement pizza by ignoring common sense rules consume state resources and piss off the state which results in laws about things like seatbelts and suicide.

Re:In Connecticut non-seat-belt-use is just cause. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415619)

most people dont give a damn if some idiot flys through the windscreen and splatters himself because he was too 'freedom-loving' to wear a seatbelt. I consider this a beneficial thinning of the gene pool.
however, it will likely cause a traffic jam when you die, and on that basis, I support those laws.

Re:In Connecticut non-seat-belt-use is just cause. (1)

Ph33r th3 g(O)at (592622) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415635)

Your snarky use of the second person implies that you're saying I don't wear a seatbelt. While I give two shits what you think, I do wear a seatbelt, but for my benefit, not because the state has any moral right to force me to do so.

Re:Freedom and Cost (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415372)

By wearing your seatbelt, you drive more safely and in control and you are performing a public good

How does this make any sense? I would think that someone who is more likely to be injured in a crash, to drive more safely. If there is a 100% chance that you will die in an accident, you had better make sure that you don't get in an accident. However, if there is a 100% chance that you won't get injured, then why would you even worry about whether or not you got in an accident.

Re:Freedom and Cost (1)

Sqreater (895148) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415628)

"Not wearing your seatbelt affects more than just you."

All rights cost others. It is for this reason that they are controversial. If rights and freedoms did not cost others, we would have rights and freedoms too many to count. Why not? They would be innocuous.

"If you really don't want to wear your seatbelt, don't. The cops can't stop you for not wearing your seatbelt - they can only fine you for not wearing it if they pull you over for another infraction and then catch you not wearing it."

In Massachusetts, USA, they passed a "bridge law" saying they would not pull over citizens for seatbelt infractions. They would only be cited for not wearing a seatbelt if pulled over for another reason. Then, a few years later, just recently, they passed a law saying they can pull a citizen over for not wearing a seatbelt. A bridge law is a law you pass on the way to the law you really want. If you don't have enough support for a law, get passed what you can get passed with the intent to modify it later when passions have subsided. It is a sneaky and cheap way to destroy rights and freedoms. Look out for it.

"Comparing seatbelt laws with say executive orders that allow a US citizen to be detained without right to concil, family, challenges to his detention, and without being charged with a crime is an entirely different ballgame."

There are no small infringements on rights. Avalanches start with small pebbles.

Who moderated the real American a troll? (2, Insightful)

frogstar_robot (926792) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415485)

The parent poster is dead correct. Not being spied on and continually asked "Your papers comrade" was supposed to be one of the touchstones of American citizenship. When I was growing up, I was often told that not enduring such things and NOT TOLERATING them was one of the many things that made us better than the Russians. People used to care enough about that citizenship to even brook contemplating the traitorous ideas Gonzales and the rest of the Bush administration keep coming up with.

The people in charge right now really suck. But the lack of spine being showed by the People means they suck worse. We should be howling for these clowns' heads on platters.

Re:Freedom and Cost (1)

awing0 (545366) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415499)

It's not over saving lives at all. The seatbelt legislation is to save the insurance companies money. With mandatory insurance laws the insurance companies get to have their cake and eat it too. I have long argued the seatbelt issue as a freedom issue, yet noone cares except maybe a few here on slashdot.

It's funny that the the commercial threatens you with a fine, not accident statistics proving you are more likely to survive. Maybe there aren't any statistics? Or maybe people think money is worth more than (actual) safety.

Why don't school busses have seat belts? Protect the children?

Re:Freedom and Cost (2, Insightful)

cliffski (65094) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415630)

people *do* value money over their own safety, because 99.9% of people dont have a grip on probability. Thats why people play roulette and buy lottery tickets. People never think a car crash will happen to them.
I wouldnt drem of driving a car without a seatbelt, I simply wouldn't feel safe doing that. For the same reason, I wouldnt ride a motorbike without a crash helmet. Is that a freedom issue too?
I was part of a 4 car shunt once (i was stationary, some drunken loon went into the car behind me). Without a seatbelt, I'd have gone through the windscreen, might have even died. I guess I'd have died for freedom?

And in a separate meeting... (1)

Atario (673917) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415323)

...between ISPs and their users, the users said they would jump ship the moment they thought their ISPs were helping to spy/keep tabs on them. The users also read a statement into the record proposing that the Justice Department, quote, "go fuck themselves", and, further, that the DOJ heads would, quote, "hit the bricks as soon as we have fired their elected masters".

Re:And in a separate meeting... (1)

proind (837269) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415425)

It will be really hard to jump ship if all the ISP's start retaning data. Unless ,of course, you can live without an internet connection(which I doubt).

Re:And in a separate meeting... (1)

tomjen (839882) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415546)

You do not have to live without an internet connection, just take advantage of friendly Joes public wireless internet.

To prevent that the goverment would have to outlaw stupidity.

we analyzed your e-behavior... (4, Funny)

SlashSquatch (928150) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415329)

...and we found a probability of > .5 that you have engaged in illegal activity in the past two years.
How do you plea?

Time to buy shares in... (1)

jamesh (87723) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415333)

... harddisk and other mass storage companies.

If nobody listens when we object on privacy grounds, at least object on environmental grounds... how many kw is it going to take to power the systems to record this data?

Oh well... at least somebody is backing up my data, even if it's not me :)
(Not that i'm in the US, but i'm sure my government can't be far behind)

Which is more important to you? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415337)

People can only have one of the following, not BOTH!

FREEDOM

or

SECURITY

Which of these do you choose? Which is more important to you and your life?
If you choose the second, something is definitely wrong with you! Do you really want to become a slave?

Re:Which is more important to you? (1)

TheDugong (701481) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415380)

Where has someone NOT had freedom and had security?

Re:Which is more important to you? (1)

Mister Transistor (259842) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415492)

Well, the first thing that comes to my mind is Russia before the Cold War.

Back then they thought Communism was a good idea; the state would take care of all your needs. Plenty of security, but little to no personal freedom.

Re:Which is more important to you? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415678)

You can't have one without the other.

But you can have them only if you're willing take

RESPONSIBILITY.

The moment you allow someone else to be responsible for your freedom *or* your security, you start losing both of them.

Bring back the paper tape punch .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415366)

... and rrchive it all to paper tape and regularly dump it on NSA's doorstep.

My Contribution (3, Funny)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415392)

I get 3 million trackback spams a month. They can have those if they want them.

Re:My Contribution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415436)

Dear Friend ; We know you are interested in receiving cutting-edge intelligence . If you no longer wish to receive our publications simply reply with a Subject: of "REMOVE" and you will immediately be removed from our club . This mail is being sent in compliance with Senate bill 2516 ; Title 2 , Section 301 ! This is not multi-level marketing . Why work for somebody else when you can become rich in 10 DAYS ! Have you ever noticed most everyone has a cellphone & how many people you know are on the Internet ! Well, now is your chance to capitalize on this . WE will help YOU increase customer response by 150% and sell more . You are guaranteed to succeed because we take all the risk ! But don't believe us . Ms Jones of Maine tried us and says "My only problem now is where to park all my cars" ! This offer is 100% legal ! We implore you - act now ! Sign up a friend and you'll get a discount of 40% . Cheers . Dear Friend ; Especially for you - this amazing information . If you no longer wish to receive our publications simply reply with a Subject: of "REMOVE" and you will immediately be removed from our club ! This mail is being sent in compliance with Senate bill 1626 ; Title 1 ; Section 304 . This is not a get rich scheme . Why work for somebody else when you can become rich within 48 days . Have you ever noticed nobody is getting any younger and how long the line-ups are at bank machines . Well, now is your chance to capitalize on this ! We will help you SELL MORE and increase customer response by 120% . The best thing about our system is that it is absolutely risk free for you ! But don't believe us . Mrs Simpson who resides in Washington tried us and says "I was skeptical but it worked for me" ! We are a BBB member in good standing ! If not for you then for your LOVED ONES - act now ! Sign up a friend and your friend will be rich too ! Thank-you for your serious consideration of our offer ! Dear Friend , This letter was specially selected to be sent to you . This is a one time mailing there is no need to request removal if you won't want any more . This mail is being sent in compliance with Senate bill 1621 ; Title 6 ; Section 305 ! THIS IS NOT A GET RICH SCHEME . Why work for somebody else when you can become rich within 37 DAYS . Have you ever noticed most everyone has a cellphone plus people love convenience ! Well, now is your chance to capitalize on this ! WE will help YOU process your orders within seconds and increase customer response by 190% ! You are guaranteed to succeed because we take all the risk . But don't believe us ! Mrs Anderson who resides in West Virginia tried us and says "Now I'm rich, Rich, RICH" ! This offer is 100% legal ! Do not delay - order today ! Sign up a friend and you'll get a discount of 20% ! Thanks . Dear Sir or Madam ; Thank-you for your interest in our publication . This is a one time mailing there is no need to request removal if you won't want any more ! This mail is being sent in compliance with Senate bill 2416 , Title 4 , Section 301 . Do NOT confuse us with Internet scam artists ! Why work for somebody else when you can become rich inside 61 months ! Have you ever noticed most everyone has a cellphone and nearly every commercial on television has a .com on in it . Well, now is your chance to capitalize on this ! WE will help YOU use credit cards on your website plus deliver goods right to the customer's doorstep . You are guaranteed to succeed because we take all the risk . But don't believe us ! Mrs Jones of Nebraska tried us and says "My only problem now is where to park all my cars" . We are a BBB member in good standing . If not for you then for your LOVED ONES - act now ! Sign up a friend and you'll get a discount of 50% . Thanks .

Now copy and take the above message to http://www.spammimic.com/decode.shtml [spammimic.com]

Re:My Contribution (1)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415574)

This could lead to a justification for the internet tax.

The biggest issue (1)

Skiron (735617) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415415)

What will happen here is once this starts to get a foothold, it will not stop advancing from the original 'reason'.

i.e. data retention under the guise 'terrorists' will slowly degrade into a state 'eye' of everything you do, and even slight regressions against the law you will be pulled up. Remember speed cameras? Now they are used to monitor road users/collect revenue, nothing to do with overspeeding much anymore.

The strange thing is, 'terrorists' would then move back to snail mail to correspond. Safe, unmonitored and secure (but a little slow).

If they want this... (1)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415429)

The Government should foot the bill for all the additional storage needed. Afterall it serves little benefit for ISPs to do this. Wonder how quickly this idea would be shelved when they realise how much it would cost to store detailed info on browsing and digital comunication...

Re:If they want this... (1)

Jarnis (266190) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415457)

So you want to pay for it? Even if you dont use a spying ISP?

Goverment rips all that money in the form of taxes... everyone pays.

If ISPs paid for this themselves, then only the customers of those ISPs would pay.

The country I knew is dead (1)

nethole (126708) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415459)

Now just wistful memories of freedoms we used to have.

My 2 cents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415476)

from the article;

"During Friday's meeting, Justice Department officials passed around pixellated (that is, slightly obscured) photographs of child pornography to emphasize the lurid nature of the crimes police are trying to prevent, according to one source."

Doesn't that constitute child exploitation by passing around images of children to garner emotional responses?

This has nothing to do with stopping child porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415513)

If they are so interested in stopping child porn (the excuse they are using for data retention) then they should simply stop. The biggest importer of child porn in this country is the US government. Where do you think all those pixilated pictures that they keep waving in front of congress and the media comes from anyway. You always are reading about some big "police sting" operation netting some perverts, where do you think those pictures used in the sting come from. Now lately they have been supplying their pervert friends inside homeland security...

This is nothing more than one more stepping stone in their quest for totalitarian rule in this country.

Enough (2, Interesting)

blank_vlad (876519) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415548)

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats. -- H.L. Mencken

How you can you not think Bush is Evil? (2, Interesting)

marcybots (473417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415596)

This administration is doing everything it can to erode our privacy rights, take away due process and legal protections, increase governmental secrecy and decrease governmental accountability. All this ironically in the name of our saftey and freedom.
        The Bush administration is eroding our privacy rights through warantless wiretapping of American Citizens phone calls, and we dont know if its only international phone calls because there has been no investigation of this, we only have the people who are violating the FISA statue's word on this. FISA was set up for exactly this purpose. Not only that, they have a database of nearly every phonecall made in America, and they are using it to monitor phonecalls made by reporters to find leaks in their own administration without warrants.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=83880 [thenation.com]
      As for our legal protections, this administration wants to be able to detain indefinitely without trial anyone suspected of terrorism, Jose Paddilla is a American born citizen and though he will now be tried as a criminal due to the threat of his case going to the supreme court. This administration wished to detain him indefinitely without trial prior to that threat. That is scary and unprecedented. Were not talking about legal resident aliens, or people who illegal gained entry into the country, this guy was born here as a citizen and under the constitution he deserves a trial, every citizen deserves a trial, thats a fundamental right.
        As for increased government secrecy and decreased accountability we have documents being reclassified under the freedom of information act, and non-compliance for freedom of informaiton act requests. Its not just security related concerns, but corrupt things like whether a power plant is up to code and is likely to have an accident, hand outs to his industrialist buddies. Another nice tidbit hidden from the public for a long time by Bush's rewritting of the Freedom of Information act is a memo from Exxon mobil to the Bush white house demonstrating the influence of oil companies on this administration's global warming policy's. All of this having nothing to do with national security but being withheld from the public just because it protects monied interests or can embarrass elected officials.

Please! Let this happen! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15415602)

For not long after that we will have auto creation of botnets that send garbage back and forth to each other. The resulting disk space needed would bankrupt Microsoft if the botnet targets them.

Not to mention - if the email requirement happens - the saving of SPAM will lead to a collapse of the Microsofts of the world.

Or, more likely, the US of A will economically kill itself over the self imposed costs. A bankrupt US of A means even the politions won't have jobs - and the US of A will finally be rid of the plague of Congressmen and executive branch wankers!

so welcome., my son... (2, Funny)

Connie_Lingus (317691) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415653)

...to Web 3.0, where your every click and view is tracked by Big Brother "for your own good".

Check their own logs! (1)

redelm (54142) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415735)

These dudes are looking at the wrong end: "wouldn't it be nice if ..." One thing Gonzales and Mueller ought to do is ask their own IT people what their own internal [proxy] logs [would] look like. And how much it costs to run. And how searchable it is.

And whether they'd like theor own logs posted for all to see!

The easy way for ISPs to snitch: DNS (1)

hotspotbloc (767418) | more than 8 years ago | (#15415744)

I'm surprised that the US Govt. hasn't already told ISPs to start keeping a record of DNS requests. While easily bypassed, the average Joe Five Pack user would have no idea it could even be happening. DNS records would really make the first pass of a data mining run a ton easier than starting with something like URL requests.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...