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."
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?
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
I'm against this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:democrats? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not that troubling (Score:3, Insightful)
Please, they'll bypass the 4th amendment any time they want to get access to the data.
Double Standard (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I am not 'their' citizen... (Score:2, Insightful)
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:That means phone calls too, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That means phone calls too, right? (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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.
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.
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.
...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: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.
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.
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:3, Insightful)
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: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:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:I remember reading somewhere... (Score:5, Insightful)
VPN = New Tin foil Hat (Score:5, Insightful)