Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy United States Your Rights Online

FBI Renews Push for ISP Data Retention Laws 179

Posted by Soulskill
from the you-can-trust-us dept.
mytrip brings us a news.com story about the FBI's efforts to make records of users' activities available to law enforcement for a much longer time. Several members of Congress also lent their support to the idea that such data retention should be mandatory for a period of up to 2 years. Quoting: "Based on the statements at Wednesday's hearing and previous calls for new laws in this area, the scope of a mandatory data retention law remains fuzzy. It could mean forcing companies to store data for two years about what Internet addresses are assigned to which customers (Comcast said in 2006 that it would be retaining those records for six months). Or it could be far more intrusive. It could mean keeping track of e-mail and instant messaging correspondents and what Web pages users visit. Some Democratic politicians have called for data retention laws to extend to domain name registries and Web hosting companies and even social networking sites."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FBI Renews Push for ISP Data Retention Laws

Comments Filter:
  • by badboy_tw2002 (524611) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @04:31PM (#23175718)
    Particularly the phone calls of our congressmen and presidents to lobbyists and such, top secret or not. As long as that provision is on the bill I'm fine with it because you know it will never ever ever get passed.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DogDude (805747)
      Oh please. Are you serious? The President routinely ignores laws that apply to him already, via "signing statements". You really think that our Congressmen wouldn't include a loophole that their communications couldn't be archived? C'mon.
      • by twitter (104583) *

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

        • >>>"Some Democratic politicians have called for data retention laws"

          And I thought the Democrats were the party of freedom?
          Boy was I naive.
          Are they going on a "witch hunt" for people downloading photos of nude children? If so, I guess I better get used to wearing striped suits, because I was just visiting several Nudist websites looking for summer vacation options, which of course featured *whole families* without clothing. (Oh horror. I'm a filthy nudist. Here come the Democrats to nail me.)

          May
        • Will someone please think of the children and Xray those bastards daily?

          Oh yeah, and when we have mutant congresscritters with 2 heads making twice as many stupid laws that's going to be an improvement how?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by doctorfaustus (103662)
      There you go... Maybe we can defeat this new initiative by showing politicians that their own emails would be retained as well... As the parent implies, politicians hate transparency above all else. In Missouri, for example, Governor Blunt decided the open records act didn't apply to his office's email. Too bad for citizens trying to keep their eye on things.... One wonders what we'll find if those emails are ever able to be reconstructed. (Yeah, they were deleted too....) Now maybe if the ISP had been for
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by AlHunt (982887)
      >Particularly the phone calls of our congressmen and presidents to lobbyists and such, top secret or not.

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

      • by jamstar7 (694492)
        I'm beginning to wonder if I can buy a satellite connection from a South American or European ISP here in the States. Or do most of the sat providers buy straight from Hughes Net and thus would be covered by this?
    • by Duradin (1261418) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:21PM (#23176222)
      Politicians make the laws so they don't have to be subject to them.

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

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

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

      We kill someone and it is jail time.

      They kill someone and they get re-elected.

      Social order would be destroyed if there weren't paragons of non-virtue standing tall upon the backs of the masses.
    • by queenb**ch (446380) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @11:14PM (#23178798) Homepage Journal
      Why is it that I think VPN just became the new digital equivalent of the tin foil hat?
  • ...and will the FBI be helping subsidize the cost of storage solutions for ISPs too?
    • Re:ok... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PoliTech (998983) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:00PM (#23176018) Homepage Journal
      Great, another Unfunded Mandate, but instead of bankrupting your friendly state or local governments with no funding to pay for the requirement, they are going to start hitting the citizenry directly.

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

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

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

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

        Whereas with a Funded Mandate they would just hit the citizenry indirectly through the taxes, thereby adding another few layers of bureaucracy that would require paying for. Much more efficient.

        As long as Congress clearly specifies what needs to be stored, and as long as what's being stored isn't ridiculous, then I have no problem with this. Storing which IP addresses are assigned isn't that big of a deal. My IP address changed maybe once a month, for dialup maybe even 3x per day. Worst case scenario, l

        • by Vancorps (746090)
          Are you serious? Even by your 30gig estimate which is a conservative figure you still have millions of subscribers. There are over 80 million subscribers in the U.S. alone. That's 2400 million gigabytes to store all that information to accomplish what?
          • by jamstar7 (694492)

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

            To give the NSA computers something to chew on when they're otherwise idle. BOUND to be 1 terrorist in that woodpile, or else some PGP-encrypted emails that are sure to flag the government's interest...

  • Clog those logs (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Teran9 (1163643) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @04:36PM (#23175776)
    If web page requests are added to logging I'll start running an idle process on my router that crawls the web. I might just do that anyway.
    • I see some Rubber Glove Love in your future.

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

    • by whoever57 (658626)

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

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

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

    One of those double-binds, eh?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by peipas (809350)
      Most things that stay classified are probably just to hide hemorrhaging incompetence.
    • Judges can and do hear cases where evidence must be surpressed, for instance litigation over confidential contracts. Of course, something involving the CIA might require Congress to specifically commission an investigator. IANAL, and someone who is can say more about this than I can.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by fishbowl (7759)

      >At least I thought this is supposed to be 'my' government. If it were, then why can't I see everything they are doing?

      Well there's a pretty solid argument that the state has a compelling interest not to disclose certain things,
      because some disclosure can be detrimental to efforts to enforce laws, and because some disclosures could and
      would violate the rights of some people. Your desire for transparency does not supersede the rights of others
      to privacy from you, and you do not have a right to know the d
  • by kurt555gs (309278) <kurt555gs&ovi,com> on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @04:40PM (#23175804) Homepage
    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "

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

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

    Cheers
    • by Uncle Focker (1277658) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @04:53PM (#23175928)
      That document version has been phased out for the 2.0 version.
      • by Screaming Cactus (1230848) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @08:04PM (#23177440)
        Dear Technical Support: I recently upgraded from The Govt OS ver 1.7.7.6 (beta) to the latest release, Govt ver 2.0.0.8, and I noticed a few unexpected changes. For one thing, I have noticed that many of my favorite programs (most of which are the reason I bought the OS to begin with) will no longer run, or only run in a crippled state with most of their features disabled. These include Bill of Rights v1.17, Due Process v3.02, and Privacy v6.9. I've also noticed that this new Govt ver 2 is full of bloatware like Evil Coporation 6, Big Brother v19.84, and Bush Administration v2.0. I opened task manager and noticed that Govt 2 has spawned several background processes, like War.Iraq, Phone.Tap, and Irresponsible.Spending, which seem to be interfering with my previously installed programs. I've been thinking about going back to Govt 1.7, but the uninstall feature doesn't work. Please help, Worried Citizen Dear Worried Citizen: This is a common problem. What most people don't understand about Govt v1.7.7.6 is that it really wasn't an OS. It was merely an extension built on the backbone of the previous OS, WeThePeople. Govt v2.0.0.8 has completely phased out WeThePeople, and now runs standalone (much like the upgrade to Windows 98). Unfortunately it is not possible to uninstall this OS as it overwrites the boot sector. We suggest installing background applications Pay_Taxes and Support_Troops. Although these processes will help to smooth operation, every so often you will have to run the command C:\Vote. While this command may help to reset corrupted processes, unfortunately this OS is still not designed to run your older programs. However, Govt 2 comes with it's OWN version of these these applications, combined into a suite called Illusion of Security, which attempts to emulate some of those features. Warning! Do not, under any circumstances, install Anarchy 3.1, this program causes irreversible damage to the OS. Good luck, Fox News
    • by EMeta (860558) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @04:56PM (#23175966)
      Not that I agree with the proposal, but it doesn't relate to the 6th Amendment particularly. The FBI wants the ability to get a warrant for the information if they find they may need it, up to 2 years later. ISPs would imply alter where they put these numbers to permanent storage (if they don't already; they very well may).

      The significant dangers of this proposal come from the FBI (and others) not abiding by constitutional protections. The fact that this proposal would make it easier for them to do bad things doesn't change the inherent constitutionality of the proposal.
    • by AlHunt (982887) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:03PM (#23176050) Homepage Journal
      The only hope for taking our country back is to recompile our government from the source code and start again. Have you ever been at a point in a project where you just have to stop and reassess why you're doing things the way you are? Project America needs a serious rethink.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Narpak (961733)
        Not a bad point as such. The current tangle of government (laws, regulations, bureaucracy and the election process) is the result of centuries of minor changes and adoptions (and some big ones). It is far from an optimal system and I think it would be prudent to actively research and debate improvements that could make the various aspects of nation management better and more democratic.

        Laws should always be reasonable and solid, as it is, it seem to me, there are loopholes and cracks that can be exploited
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        That sounds like a good idea, but the last time someone tried for fork Project America, there was a good deal of bloodshed. The Project America leads tend to act like Theo when they get crossed...
      • Project America needs a serious rethink.
        Like a Ron Paul.
      • by raddan (519638)
        Sounds like there are too many friend functions fouling up Congress.
    • You have to remember, however, that the Government is paranoid when it comes to the citizenry, making all searches (and indeed activities) entirely reasonable, as viewed by those subject to such paranoia. Besides which, the President gave himself powers, oh, 2001-ish, in which he can declare anyone he so chooses to be a de-facto terrorist on his word alone, and it's obvious to any judge (especially those not wanting to be arrested) that terrorists may have any posession or personal information confiscated a
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by okmijnuhb (575581)
      Don't forget the word "unreasonable" in the context of this current administration. The fact, is there is not much they consider unreasonable.
  • democrats? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @04:40PM (#23175806)
    Some Democratic politicians have called for data retention laws to extend to domain name registries and Web hosting companies and even social networking sites.

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

    you mean the democrats are also evil?

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

    still, no matter how bad it gets, it could only be worse in australia or england (I'm NOT kidding about that, either).
    • Re:democrats? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Uncle Focker (1277658) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @04:43PM (#23175834)

      Also lending their support for data retention were Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla., who said that Internet chat rooms were crammed with sexual predators, and Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary committee and a previous data retention enthusiast.
      This law has bipartisan support. Anyone who is trying to paint this as if only one side or the other pushing it is just playing politics. Not to mention this idea was originally pushed by our wonderful friend Alberto Gonzales.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by EMeta (860558)
      Forced detention is also a crime against man. But it can be used to prevent greater crimes. [If used responsibly with rehabilitation as a primary goal, etc.] I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the access to phone records by police agencies has done more good than harm over the last 40 years. IP information is certainly of the same type.

      That said, I don't think this proposal is prudent. Our major law enforcement agencies have not shown themselves to be trustworthy of late, and our congress
      • Re:democrats? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:44PM (#23176422)
        Forced detention is also a crime against man. But it can be used to prevent greater crimes.

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

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

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

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

        technology should never remove basic human rights. the right to convey a thought, privately and NOT have it come back to haunt you later should never be taken away. people should have the right to communicate freely. why would you think otherwise? are you brainwashed by the 'think of the children!' idiots??
        • by raddan (519638)
          The flipside to this is to make technology disruptive enough that there is no privacy for anyone, politicians included. That will result in either some kind of broad social values shift, or a massive backpedaling on the part of lawmakers.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        you did hit on a key issue.

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

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

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

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

        ZT is harmful and yet

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

  • I'm against this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bryansix (761547) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @04:42PM (#23175828) Homepage
    I'm against this not because of the privacy implications but because government shouldn't make it more expensive for a business to run by requiring them to keep information that is of no value to them past a certain period of time.
  • Is the FBI going pay for it?
  • Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pfleming (683342) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @04:49PM (#23175898) Homepage Journal
    So the administration that can't keep its own email records in accordance with Federal Law wants to pass a NEW Federal Law mandating that all of OUR records be retained for 2 years?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by BenJCarter (902199)
      The administration is Republican. The article says this bill is sponsored by Democrats.
    • by blueg3 (192743)
      The government has multiple entities, you know.

      Ask the FBI what they think about the White House having "missing" e-mails.
      • by pfleming (683342)
        Probably nothing. Only Congress can properly address this. The Directory of the FBI is appointed by the President. What do you think the FBI thinks about it?
  • Sweet (Score:5, Funny)

    by BigGar' (411008) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @04:49PM (#23175900) Homepage
    Time to buy some stock in manufacturers of storage solutions.
  • by phorm (591458) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @04:51PM (#23175916) Journal
    How about we start with the whitehouse? Remember all those missing emails?

    What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
  • I'm adamantly opposed to any required data retention such as mail logs, web logs, etc. I'm less opposed to retention of DHCP lease records - I don't think that'd pose that significant of a burden on ISPs.

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

    sloth jr
    • by pfleming (683342)

      I'm adamantly opposed to any required data retention such as mail logs, web logs, etc.
      Especially since according to your emails you have been chatting with a "tired gilr" and sent before and after photos of yourself to some web site.
  • Also lending their support for data retention were Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla., who said that Internet chat rooms were crammed with sexual predators
    And also crammed with law-enforcement agents posing as sexually curious 14 year old girls (and boys).
    • by vertinox (846076)
      Sexual predator is the new "Communist" on capitol hill or the modern day witch. The way they portray them, its like they are hiding in every bush and under every rock around playgrounds and schools.

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

      All this is done to pass legislatio
    • by dbcad7 (771464)
      Fundamental parenting, given by parents for ages...
      "don't play in the street"
      "don't run with scissors"
      "don't talk to strangers"

      Chat rooms are strangers... Why would anybody, as a parent, want to let their kids talk to strangers ? .. regardless if it is "safe" to do so ?

      For people that you know, there is a thing called instant messaging.

      For all I care, chat rooms can be as sick, vile, disgusting, and perverted as possible.. I just don't care. It's a medium of strangers communicating.. If a child is

  • by iamacat (583406) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @04:58PM (#23175988)
    All your data is transfered unencrypted and, with Web 2.0 "revolution", on servers accessible to outsourced personal in jurisdictions with questionable privacy laws. I hope this is a wake up call for widespread adoption of IPSec/SSL and return to hosting content on your own machine, like it was meant to be at inception of Internet and World Wide Web. Opportunistic encryption solutions can exchange public keys with assumption of trust during the first communication between two given users. Law enforcement or black hats who start to listen in later will not get much once your circle of online friends is established.
    • by jamstar7 (694492)
      Dunno about anybody else's ISP, but mine prohibits me from serving content to the 'Net per its Terms of Service. Violation of same is grounds for instant cutoff.
      • by iamacat (583406)
        It will become an unpopular ISP once people realize that they are not allowed to use BitTorrent, play multiuser games or videoconference.
  • by davidwr (791652) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:01PM (#23176028) Homepage Journal
    Advertisement aimed at businessmen traveling to Europe:

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

    Fear not!

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

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

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

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

    NOT!

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

  • Bill of Rights... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by headkase (533448) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:10PM (#23176108)
    Including the Bill of Rights as part of the Constitution was controversial at the time as some feared that it may come to be interpreted that the list would come to be seen as the only rights a Citizen possesed. The exact opposite is what was originally intended, the Federal government only has a small set of rights while Citizens are assumed to have unnumerated rights with the Bill of Rights as only listing a few. Under the Constitution it is not only their responsibility but even more importantly their duty to provide a conclusive and pressing need to curtail the Rights of the People of the United States of America when it comes to renegotiating the Rights and Freedoms of said Citizens. The anonymity of the original Federalist Papers strikes a chord here - this government sees people who are working for change as "homegrown terrorists". How ironic is the historical comparison to British rule over the Americas and those who oppose the status-quo with the Federal government today.
    • by Dunbal (464142)
      IANAL, but as a professional in another field (medicine) that has a lot to do with lawyers these days, we're forced to take some legal courses.

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

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

      Government, on the other hand, has absolut
  • by QCompson (675963) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:10PM (#23176114)

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

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

    The end just doesn't justify the means. The FBI seems to be doing a fine job in stopping the production of child pornography with the data retention policies that are in place. Are there any child pornography websites on the internet anymore? Are child pornographers really "pushing" their product on random internet users? Of course, no one knows the answers to these questions, and it is impossible to independently verify the government's claims without putting yourself in jeopardy of facing severe criminal charges, but it seems doubtful that child pornography is such a rampant problem that it requires opening up a pandora's box of privacy concerns.
    • by blueg3 (192743)
      "The FBI seems to be doing a fine job in stopping the production of child pornography with the data retention policies that are in place."

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

      It's a real problem they're basing this on: in the course of an investigation, the information to be used at trial often includes logs of activity going back months or years that is either from the suspect's machine or from legally-acquired logs. Anything referred to by IP address must be mapped to real people, though, and
  • Retention is a very big privacy deal. Think about exactly when abuses like fishing trips happen -- long after the fact when it is desired to tar the target.

    Law enforcement is about discovering criminal perpetrators and increasingly (horrors in certain violation of civil rights and dilution of the law) in preventing certain criminal activities. For this they certainly needs _some_ records to do detective work after a complaint. But crimes are generally discovered quickly, and police are well aware that d

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

    No, it won't happen, but it gets a l

    • Or how about actually enforcing this on Bush and Cheney?
      After all their own IT department says they "lost" the emails and can't be retrieved.
      So, if you want Bush to veto this law, add a line which states it applies to Bush and Cheney,and you will see it vetoed faster than hillary says "woo hoo!"
  • by zymano (581466) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:19PM (#23176192)
    Either the gov wants to track a few people or they want to track everyone. Giving this kind of power when not in wartime is irresponsible. I could see a judge letting them check on certain profiles but EVERYONE???

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

    • by G00F (241765)
      "Funny in that they CAN'T STOP FUCKING MURDERS & OTHER CRIMES IN THEIR OWN PISSHOLE CITY : WASHINGTON D.C."

      If they did we wouldn't have any politicians left . . .
  • by ivanmarsh (634711) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:21PM (#23176216)
    Here's a little advice for all you ISPs out there: The records were accidentally erased and the backup tapes were accidentally destroyed.

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

    I'm really beginning to hate my government!
    (Now you make sure to keep this statement on record for at least two years there Cowboy Neal).
    • Oops doesn't cut it for the feds. The Presidential Records act has no bite to it, the laws for ISPs do. Failure of CALEA [calea.org] compliance is 10,000 a day. The problem with CALEA, it applies to everyone out there who provides the last link. The coffee shop down the road with open wifi needs to be CALEA complaint or faces problems. You want to be cool and run a community network? It's not worth the legal risk.

      If the feds come in and you can't comply, you also can't turn it off - that's part of non compliance. Thi

  • At the moment, Internet service providers typically discard any log file that's no longer required for business reasons such as network monitoring, fraud prevention or billing disputes. Companies do, however, alter that general rule when contacted by police performing an investigation--a practice called data preservation. A 1996 federal law called the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act regulates data preservation. It requires Internet providers to retain any "record" in their possession for

  • by Odin's Raven (145278) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @05:35PM (#23176332)

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

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

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

  • Quis custodiet? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brre (596949) on Wednesday April 23, 2008 @06:17PM (#23176720)
    Does this apply to the executive branch [google.com]?
  • New, recently proposed legislation now requires every person to store everything they say or hear for two years. This is for your protection and must be accessible to the FBI and local law enforcement. Advocates for the new law cite the number of lives that could have been saved if this was available to fight terrorists in 1776.

    In other news, President Bush was elected to a fifth term despite only having 1% of the popular vote and a 0% approval rating. When asked how this didn't violate the 22nd amendmen
  • ISPs keep records and criminals simply use spoofed MAC address and piggyback on someone else's connection. Ultimately, from the point of view of the FBI, this is really just a law so that they can threaten ISPs with failing to keep "adequate" records, and then coerce them into "volunteering" to do things of questionable legality on their behalf. For the politicians, these laws are designed for the sole purpose of getting lobbying dollars out of telcos and ISPs who aren't coughing up enough $$$ for the 200
  • It is talking about ISPs. I am pretty sure that the white house and many companies and even individuals run their own SMTP server. So no ISP, no need to keep those records for 2 years. Companies also have their own servers.

    So again this is just to attack the rights of Joe Smoe, while the people who bought governement can still do whatever they want.

"Floggings will continue until morale improves." -- anonymous flyer being distributed at Exxon USA

Working...