Slashdot Log In
U.S. Government Demands ISP Data Retention
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Jun 02, 2006 08:32 AM
from the put-up-or-shut-up dept.
from the put-up-or-shut-up dept.
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.
Related Stories
[+]
Americans Not Bothered by NSA Spying 1322 comments
Snap E Tom writes "According to a Washington Post poll, a majority (63%) of Americans 'said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism.' A slightly higher majority would not be bothered if the NSA collected personal calls that they made. Even though the program has received bi-partisan criticism from Congress, it appears that the public values security over privacy."
[+]
Politics: U.S. Pressures ISPs on Data Retention 221 comments
packetmon writes "According to Wired's Declan McCullagh 'In a private meeting with industry representatives, Gonzales, Mueller and other senior members of the Justice Department said Internet service providers should retain subscriber information and network data for two years ... A more extensive mandate would require companies to keep track of e-mail messages sent, Web pages visited and perhaps even instant-messaging correspondents.'"
[+]
U.S. to Gain Access to EU Retained Data 323 comments
shenanigans writes "After the EU recently ratified controversial data retention laws for ISPs and other telecommunication companies, it now looks like the US government will get full access to the data. From the article: 'US authorities can get access to EU citizens' data on phone calls, sms and emails, giving a recent EU data-retention law much wider-reaching consequences than first expected'. Apparently, the US has been calling members of the EU to 'ensure that the data collected [...] be accessible to them'."
[+]
Keeping an Eye on Government Snooping 232 comments
abb_road writes "BusinessWeek looks at the need for better electronic privacy safeguards in light of NSA call monitoring, and more recent administration pushes for ISP data-retention. As the article discusses, though safeguards are already in place, they're easily bypassed, based on older communication norms and don't take into account any 'war-time necessity' arguments." From the article: "There's a crying need for better privacy safeguards that reflect today's world -- and mirror a consensus among America's gadget-happy, cell-phone addicts whose daily chats and text messages are grist for Echelon's computers."
[+]
Ask Slashdot: Has Orwell's '1984' Come 22 Years Later? 1272 comments
gabec asks: "This weekend my mother bought a grille lighter, something like this butane lighter. The self-scanner at Kroger's locked itself up and paged a clerk, who had to enter our drivers license numbers into her kiosk before we could continue. Last week my girlfriend bought four peaches. An alert came up stating that peaches were a restricted item and she had to identify herself before being able to purchase such a decidedly high quantity of the dangerous fruit. My video games spy on me, reporting the applications I run, the websites I visit, the accounts of the people I IM. My ISP is being strong-armed into a two-year archive of each action I take online under the guise of catching pedophiles, the companies I trust to free information are my enemies, the people looking out for me are being watched. As if that weren't enough, my own computer spies on me daily, my bank has been compromised, my phone is tapped--has been for years--and my phone company is A-OK with it. What's a guy that doesn't even consider himself paranoid to think of the current state of affairs?" The sad state of affairs is that Big Brother probably became a quiet part of our lives a lot earlier. The big question now is: how much worse can it get?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
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.
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:5, Funny)
Yes, I do, but that's not why I'm against this.
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: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:3, Insightful)
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.
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: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 muc
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).
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.
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.
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 pr
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.
...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
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
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
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.
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)
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)
Swamp Them (Score:3, Interesting)