FBI Renews Push for ISP Data Retention Laws 179
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."
That means phone calls too, right? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That means phone calls too, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Congress First! (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Re:Congress First! (Score:2)
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.)
Maybe it IS time to move to the European Union - at least they're not afraid of their own bodies.
Mutant politicians (Score:2)
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:That means phone calls too, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That means phone calls too, right? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:That means phone calls too, right? (Score:3, Funny)
yeah, yeah. They can bite my ass. Stick that up your datapipe and retain it for a while, uncle sam.
Re:That means phone calls too, right? (Score:2)
Re:That means phone calls too, right? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Well said. (Score:2)
VPN = New Tin foil Hat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That means phone calls too, right? (Score:2)
Except that Der Prez will claim national security or 'doesn't apply' or some nonsense to block the release of this stuff by their isp, who, IIRC, is the Federal government at the moment. Ever try getting anything from the Feds? They'll see your "Freedom of Information Act' and raise you one 'USA PATRIOT Act'...
ok... (Score:2)
Re:ok... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:ok... (Score:2)
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, less than 1 megabyte / month / customer. That's less than 30 gigabytes of storage per customer to keep two years worth of records; somehow, I think the ISPs will be able to afford it. Much more than that, however, and it gets ridiculous.
Re:ok... (Score:2)
Re:ok... (Score:2)
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)
Interfering with police investigations? (Score:2)
Interfering with a terrorist investigation? Guantánamo Bay has nice weather.
Re:Interfering with police investigations? (Score:2)
Re:Clog those logs (Score:2)
I am not 'their' citizen... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:I am not 'their' citizen... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I am not 'their' citizen... (Score:2)
Re:I am not 'their' citizen... (Score:2, Insightful)
>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 details of every investigation.
I understand that government agencies often abuse the secrecy with which they have been entrusted, but I also
agree that government *must* be given significant latitude in this regard, in order to be functional.
Probably if you give it some thought, you can come up with a pretty good list of things that you don't mind the government knowing about you, but that you would not want shared with anybody who thinks it should be disclosed to them "because government should be fully transparent."
>Why when documents are 'declassified' is 90% of the text blanked-out?
Why don't you realize that people who actually deal with documentation and FOIA requests know that 90% number is pulled out of your ass, not based on genuine experience?
I remember reading somewhere... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:2)
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:2)
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:2, Interesting)
Laws should always be reasonable and solid, as it is, it seem to me, there are loopholes and cracks that can be exploited by anyone with the resources to do so. One of the fundamentals should always be to ensure that the system itself is running as well as it can; based on experience, research and citizen input.
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:2)
Such easy questions. (Score:2)
After Rockall was given independence from the United Kigngdom, you will probably find it has the best record on democracy of any western nation.
Re:Such easy questions. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Such easy questions. (Score:2)
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:2, Insightful)
democrats? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
Re:democrats? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 does not seem to have the will to stop their abuse. Therefore the only rational choice would be to deny this proposal, as it is at the time being likely to do more harm than good.
Re:democrats? (Score:4, Insightful)
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??
Re:democrats? (Score:2)
Re:democrats? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 we keep fueling LEO with more and more tools that they can abuse to no end. wasn't PATRIOT scary enough??
Re:democrats? (Score:2)
Re:democrats? (Score:2)
Re:democrats? (Score:2)
Really? What do you call it, then, when a suspect is sent to jail while awaiting trial and is refused bail because of being considered a flight risk or because one of the things they're accused of is jumping bail? I think your theory requires a little more work.
not that troubling (Score:2, Troll)
The FBI's access to the materials will still be limited by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the constitution.
Re:not that troubling (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, they'll bypass the 4th amendment any time they want to get access to the data.
Re:not that troubling (Score:2)
Please, they'll bypass the 4th amendment any time they want to get access to the data.
As a criminal defendant, your best hope is that the government did in fact violate the Fourth Amendment while procuring evidence against you. All evidence, acquired directly or indirectly as the result of an illegal search, must be excluded as the fruit of the poisonous tree. Wong Sun v. U.S. [findlaw.com]
Re:not that troubling (Score:3, Informative)
From yahoo [yahoo.com].
Re:not that troubling (Score:2)
Re:not that troubling (Score:4, Informative)
Not to be rude, but do you believe in the tooth fairy, too?
I'm against this (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the FBI going pay for it? (Score:2)
Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Double Standard (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Double Standard (Score:2)
Re:Double Standard (Score:2)
Re:Double Standard (Score:2)
Ask the FBI what they think about the White House having "missing" e-mails.
Re:Double Standard (Score:2)
Sweet (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like a good idea to me (Score:5, Interesting)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
depends on the scope (Score:2)
On the whole, I oppose government's attempt to mandate what a private business does with its data.
sloth jr
Re:depends on the scope (Score:2)
Chat rooms are the new police hangout (Score:2)
Re:Chat rooms are the new police hangout (Score:2)
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 legislation that infringes on the rights of people who have no desire to engage in illicit activity on the net.
It bothers me to no end... If Sexual Predators actually commit a crime then yes catch them and throw away the key, but to set up a sting to catch week willed men by actually inviting them into such situations creates a crime that would not have happened otherwise.
Then when they pass such legislation on the rest of us who have been minding our own business and breaking no law, its just more salt into the wound.
Re:Chat rooms are the new police hangout (Score:2)
"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 exposed to it, then their parents shouldn't be allowed to have kids in the first place.. It's simple, just remove any access to chat on a kids computer.
"don't talk to strangers".... pretty fundamental.
There is no privacy on Internet anyway (Score:4, Informative)
Re:There is no privacy on Internet anyway (Score:2)
Re:There is no privacy on Internet anyway (Score:2)
Forign business opportunity (Score:3, Funny)
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!
While we're at it... (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
Re:Bill of Rights... (Score:2)
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 absolutely NO RIGHTS whatsoever - unless a law is created that specifically gives them a right - for example the right to lock you up if you're proven guilty of a crime, the right to tax you, etc.
However from what I read online, in the US I am seeing it interpreted as being the other way around more and more frequently. Government can do what it wants, and the citizen is limited to what the "Bill of Rights" says. Anything else is a "privilege". Bullshit. And I'm glad I don't live in the US. Call me when the next revolution starts, I might help fund some of it.
Re:Bill of Rights... (Score:2)
Potential for abuse (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Potential for abuse (Score:2)
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 ISP logs are necessary for this. So you can easily run into the question, "Who had this IP address at X time?", where X is a year in the past.
Reading the article, IP-customer associations are all they're actually asking for in this. The article author makes the claim that they "might want" a lot more, but as pointed out, there are no specifics.
A second, but substantially more difficult-to-require step is to maintain permanent records of who sends packets to whom and when.
Actually recording and storing the contents of any communications is both nearly impossible to require and of limited use. While seeing every packet that's come from your machine could certain tell someone all sorts of private information, parsing, summarizing, and storing that information in a reasonable amount of work and storage space is not likely. Further, it can be easily circumvented by using SSL (or any other encryption). It's better to have the ISPs log what they're easily able to log -- assigned IP addresses and maybe connection logs -- and then require the entities who know how to summarize usage data (e.g., make Myspace log Myspace communications) keep those records. No sense in having the ISP try to summarize Myspace communications of their customers.
Retention == abuses (Score:2)
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 detective work has to be fairly prompt or it is likely to be ineffective. So no reason for long retention.
How about... (Score:2)
...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 little irritating to think that they believe that email is sufficiently different than "normal" mail to warrant treatment that they'd not put up/deal with themselves.
Enforce on Bush and Cheney (Score:2)
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!"
Now we see the problem with the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny in that they CAN'T STOP FUCKING MURDERS & OTHER CRIMES IN THEIR OWN PISSHOLE CITY : WASHINGTON D.C.
Re:Now we see the problem with the Internet (Score:2)
If they did we wouldn't have any politicians left . . .
...and the vice president's e-mails? (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re:...and the vice president's e-mails? (Score:2)
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. This is real time snooping, think wireshark but in a proprietary format.
Working as it should (Score:2)
Responsibility first, privileges later (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
New legislation requires... (Score:2, Funny)
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 amendment to the constitution, the President's reply was, "the what?"
It is all Pointless anyways (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:2)
Re:East Germany... (Score:2)
Re:East Germany... (Score:2)
Re:East Germany... (Score:2)
Re:East Germany... (Score:2)
And to think, when I was in grade school, they taught us about all these horrible, despotic places in the world that watch everything you do, have video cameras everywhere monitoring everyone, and so on. But, of course, America was better because we don't have all that crap. Now, look how everything has changed.
Re:Thank god for Tor... (Score:2)
Re:Just turn it off (Score:2)