U.S. Government Demands ISP Data Retention 355
dlc3007 writes to mention an article in the New York Times discussing data privacy. The article expands on the U.S. Government's 'request' last Friday at a meeting between Robert S. Mueller III, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, and the executives of several Internet Service Providers. The ISPs were required to retain data on users, for trials if subpoenaed. Right now they're asking companies to do this. The threat is that, if they don't comply, legislation will follow. From the article: "The Justice Department is not asking the Internet companies to give it data about users, but rather to retain information that could be subpoenaed through existing laws and procedures, Mr. Roehrkasse said. While initial proposals were vague, executives from companies that attended the meeting said they gathered that the department was interested in records that would allow them to identify which individuals visited certain Web sites and possibly conducted searches using certain terms." We originally covered this last Sunday, but more details have been released on the meeting since then.
Working Clicky (Score:5, Informative)
How do you do this? Go to the RSS [nytimes.com] feed page and select the category your article appeared in. Then do a search for the title and pull the link that declares it to be an RSS user. It's that simple!
I don't think this is morally wrong as you're going to their site and you're still getting advertisements. Slashdot is really just a hand selected RSS feed so we might as well use RSS credentials. It saves us the time of registering and it saves the site admins some wasted space & e-mail traffic due to shill registrations.
Article Text (Score:2, Informative)
By SAUL HANSELL and ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: June 2, 2006
The Justice Department is asking Internet companies to keep records on the Web-surfing activities of their customers to aid law enforcement, and may propose legislation to force them to do so.
The director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Robert S. Mueller III, and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales held a meeting in Washington last Friday where they offered a general proposal on record-keeping to
Re:Article Text (Score:5, Insightful)
Why. If they're doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide.
Appeals to Emotion. (Score:5, Insightful)
So tell me again....why do the Internet companies have to retain so much data?
From TFA (emphasis mine): Ah yes...yet another shameless use of the 'Lovejoy Gambit'. If you oppose this data retention, you must hate children. You don't hate children, do you?
And once more from TFA: And we segue straight from the 'Lovejoy Gambit' to the '9/11 bloody shirt'. How relentlesly predictable.
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:5, Insightful)
At least he told the truth, perhaps though he should have lied better and said "We want this to *fight* terrorism."
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2)
An interesting thought. What happens if the ISPs play along for the next few months and
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2)
Good luck with that.
The Democrats wont fix this - why would they? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Democrats wont fix this - why would they? (Score:2, Insightful)
More to the point though, I have to take issue with your saying "Clinton was in office when the NSA Wiretapping began" because it is misleading and completely skirts the real issue of why all of us so-called tinfoil-hat-moonbats are pissed about it. YES, the NSA have been wiretapping forever. They're the fre
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2)
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2)
I don't think it will be the Democrats. They feed off of the current system as stronly as the Republican Party.
Most /. posters seem to me to be Libertarian (disclaimer: I am), but they don't know it. Here's a brief statement of the party's agenda:
Jefferson said "That government is best, which governs least." The moral complement to this is: If you desire a freedom for yourself, you cannot prevent anyone else from havi
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2)
We can hope, and we can vote. Do the research and make sure you are not putting someone in office who would rather abuse power then preserve rights.
-Rick
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2)
-Rick
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I do, but that's not why I'm against this.
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2)
Well, paedophiles sure don't.
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2)
So, if you love children, you're a potential child molestor!!!
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, because people never abuse power. Ever.
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod this puppy WAY up.
Gonzales has already said [bloomberg.com] that the lack of data retention has already hurt child pornography investigations, practically blaming the ISPs for hindering an investigation - and who want's to look like they're aiding the criminal?This half porn/half terrorism is rediculous. Next they'll be saying hate speech, or arson investigations, or whatever - must... retain... records...
Can = will with the government, which is why record retention is so damned scary. Just like with the Wired article about the surveilance (sp?) conference recently - if they CAN spy on you, they WILL, which has been proven time and again in the very, very recent past.
Child porn my ass. Control the populace - call it what it is.
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, if it's such a good idea, write a well thought out law and apply it. I'm tired of these goddamned power grabs.
I mean, this shiat isn't that hard, but like TripMaster Monkey said, "if we 'persuade' the Internet companies to retain this data for us 'voluntarily', then we can act without restraint or oversight"
There is a reason companies
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't trust the courts to work properly, then your issue is much bigger than this request/legislation.
This piece of legislation is not the problem. If it were really going to be used in the ways they claim it will be used, it would be a decent piece of legislation (although an inconvenience to ISPs). It would help put predators behind bars, and potentially disrupt terrorist attacks. The problem is, as JonTurner suggested, much bigger than this legislation. The problem arises when AT&T gives the NSA any information they ask for without going through proper channels. The problem is that we can't trust our government not to use things like this against people who disagree with them politically. We shouldn't sit here and oppose small pieces of legislation like the one in question, we need to be looking at the bigger issue.
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:5, Insightful)
They're asking this data be retained so that **IF A COURT ORDERED SUBPOENA IS ISSUED** the information will be available. Worried by that?
Given this administration's shocking contempt for the legal system thus far, yes, I am worried by that. They've collected enough data without having to resort to the 'headache' of due process through the courts...do we really need to make more available to them?
It's quite simple, really. Don't prey on children and don't plan terrorist acts and you'll be fine.
I'll ignore your reference to the Lovejoy gambit and proceed directly to your statement about terrorism. Have you read Patriot Act I and II? If you have, you'd know that the new definition of a 'domestic terrorism' is "any action that endangers human life that is a violation of any Federal or State law". You'd also know that anyone who fits this ridiculously broad definition of 'terrorism' can now be considred an 'enemy combatant' and stripped of their U.S. citizenship and rights. Under current legislation, a person could be legally held indefinitely without trial for something as innocuous as speeding.
If you don't trust the courts to work properly, then your issue is much bigger than this request/legislation.
In that, you're absolutely correct.
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:5, Informative)
If he has, he'd be a few steps ahead of the legislators who actually voted for it.
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2)
BBBBut, that won't happen to *us*, only to *them*.
Welcome to "Constitutional NIMBY", the game show where your rights are trampled in front of your eyes. Remember folks, the contestants on this show aren't really *People*, like you and me...
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2)
It's sort of like the **AA shutting down p2p sites, all it does is make users become more cunning when coming up with new technology.
If the government starts snooping on what people are doing online, then everyone will start using SSL for everything. If they request the keys, then users will start using stuff like EFF's Tor http://tor.eff.org/ [eff.org]
What then? The government will outlaw privacy? no, there's no way they will ever
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:3, Insightful)
. .
KFG
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
At the meeting with privacy experts yesterday, Justice Department officials focused on wanting to retain the records for use in child pornography and terrorism investigations. But they also talked of their value in investigating other crimes like intellectual property theft and fraud, said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, who attended the session.
"It was clear that they would go beyond kiddie porn and terrorism and use it for general law enforcement," Mr. Rotenberg said.
---- end cite.
The problem with a "surveillance state" is that the collected information can be abused by the people that collect it. And worse: over-zealous law enforcement can find sufficient evidence of a crime anywhere they want, given the vagueness of many statutes.
Let me put that into focus for you. (Score:2)
Does anyone seriously believe there are fewer rapes per capita in (insert totalitarian country of your choice) than in the US?
"Big Brother" does not prevent crime.
"Big Brother" just changes who commits the crimes and then protects them from prosecution.
Re:Let me put that into focus for you. (Score:5, Insightful)
No. "Big Brother" just ensures that everyone is a documented lawbreaker, and that documentation can be used to harrass, blackmail, or remove anyone who offends the ruling power.
Re:Let me put that into focus for you. (Score:5, Insightful)
This, to me, is the scarriest thing that a government can do. Pass laws and then say, "well it's OK, we're not going to use this against people". What? Don't pass laws if you're not going to prosecute every violator. Otherwise it sounds like you're saying, "this law shouldn't affect people that don't cause any controversy... we're only going to use it to take down people we don't like". Great, just great.
If every law were actually enforced, they would go away when people got fed up with them. Imagine every jaywalker going to jail -- jaywalking wouldn't be illegal for much longer after W (or someone else important, not one of us pleebs) had to spend time in a cell overnight.
Speaking of which, I think it's time to start filing lawsuits against the government for all these bullshit laws that are passed. I'm sure there are plenty of other laws that make these laws illegal.
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2)
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:4, Insightful)
Any information that's saved, will be used: if you think it will just be to go after "terrorists" and "pedophiles," you're hopelessly naive. (Or rather, if you think that the definitions of 'terrorist' and 'pedophile' aren't sufficiently vague that they can be easily expanded at will to include pretty much anyone unpopular, you're deluding yourself.)
Reading your comment again I suspect IHBT, though.
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides which, even if people don't prey on children or plan terrorist acts, what's to stop the **AA from using the greater data retention in the next batch of lawsuits? After all, they can get subpoenas too.
Pedos and terrorists are convienient excuses. The number of actual, real, internet predators and terrorists is very very small. Most violent or sexual crime is in no way related to the net - and most terrorists could easly commit crimes using low tech means (like, oh say, boxcutters, maybe?).
And most child molesters aren't random scary strangers - they're people the victim knows and trusts. The best way to limit the number of molested children would be to force people to get a license before having children, and force people in positions of trust with children (teachers, preists, etc) to undergo rigorous psychological testing. What's that you say? That would violate their constitutional rights? Well tough titty - it's for the children, so that makes it OK.
The reason that laws governing the internet get passed, and laws limiting parenthood don't even get proposed, is that the former are politically easy to sell, and the latter would rightly be seen as oppressive and illegal. It's just more examples of politicians crying "oh won't somebody think of the children" as a way to get elected - because politicians are inherently dishonest and lazy.
If and only if (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite your intended meaning, truer words have never been written. Indeed, as you might have noticed, many of believe there might just be a much bigger problem here. So what exactly should we do about it? Well, I figure it makes a whole lot of sense to start by rallying support against this particular request/litigation. That's what this whole democracy thing is supposed to be all about, no?
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:4, Interesting)
Gov't gets a tip that a terrorist attack might be planned in the Raleigh, NC area. All ISP records from that area are subpoenaed. An automated search is run. Everyone who searched on information about, say, chemistry, nuclear reactors, and uranium (as I have in the past) even out of innocent reasons gets a visit from the neighborhood Gestapo. Maybe even a few of them end up in jail until they can exonerate themselves - after all, a judge/grand jury will be hard-pressed not to charge people with *something* if it's a "national security" issue.
And the real terrorists will be laughing their heads off, since they have already had their training in their camp in Pakistan.
-b.
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:5, Informative)
Silly rabbit, they can't hold you in jail for more than a few days without charging you with something, and you could be 'produced' under a writ of Habeus Corpus. They wouldn't hold you in a jail. They would send you to Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo (if you're lucky enough to avoid a truly secret detention camp).
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2)
Only by that time you've been deemed an 'enemy combatant,' stripped of your rights and shipped out of the country. Maybe after 6 months of separation and torture they'll let you go, but then again, dealing with the publicity of a US citizen getting nabbed... It may just be easier to put a round in your head and drop you in the Mediterranean.
-Rick
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:2)
That's still a Bad Thing, just as a few people being kept in jail unnecessarily...
BTW- is it actually legal for them to send US citizens to as prisoners to Guantanamo? I thought 'enemy combatants' were strictly non-citizens from outside the US - any
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL for them to send ANYONE to Guantanamo and hold them as prisoner without trial. Read the Bill of Rights. The word "citizen" is not used ONCE. This is on purpose - the founders wanted ALL HUMANS to have these rights, not just CITIZENS.
Why? Because the British government had similar laws written to protect CITIZENS - so all the British did during the colonial days was revoke someone's citizenship to stri
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:3, Funny)
what is it with these people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Appeals to Emotion. (Score:4, Insightful)
Well... To be fair. Nazi courts during WWII worked properly, efficiently, and as intended by those in power. Everyone simply just trusted them to work without question.
Although, in a big pile of irony, the Allies put the Judcial system on trial [wikipedia.org] after the war for crimes aginast humanity.
And to really be fair, our judicial system is nowhere near that type of system which is why we need to question its authority every day.
Don't prey on children and don't plan terrorist acts and you'll be fine.
Really now... Is terrorist and child predators that big of threat? Did we run out of communists? The worse thing that could come out of this is that we don't have any terrorists or child predators to throw in jail which leads to these huge security organizations twiddling their thumbs and deciding to make up targets in order to justify more funding.
The probelm with government is that if they don't spend their money or do anything, then they loose their funding. If there are no criminals, predators, or terrorists to go after they will have to create them to continue their employement.
God forbid we ever live in a peaceful and lawabiding world where we don't need this kind of security.
Mycarthyism.... (Score:5, Insightful)
We just jumped back 50 years.
Cointelpro (Score:2)
What we have going now under Bush is potentially far more efficent, though. Instead of making life miserable for just a few hundred selected targets, they'll be able to cast a dragnet that will snare millions of political undesirables. Initially, the intent will be to intimidate, rather than imprison them. We'll
Re:Ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette. (Score:2)
No, in fact he didn't. This revisionist meme has become popular with the right wing in its attempt to rehabilitate that repulsive un-American sack of shit, but it's still shit.
Re:Ya gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette. (Score:4, Informative)
McCarthy didn't. The NSA or its predecessor did, via the VENONA program, which cracked Soviet embassy codes and tapped embassy communications. McCarthy mostly threw out a bunch of false accusations, hurt a bunch of innocent of people, and actually made correctly accusing someone of being a Soviet sympathizer *less* credible for a while.
Crying "wolf" when a herd of deer comes onto your property is seldom the correct answer.
-b.
Re:McCarthy was a traitor (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see this data being useful retroactively for things like criminal profiling and possibly being valuable for targeted marketing analysis, but not for catching child molesters and terrorists.
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not what it's being used for. It's being used to prove people are child molesters. As in, the think you are a child molestor, show a judge their evidence, get access to your web records. In that sense, it is "retroactive". They aren't, however, doing proactive searches through it to find child pornography.
Re:What's the point? (Score:2)
Child molestation occurs offline. What the hell will data retention policies do to affect it in the least?
At best, post hoc examination of web traffic can show a possible predisposition to pedophilia (or just a poor choice of search terms compounded with clicking on the "wrong" links).
This only makes sense in trying to play the typical prosecutor's game of high-bluff poker - "We can't quite pin the robbery on y
Re:What's the point? (Score:2)
You are absolutely correct. I meant child pornography. If they catch some child molester, subpeona his internet records, and find out he visted 100s of child pornographic websites.. it improves their case, alot. Child molestation is already a very difficult thing to prove. It generally comes down to word vs word, adult vs child... so typically circumstantial evidence is necessary for convinction.
Note: I am not advocating data retention.. I'm just explaining the rationa
Re:What's the point? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, as someone who has worked with law enforcement a few times and caught pedaphiles, I can tell you they really are this stupid. They use AIM and hang out on MySpace. They use P2P and webmail. They are generally not technically savvy (at least not more so than ordinary internet users). Even if they are rather sharp, the victims and other pe
Make it hard for them (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Make it hard for them (Score:3, Insightful)
This website can be quite a trove of insight.
--
Music should be free [myspace.com]
Just remember, this is not a fishing expedition (Score:5, Insightful)
Nor are we trying to track where everyone goes or what they read. We're ensuring that everyone is fully protected from those bad, bad terrorists. You know, 9/11 and all.
You see, people want to be free. We're ensuring they can be free by these actions. All we ask is that people understand that we're in it for the long run and ask for their patience while we administer these proctology exams.
Just remember, 9/11 was a wakup call [democratic...ground.com]. We can't let these terrorists take our freedoms away.
Re:Just remember, this is not a fishing expedition (Score:2)
That because it's (it is) a job for authoritarian governments.
Re:Just remember, this is not a fishing expedition (Score:2)
DONT STEAL! (the government hates the competition)
...bad idea (Score:3, Funny)
Retention is ok if lawmakers agree to scrutiny (Score:5, Interesting)
Then we can let ISPs retain the records of where we surf.
Egads:
Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 4:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Re:Retention is ok if lawmakers agree to scrutiny (Score:3)
Anyway, people would rather feel safe, than be free. Even if they aren't really safe.
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any
The all powerful ISPs (Score:4, Interesting)
If this does become law, soon it will be required that the ISPs use only "approved" monitoring software, perhaps software that will digitally sign the log files. And then, since they still can't be trusted, the log files will have to be kept in a central location of some government office.
How much will this "approved" monitoring software cost?
Usurper_ii
Re:The all powerful ISPs (Score:2)
Maybe I should go to work for an ISP?
user time web site
santorum 10:45am http://www.hotandyoung.com/ [hotandyoung.com]
dubya 10:48am http://www.cutextianteens.net/ [cutextianteens.net]
agonzale 10:52am http://www.underagelatina.com/ [underagelatina.com]
hayden 10:58am http://www.amateurexplosives.com/ [amateurexplosives.com]
feinstei 11:20am http://www.unitednuclear.com/ [unitednuclear.com]
And so on,
-b.
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitut (Score:4, Insightful)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
These people are just going to far...!
Oh, you finally noticed, that, eh?
Yes, the US Constitution is really quite shocking in that it would make the government hamstrung and inefficient -- if they spend their time worrying about this "Goddamn Piece of Paper", they'll never catch the Bad Guys in time!
Of course, that was the intent -- make it so freakin' clear as day that the government should not be efficient, should be thwarted in its natural desire to run roughshod over the citizenry.
But what percentage of the US population is even vaguely aware of the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights? How many even understand the difference between the fact that these rights are stated to make them clear to all, not to "grant" them?
The dismal answer, of course, is: not enough to make a damn bit of difference. Despite 35 years of the Libertarian Party trying to wake people up to the issue, the erosion of liberties in the US has continued apace. If things keep going as they are, the us will be a Fascist state (if it isn't already).
People of the United States! Realistically, you have two basic options!
The choice is yours!
Feel Safer? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Feel Safer? (Score:4, Insightful)
--trb
Re:Smaller Government and Less Regulation (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans would like nothing better than an armed American milita, easily suppressed by the Marines, to justify martial law and the roundups of liberals^Wsubversives.
The time when armed private Americans could stop government tyranny is long gone. Gun owners traded that p
Sure would be nice... (Score:2)
But that's just in theory, of course. No company is going to take a stand against Abu Gonzalez, and too many Americans are too apathetic to pay any attention to their rights being eroded. More votes for the last "American Idol" than in the last Presidential election, indeed...
Death, Taxes and now... (Score:2, Insightful)
I pledge allegiance to the keylogger (Score:2)
Search engines and the end user must submit all their secrets to the government now, all in the name of stopping child predators. What'll be the next CIA
Re:I pledge allegiance to the keylogger (Score:2)
Re:I pledge allegiance to the keylogger (Score:2)
Isn't it time we've taken a stand?! (Score:2)
I'm not sure it's all that helpful to send messages of opposition to congress or the senate.
Harmonization (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case, Europe was used as a trial balloon by the U.S. While the data retention laws were discussed and debated in Europe, the U.S. policy makers publically commented about the dangers of this sort of thing and how it could lead to a totalitarian "big brother" mentality. All the while they were telling people in the U.S. how much of a breach of privacy this is and how it will never happen here, the back-channels to Europe were doing nothing but supporting the push for mandatory retention and gauging the reaction -- and attention levels -- of the peoples.
Once the E.U. backdoor hammered thru a mandatory data retention law, the U.S. changed its tune. Newly appointed Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and staff started talking up data retention in the U.S. and pointing to Europe as leading the way. We are now well down this path. For those of you hoping to stall for two more years until there is a change in administration (aka "regeime change"), don't get your hopes up because the Democrats are just as bad. They'll still fuck you over but will be telling you how much they love you and how it is for your own good. (The Republicans just leave out the "but we love you" part. It is still for your own good.)
While Europeans love to preach to Americans about how much more privacy aware they are, and how they have Constitutional guarantees and strong laws protecting their privacy and data use, they miss a fundamental difference.
In Europe, the concept of privacy doesn't include the government. Yes, they have strong laws dictating how data is used, kept, stored and brokered so as to prevent misuse by third parties, individuals and corporations. But, they have no real protections about government access and use to all that data. All in the name of paternalistic government, enacted thru "anti-terror", "anti-drug" and "immigration control" laws the gov'ts of Europe have no privacy when it comes to bureaucratic eyes.
In the U.S. the concept of privacy really means just you. It is *your* data and *your* information and privacy means ONLY YOU get to determine where it goes and how it is used. The government is NOT (in theory) given a free pass or exemption to use, store or broker your data. For the longest time the U.S. Social Security numbers had printed on the issued cards "not to be used as I.D." so great was the fear of a "national I.D.". Of course, this is offset by most American's apathy towards anything to do with government. As long as they can afford their beers, pay the bills and watch their idiot box most of them will be complacent about damn near anything that doesn't interfere with any of that.
Don't believe me? How about his for a statistic: more people voted in the last American Idol episode of that television show than did in the last Presidential Election.
Re:Harmonization (Score:4, Interesting)
Not true. More votes were cast -- but many people voted multiple times in the American Idol final. Only in a couple districts[1] did a significant number of people vote more than once (or have their vote counted more than once) in the last presidential election. Plus, you're leaving out the people who voted but weren't tabulated in the presidential election -- I heard there were a couple[2] of those in OH and FL.
[1] A small town in New England (NH?) had more votes tabulated than they had registered voters.
[2] where 'couple' = thousands.
Re:Harmonization (Score:2)
You're right, it is pathetic. But voter turnout would be much higher if people could text their vote -- though I'm not sure I'd want the tpyical AI voter determining our next president
Another unfunded mandate (Score:5, Insightful)
Priceless.
High potential for abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
Law enforcement agencies love pursuing internet crime because it is so exceedingly easy for them to do. They can sit behind a desk, eat doughnuts, and bust a bunch of teenagers on Myspace for posting a picture of a pot plant or a 16 y.o. boobie. Giving them mandatory data retention for two years would make their jobs easier still. If I was convinced they would be going after actual terrorists and real child-abusers then I would perhaps be more understanding, but I don't want the privacy rights of all americans sacrificed so the cops can bust a few more dumb teenagers and closet-perverts.
https:// wanted (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:https:// wanted (Score:3, Interesting)
Copykats (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me quote Thomas Jefferson (younger people can e-mail me and I'll tell you) to show you how perverted you Americans have become lately:
"It has been pretended by some, (and in England especially,) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions, and not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. But while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural and even an hereditary right to inventors. It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance."
Dr. Strangelove, or Albert Gonzales? (Score:4, Funny)
If anyone working at Google reads this... (Score:2)
I don't know the overhead difference between http and https offhand, though, that might be a dealbreaker.
User data retention. Why? (Score:2)
Maybe for a phone company it can make some sense to record the details of every single phone call. If you place 10 calls a day and receive 10 a day, a 500K users company will have to record about 3.6 billion records. Doable but you still don't know the actual contents of those calls.
In an ISP things get worse because on a single connection you run email, IM, P2P, web browsing, IRC
Define ISP (Score:2)
-b.
The cost to the ISP (Score:5, Insightful)
We're a small ISP, and we keep a week or two of backups and it's already several terabytes. Now, the feds want us to extract all the access, email and web log files from the backups and save them from 2 years. There's a couple thousand ISPs in the US, spread this cost over the US industry, and you are looking at millions, perhaps tens of millions of dollars per year in additional storage and staff costs.
As a final point, I have 3 kids. Anyone invites me to a meeting and opens it with slides of child porn and my one thought is they are sick sick sick. Most of the people "invited" to the meeting are probably parents, you can sell anti-child porn without showing it to us! What does it say about our AG that he supports torture and has a collection of child porn which he shows to people?
Re:The cost to the ISP (Score:3, Insightful)
That he's a self-important, selfish, fascist, sick fuck?
But we already knew that.
Brings up an interesting question (Score:4, Insightful)
Defiance (Score:2, Informative)
Swamp Them (Score:3, Interesting)
If the system is swamped, there is no way this data can be useful to them.
I hate to even suggest this, but a virus that does this from every infected machine would also be useful in this endeavor. Or maybe a 'false virus' you could place on your own machine that would do nothing, but which could be pointed to as a defense tactic if you were ever arrested under these pretenses.
What, exactly, do they want logged? (Score:2, Insightful)
So that leaves, what, stream data? What kind of info is available from a stream capture? Originating/destination IP addresses and ports, time/duration of connection, and maybe number of bytes transferred?
I need to
Inflationary risk (Score:2, Insightful)
Libraries have faced this for years (Score:5, Informative)
This looks insane, but actually resolves rather easily.
To oversimplify, libraries keep statistical information, so they can get their grants for books loaned per year, retain patron loan information until the book is either returned or paid for, and then destroy the link from book to patron.
This is so common that all the vendors of library circulations systems "enforce" it in software, citing the need to use precious disk space for current records.
In at least one case, we made it surprisingly difficult to reconstruct old patron-book links from backups.
Consider this a word to the wise authors of ISP record-keeping systems.
--dave
Blatant 1st admendment violation (Score:2)
Funny how they look at the problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny how they *don't* also wonder why they can't reliably track down snail mail to its sender, and aren't threatening the USPS and UPS with legislation to do so or else. And this is despite the fact that you can send bombs, funny white powders, and other biohazards through the mail to terrorize the population. That's really not something you can do with e-mail.
Re:Amerika (Score:2)
Hope you don't live in Europe [wikipedia.org]. We stole the idea from them.
Re:Thank God I'm Irish! (Score:2)
You need to read this [wikipedia.org]. Right now. And this. [digitalrights.ie] It's not good when you are critizing other countries for doing things your country has already done...
The United Kingdom, France, Ireland and Sweden are attempting to persuade the European Union to introduce a directive which would make data retention mandatory throughout the EU....
It passed.
Re:Data retention won't happen... (Score:2)
I'm quite sure that you are right (that they aren't capable of backing up reliably). However, I'm also fairly certain that certain 'missing backups' are not missing by accident. Evidence has a way of disappearing, or becoming classified, in pretty handy spots.