Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy Republicans United States Your Rights Online

House Panel Approves Bill Forcing ISPs To Log Users 277

Posted by Soulskill
from the uncle-sam-wants-to-know-you-better dept.
skids writes "Under the guise of fighting child pornography, the House Judiciary Committee approved legislation on Thursday that would require internet service providers to collect and retain records about Internet users' activity. The 19 to 10 vote represents a victory for conservative Republicans, who made data retention their first major technology initiative after last fall's elections. A last-minute rewrite of the bill expands the information that commercial Internet providers are required to store to include customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses. Per dissenting Rep. John Conyers (D-MI): 'The bill is mislabeled... This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It's creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Panel Approves Bill Forcing ISPs To Log Users

Comments Filter:
  • No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grimmjeeper (2301232) on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:21PM (#36926510)

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

    Conyers hit the nail on the head.

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

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

      Who is going to be checking compliance for this?

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

      • every AMERICAN ISP.

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

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

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

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

        anyone else

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

        Hmm, with the notable exception of temporary IP addresses, looks like they're being required to keep pretty much the information required by their billing departments.

        Not sure this is going to accomplish much (no, I'm sure it'll accomplish very little, if anything), but it's certainly not terribly intrusive as such things go.

        Note, however, that it's not law, it's not even been voted on by the House. So now might

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Batmunk2000 (1878016)

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

      • Re:No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)

        by h4rr4r (612664) on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:39PM (#36926776)

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

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

          • The US Government only cares if you owe them taxes, they could care less other wise, because after 3 years they keep the money they owe you. I guess they could send a thank you card....
            • by nschubach (922175)

              I feel as though I should share some experience here... (feel free to point and laugh at me pissing away interest if it makes you feel good.)

              tldr; version: I've found the Federal IRS doesn't seem to care, but when your state is trying to figure out how to clean up billions in debt, they'll send you a bill and hold your checks if you don't file... even if you don't owe.

              I've found that the Federal government doesn't care as much as the State of Ohio (not sure about other states.)

              Some time back, I found out t

      • Re:No kidding (Score:5, Insightful)

        by 0racle (667029) on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:45PM (#36926892)
        Detailed? Really? Like what the name of the person who checked you out at Lowes was? You submit that you bought 16 feet of duct tape right before you went and bought those sleeping pills? Which, coincidentally, was a week before that girl was found tied up and drugged in your area.

        The level of detail your ISP would be logging would far outweigh any amount the IRS keeps about you.
    • by llindy (1030642)
      So, I wonder what reasons can be given to obtain this information, and then how will that be done? Will they have "trigger" words in their data bases to look for online suspicious activity? Warrants? Illegal wiretapping? And then all that need be done since this will be a database is simply type in a name? Why stop there? Oh, I see "so-in-so" facebook page talks about WikiLeaks and posts docs, they could be a threat to US security... or, maybe, next proxies will be forbidden. Who knows. Land of the free my
      • by Qzukk (229616)

        Obviously there won't be warrants, the entire reason for pushing the ISPs to log this stuff is because the conservatives at the SCOTUS have already declared time and time again that once the government gets someone else to collect the information, it's no longer protected by the 4th amendment.

    • by tsotha (720379)

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

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

      It's almost like... and stay with me here... it's

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:23PM (#36926538)

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

  • Reciprocal? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Teun (17872) on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:23PM (#36926544) Homepage
    As CP is a global issue it has a clause to share this data with EU authorities.

    No? I thought so...

  • by djkitsch (576853) on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:25PM (#36926562)
    Can't see any issues with this. Nope, I've got [huffingtonpost.com] nothin' [techdirt.com].
  • by King_TJ (85913) on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:25PM (#36926570) Journal

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

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

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

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

    • That's my reading as well.

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

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:45PM (#36926878)

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

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

    • by Qzukk (229616) on Friday July 29, 2011 @05:53PM (#36928750) Journal

      I get what seems to only be notes about changes made throughout it?

      That's how bills work. There's a huge blob of text (the United States Code), the bill is basically a patch to that USC, so you have to get out the entire USC and apply the bill to it in order for it to make complete sense.

      The first change made is adding "Whoever knowingly conducts, or attempts or conspires to conduct, a financial transaction (as defined in section 1956(c)) in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowing that such transaction will facilitate access to, or the possession of, child pornography (as defined in section 2256) shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both." (It is interesting to note that growing your own pot in your own backyard for your own use is "affecting interstate commerce" so this will almost certainly be used against everyone touching kiddy porn whether there was any kind of trade or financial transaction at all)

      The second change is to change the money laundering laws [cornell.edu] to add kiddy porn and facilitating access to kiddy porn to the list of "specified unlawful activities" covered by money laundering.

      Third, the "Required disclosure of customer communications or records" [cornell.edu] is updated to require that ISPs track which user is assigned which IP address when, for 18 months. And that it is the "sense" of Congress that the records "should" be stored securely.

      Fourth, "No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, agents, or other specified persons for providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, warrant, subpoena, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter." is changed to "No cause of action shall lie in any court against any provider of wire or electronic communication service, its officers, employees, agents, or other specified persons for retaining records or providing information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with the terms of a court order, warrant, subpoena, statutory authorization, or certification under this chapter." This goes from "you can't sue your ISP because the government forced them to tattle on you" to "you can't sue your ISP because they stored information on you, or because the government forced them to tattle on you".

      Fifth, storing information on you is further disallowed as a cause for civil action [cornell.edu].

      Sixth, federal marshals are given the power to issue administrative subpoenas regarding "unregistered" sex offenders. The subsection referred to describes various sex offenses that subpoenas may be issued for, but does not define what makes someone an "unregistered sex offender".

      Seventh, additional laws against harassing child witnesses. As part of this, it includes this fascinating nugget:

      (2) For purposes of subparagraphs (B)(ii) and (D)(ii) of paragraph (1), a court shall presume, subject to rebuttal by the person, that the distribution or publication using the Internet of a photograph of, or restricted personal information regarding, a specific person serves no legitimate purpose, unless that use is authorized by that specific person, is for news reporting purposes, is designed to locate that specific person (who has been reported to law enforcement as a missing person), or is part of a government-authorized effort to locate a fugitive or person of interest in a criminal, antiterrorism, or national security investigation

      Eighth, additional levels of sentencing are mandated.

      Ninth, additional punishment is added if the kiddy porn showed someone under 12. (sorry, getting bored of chasing down all the original rules)

      Tenth, the sect

  • by MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) * <myfirstnameispaul@gmail.com> on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:28PM (#36926610) Homepage Journal
    This bill will sail through with bipartisan support. Point me to the privacy-invading bill that was unilaterally forced through. The worst and biggest ones were bipartisan, namely the DMCA, which no one would even sign their name to, and the PATRIOT Act, which very few voted against.
    • It's a scare-the-voters-silly-to-expand-surveillance-powers issue. The Democratic administration won't veto this.

    • Maybe this is how they should pass a bill to keep us from defaulting. Say "But the children will starve!!! Think of the Children" BAM!! Bill passes. Obama, Reid and Boehner, are you all listening and taking notes?

  • Not just Republicans (Score:4, Informative)

    by yog (19073) * on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:31PM (#36926650) Homepage Journal
    The DOJ wants to collect data, too. And some Republicans like Rep. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin [cnet.com] oppose data retention.

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

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

    Obviously, just blanket sweeping the usage statistics of every user out there is a huge step toward a totalitarian control over information and that's not acceptable in a free society. China tries to do it in a bumbling, paranoid manner and mainly they're shooting themselves in the foot. We should be better than that.
    • I don't mean I like them, but they are just so far out insane crazy whacked-out liberal that they provide entertainment value, like Wasserman Shultz and Jackson Lee.

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

    • by Catbeller (118204)

      1. How do they know child porn is out there? I certainly ain't looking, so how does everyone know this? Could it be that law agencies are lying about the problem, inasmuch they couldn't possibly have any data? That they are using this nonsense to lock us down forever?
      2. Whatever k-porn is out there, it's the US feds hosting it.
      3. Want to find kid porn aficanados? I'd suggest watching the ones policing for it. They've got the collections. Where else would they be? If you want to arrest johns, follow the v

  • by Eglembor (598622) on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:31PM (#36926652)
    this is akin to place a gps on every single person in the States and keep track of where they are going, when, how, etc. I am amazed how civil liberties are constantly being eroded by the "anti big government" party.
    • by Catbeller (118204)

      Cars - mandatory GPS and radio tracking in five years. Sooner, probably. They'll claim it's for safety, then for charging road use tax, and of course it'll be used by anyone with a law enforcement credit card to view what we're doing. And we'll never be rid of them.

      Q: Can quantum entanglement be used to create a communications system without radio or wires? I don't ask this idly.

  • in other words, 19 out of 29 of them know how to use TOR
  • by Assmasher (456699) on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:35PM (#36926706) Journal

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

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

    • by Atzanteol (99067) on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:39PM (#36926772) Homepage

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

      • by Assmasher (456699)

        Yeah, that's right, Obama orders the assassination of a Yemeni/US dual citizen who happens a senior Al Qaeda member, that's EXACTLY the same as Republicans holding the country hostage over 'raising the debt ceiling' (which they did every year for that a**hat Bush without question - suddenly it's critical to the future of the nation's economy to be fiscally conservative LOL.) The same as the Republican, sorry NeoCon party using every dirty trick known to man to enact "Tort Reform", to elect/steam-roll State

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

          • by Assmasher (456699)

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

        • by kthreadd (1558445)
          I've said it before. Just put Linus Torvalds in charge and it will sort itself out.
        • by Atzanteol (99067)

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

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

          • by Assmasher (456699)

            I take the constitution and its amendments very seriously, but I read them a little more literally than you probably do.

            "In all criminal prosecutions..." - He hasn't been prosecuted for anything. He's been targeted for assassination as a clear and present danger to the country.

            Next thing you'll be arguing that the 6th amendment means Cops can't shoot people who are shooting at them...

            • by Atzanteol (99067)

              You really do *NOT* understand the difference between "we tried to arrest him but had to kill him in self defense" and "the president of the United States ordering the death of a citizen without proof, trial or oversight?"

              BTW, who was it who told you and proved to you that he was indeed a clear and present danger? A man was ordered put to death on the word of bureaucrats!

              • by Assmasher (456699)

                You obviously don't.

                The decision of a police officer to take a life in order to prevent death or serious injury to people other than the US citizen he/she is going to shoot IS different from the decision of the President of the United States of America to take a life in order to prevent death or serious injury to people other than the US citizen he is going to have shot.

                The difference is that the President gets to make a much more reasoned, weighted, and thoughtful consideration, and he is very likely (at l

          • GWB did [nytimes.com]. Did you raise a hue and cry then?
    • A full list of the criminals erm congress critters that voted in favor of the bill. I would even wager this may get snuck into the debt increase bills floating around if they really wanted to be sneaky as one of them has to pass eventually -

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

      we h

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

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

      That being said, I'm finding it harder to justify voting for either Republicans or Democrats now. Republicans strike me as amazingly short-sighted regarding environmental issues and workplace safety. They appear clearly

    • by dcollins (135727)

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

      I'm largely sympathetic to your position. But on this point -- How is this not an abridgement of free assembly? How would it be feasible to enforce? How would it work any better than Washington's departing plea against "factionalism"?

      If anything, we need either a different voting system or a parliamentary system that actually accepts, understands, and deals with the existence of party g

      • by Assmasher (456699)

        You couldn't eradicate fraternization but you could certain ban group funding, group advertising, et cetera. The goal wouldn't be to eradicate people in government working together, the goal would be to ban these total f***ing deadlocks between presidents, senates, houses, polarist supreme courts, et cetera.

  • It would have to pass there too and the Senate is controlled by degenerate Democrats (I kid, I kid). There's still hope.
    • ...well, it hasn't passed the House, for that matter. The vote just means it made it out of committee.
    • As if they aren't just as on-board with freedom-robbing "think of the children!" legislation as Republicans.

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

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

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

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

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

  • by elsurexiste (1758620) on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:37PM (#36926734) Journal
    Laws in the US resemble an authoritarian police state. The usual thing to do is to go away. Europe is the first and obvious choice (just don't go to London, the place is as full of cameras as 1984 described). Alternatively, go to South America, either Brazil, Chile or Argentina: people are more open and easygoing, if not chaotic :). The culture shock may be greater with Asia. Run while the state still issue passports!
    • by iONiUM (530420) *

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

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

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

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

  • Damn Tea Party! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:38PM (#36926764)

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

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

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Koch bros don't care about this.

    • Exactamundo! The reality is, conservatives secretly love shit like this. See http://www.whale.to/b/authoritarians.pdf [whale.to] for details.
    • Re:Damn Tea Party! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by hazem (472289) on Friday July 29, 2011 @03:50PM (#36926976) Journal

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

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

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

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

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        from across the pond is mostly looks like the tea party is so wound up in their hate for Obama that they would gladly burn down the entire USA and p*** on the ashes
        if they could make Obama look bad by doing it

    • by marxmarv (30295)

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

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

  • This is clearly an attack on Democrat sleazebags, who use the internet to carry out their peccadillos. Republican sleazebags are smugly confident this won't affect them, since they're still rocking it old-school in airport bathroom stalls. But the next generation of Republican sleazebags will be much more tech-savvy -- and they will rue this day.
  • Requiring them to store names, addresses, credit card and banking info, and even phone numbers????? The ONLY thing they should store in the logs are a user account ID, the user's IP address, and maybe the destination IP address. Names, addresses, and phone numbers should be kept completely separate from the logs, not even stored on the same machine, and preferably not on the same network. Storing CC and banking info should be discouraged, or at the very least require that is be stored separately from the pr

    • They're just trying to make it that much easier for the hacker arm of the Peoples Liberation Army to get your data.
    • by blueg3 (192743)

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

      I don't think it stipulated that they needed to be stored in a separate database. Any ISP has a reliable, unique way of identifying you to ensure that you're a customer before giving you access to their service. It's common already to store (customer-identifier, time-range, IP-address) for each customer. It's also practically mandatory to store (customer-identifier, billing-and-contact info) in order to do business. They don't require that these two be stored together, but that both sets of information are

      • Now, you can say that not enough children will be protected to make it worthwhile. I won't really argue overall effectiveness -- just that the pedos that everyone says are a canard do actually exist. I would say that this information is already stored and kept for reasonably long periods of time by most ISPs, so it seems like a moot point whether or not you mandate that ISPs store it.

        Exactly why it's a bad idea to legislate it. Most of the info Is already collected and stored by ISPs. Mandating a retention time and mandating specific information be stored will not help, it just imposes a burden upon the businesses who are in a far better position to determine what info and how long to keep it. It's completely unnecessary and won't help because it doesn't actually improve the ability to "protect children", it's just another pointless legislative burden.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • by blueg3 (192743)

      Now, they might somehow say that you can't access those records because of national security or something. But I'm willing to bet that federal agencies track that information already. You have to give your employer a lot more information than just ISP billing information to work at a federal agency. For quite a lot of legal reasons, they want to track who in the government is using what IP address.

  • I can't wait to sell information proving the Representative's marital indiscretions with a tranny hooker in Atlanta last week and the shocking results of his HIV test to the Soviets. Also, why did he go to that fringe social networking site for people who like to be slapped silly and have warm, greasy motorcycle chains stuffed down their pants? It's not like he was just curious, because he hits it every day for hours on end, chats with some guy named "Vinnie", who if his public profile is to be believed,

  • The same "same government" republicans willing to let the US default over that matter are the ones backing this. They do not have your interests at heart, they don't want a small government: they're fascists and elitists, plain and simple. If you believe otherwise, please look more closely at their actions.
  • by Alien Being (18488) on Friday July 29, 2011 @08:06PM (#36929642)

    Hey, congressfuckers,

    We all hate child rapists/pornographers. We don't need or want you looking at everyone's privates. You are the evil bastards in this country. We should punish you by letting the pedophiles assfuck you with baseball bats. Of course that would be unreasonably cruel punishment for the bats.

    Fuck off and die.

  • by Nyder (754090) on Friday July 29, 2011 @10:18PM (#36930260) Journal

    ... how come i never run into it?

    I run across everything on the internet.

    Pirated software, music, games.

    We got government leaks, banks emails, etc.

    We got dogs fucking chicks, dudes fucking ducks, 2girls1cup, and we even had a black hole of an anus.

    I'm offered a done of spam, but none of them ever has been related to child porn.

    so I ask, where is this child porn that is so bad on the internet, that we need laws made using it as an excuse?

    oh, here we can find them, on the peeps in charge:

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20011494-38.html [cnet.com]
    http://www.uaff.us/pentagon_workers_tied_to_child_porn.htm [www.uaff.us]
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/07/child-pornography-found-on-assistant-u-s-attorney%E2%80%99s-computer/ [dailycaller.com]

    I think the only problem with child porn is in the government.

"Out of register space (ugh)" -- vi

Working...