Slashdot Log In
Support for U.S. Mandatory Data Retention Laws
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Apr 14, 2006 02:28 PM
from the mandatory-whatnow dept.
from the mandatory-whatnow dept.
chill wrote to mention a C|Net article about an upswell in support for a mandatory data retention policy here in the U.S. From the article: "Top Bush administration officials have endorsed the concept, and some members of the U.S. Congress have said federal legislation is needed to aid law enforcement investigations into child pornography. A bill is already pending in the Colorado State Senate. Mandatory data retention requirements worry privacy advocates because they permit police to obtain records of e-mail chatter, Web browsing or chat-room activity that normally would have been discarded after a few months."
Related Stories
[+]
Your Rights Online: New Internet Regulation Proposed 429 comments
bumgutts writes "Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has suggested a mandatory website self-rating system. The system, very similar to one suggested under Clinton's administration, would require by law all commercial websites to place 'marks and notices' on each page containing 'sexually explicit' content, with penalty up to 5 years imprisonment." From the article: "A second new crime would threaten with imprisonment Web site operators who mislead visitors about sex with deceptive 'words or digital images' in their source code--for instance, a site that might pop up in searches for Barbie dolls or Teletubbies but actually features sexually explicit photographs. A third new crime appears to require that commercial Web sites not post sexually explicit material on their home page if it can be seen 'absent any further actions by the viewer.'"
[+]
News: Congress May Consider Mandatory ISP Snooping 310 comments
An anonymous reader writes to mention a News.com story covering a most disquieting trend in the House of Representatives. From the article: "Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette's proposal says that any Internet service that 'enables users to access content' must permanently retain records that would permit police to identify each user. The records could not be discarded until at least one year after the user's account was closed. It's not clear whether that requirement would be limited only to e-mail providers and Internet providers such as DSL (digital subscriber line) or cable modem services. An expansive reading of DeGette's measure would require every Web site to retain those records."
[+]
Your Rights Online: ISP Tracking Legislation Hits the House 332 comments
cnet-declan writes "CNET News.com reports that Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives announced yesterday legislation to force ISPs to keep track of what their users are doing. It's part of the Republicans 'law and order agenda,' with other components devoted to the death penalty, gangs, and terrorists. Attorney General Gonzales would be permitted to force Internet providers to keep logs of Web browsing, instant message exchanges, and e-mail conversations indefinitely. The draft bill is available online, and it also includes mandatory Web labeling for sexually explicit pages. The idea enjoys bipartisan support: a Colorado Democrat has been the most ardent supporter in the entire Congress."
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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
No wait... I meant CHINA!
Yeah, this will never be abused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah, this will never be abused... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Quick easy solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Then tell all the privacy watchdogs to go back and chew their bones.
Re:Quick easy solution (Score:5, Informative)
Nice in theory. Government doesn't work that way in practice.
Parent
It's always the children, isn't it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's only about catching the child pornographers. It won't be used for wholesale fishing expeditions to see if anyone might be doing something else illegal or who might be saying things that don't sit well.
Just like the government won't use the list of passengers who fly to trawl for people who might be doing something suspicious like buying a one-way ticket.
No, it's always about the children.
Re:It's always the children, isn't it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Child Porn is the root password to the US Constitution.
Parent
Re:It's always the children, isn't it? (Score:4, Insightful)
And "war on drugs" will at least give you wheel access.
Parent
Re:It's always the children, isn't it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Downward spiral (Score:5, Interesting)
How long till the US goverment mandates that all data, whether from phonelines, email, searches, etc, has to be maintained on government servers for safe storage. I'm being totally serious. First they use child porn and incidents on myspace to scare people... then once they get their foot in the door, its just a matter of time. It truly is scary. Wheneve I talk of stuff like this I am deemed a conspiracy nut or something similiar.
http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]The costs to small businesses (Score:4, Insightful)
This could kill small and medium-sized web hosting providers.
Harmonization (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuff said. They claim this law is 'for the children', but it's going to be used for everything else possible.
Think of the children! (Score:4, Insightful)
Law Enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
other question is when can I delete e-mail or files? if I have a draft and delete it before the backup am i in violation of this policy or what?
I think this is just a good case of lawmakers who have absolutely no clue on how to turn on their computer let alone regulate data retention or laws regarding any of this stuff.
if you had an off switch, who would you tell (Score:4, Funny)
Encryption is the answer (Score:5, Insightful)
95% of web traffic continues to be by HTTP, instead of the easily deployed HTTPS (and by easily I mean the entire infrastructure to support it already exists, both for clients and servers).
SMTP continues to be plaintext and bounced around like a ping-pong ball. The reasons for using encryption with SMTP are the same reasons for using letters in envelopes and not postcards. Two thousand years ago the Romans used wax seals on their private documents to ensure no one intercepted the message en route, yet every email on the planet is still there to be read.
Instant Messages continue not to be encrypted between recipients, and just like HTTPS the infrastructure is already there to support it. Why is it that it is off by default in a world where you can't buy a system with anything less than a 2+ GHz Celeron processor?
VoIP continues to go unencrypted over the Internet, for reasons that I can't even begin to fathom. We expect to have digital wireless phone calls--on a system first deployed over ten years ago--encrypted, but the brand new digital wired calls not? Thank God there are people like Phil Zimmerman [philzimmermann.com] out there.
Seriously, this is the most basic concept in an age where the people have every right to fear their government that most people distrust and believe is corrupt [signonsandiego.com], in an age where the government (allegedly) mandates that all Internet traffic is made available for illegal spying [slashdot.org], in an age where people have feared the NSA was already spying on citizens [wikipedia.org]... the list goes on.
It is the responsibility and social responsibility of programmers and standards-makers to pursue wide encryption deployment, or the whole "Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of speech away from the Internet?" cliche will be answered with "With my shoulder to the wall helping the government take away everything else."
I remember once, long ago.. (Score:5, Insightful)
He knows, deep down, it never will.
He speaks.
"Once, we were free. We didn't really know it; we took it for granted. We assumed that people would always do the right thing, in the end. We thought that people loved freedom as much as we did, we just quibbled over the details.
"If you ask me the day we lost our freedom, I won't be able to answer you. That's because it didn't happen on one day; we didn't lose a war, we didn't pass a Tyranny Act, we didn't plunge into economic chaos and come out of it a dictatorship. No, we lost our freedom in pieces, bit by bit, and with each piece we said, "We're doing it for our safety, and for our children's future. We're doing it for the children, we're doing it for ourselves and our posterity. We're doing it because we think it's right."
I remember when we could buy a CD and listen to it wherever we wanted. You think I'm crazy, don't you kids? You've never even dreamt of such a thing. But it's true, and I got to live it. Oh for a few short years, I got to live it.
"I remember when I could record my favorite TV shows on my computer and watch them over and over again. You can't do that anymore though; after the Content Rights Act of 2011, it became illegal to possess any content on your machine that you didn't pay for every time you watch it. Or if you preferred, you could accept RIAA-approved AdWare to display advertisements at predetermined intervals as you watched your recording.
"I remember when I knew that my privacy was protected, that the government needed a reason to search my private data for wrongdoing - remember the 5th Amendment kids? You learned about that in history class right? Remember what year it was appealed? 2012, good, you've been studying.
"I remember trusting my government and my elected officials. I remember not being afraid of everything I did, because I knew I lived in the land of the free. I remember being proud that my country upheld personal liberties above corporate power and the rule of politicians. But alas, I didn't realize I was free.
"And so it is gone. Each time a freedom was taken away, I did nothing. I sat and accepted it, because I had my own things to worry about. I had to go to work, and clean the house, and pay the bills, and throw in some vacations. I didn't have time to consider revolt. I didn't have time to remember that our Founding Fathers revolted for far lesser grievances than have been visited upon the world these days.
"Remember my words, kids, because it's illegal now to speak of them. You won't find them in books, or in emails, or on television or in music - those are all sanctioned now, only approved content can be delivered in them - I remember that too.. TV used to be so interesting.. until someone said "Think of the children." Even cable TV can't have cuss words now. You probably don't even know any, do you? Too bad. A good swear can really take the pressure off once in awhile.
Only one thing will change the world, kids, and it ain't talk. Have the courage to stand up for your freedoms - your freedom of thought, your freedom of speech, your freedom of action, and your freedom to live without fear.
Remember this:
The worst they can do to you is take your life.
The worst you can do to them is destroy their civilization.
I think a few lives are worth it."
And with that, he died.
What happens next? It's up to you.
So.... (Score:4, Funny)
Oh wait, the government can't force the server i'm tunneling to, outside of the US, to retain any data... I suppose we better wrap a firewall around our country and not let those damn foreigners access to our internet.
Why don't we just all move to china instead?
Re:Wow, this really sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
This has been effective in the past and there is no evidence to support the notion it is no longer a valid method.
Parent
Re:Wow, this really sucks. (Score:4, Insightful)
Should we be trying to catch online predators? You're asking if we should be trying to catch the guys who use the internet to setup meeting to have sex with children? Umm...
If you just talking about the freaks who wack off to pics of little girls, then think of this: People searching for pics of little kids creates a demand for pics of little kids. If the demand is there, then someone posts pics of little kids. Where do you think this pics come from? People sexually absuing and exploiting little kids and posting pictures of them online.
Pure freedom is nice and all in theory, but when people are still too uncivilized to handle it, then it's unrealistic.
Parent
Re:Wow, this really sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problems with your little analysis are that:
Pure freedom is nice and all in theory, but when people are still too uncivilized to handle it, then it's unrealistic.
You misspelled fascist .
Parent
Re:Wow, this really sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Prove to me that every picture of little kids is exploitation. For every picture there is always some doubt as to (1) who took the picture, (2) the actual age of the person(s) in the picture, (3) when the picture was taken, and (4) whether or not there are even real people in the picture.
Look at it this way: Assume there is a demand for underage pictures. If you wish to fill this demand, you can (1) force young kids to pose for you, (2) find somebody that LOOKS young, but is old enough so you don't get busted, or (3) use some creative ability to otherwise simulate underage pictures realistically. Which choice has the most risk? Which choice(s) can cover your ass?
Hustler makes money selling "Barely Legal" videos of people that LOOK young, but are above the legal age to be in such pictures. This is not exploitation (unless you call ALL forms of pornography exploitation, in which case "doing it for the children" doesn't come into play) but playing on people's fantasies.
Throwing out a statement like, "If the demand is there, then someone posts pics of little kids. Where do you think this pics come from? People sexually absuing and exploiting little kids and posting pictures of them online" is simply marching to the mantra of those that would have you nodding your head to their own agenda.
Not every form of nudity is pornography, and it should not be treated as such. Mindlessly spewing the company line and saying "It's just for the children!" is playing into the hands of people that want to do much more sinister things with your privacy.
So, let's assume that you're not a child pornographer. However, if the government goes on a fishing expedition looking for child pornographers and, lo and behold, finds an email about how you cheat on your income taxes, do you think the government is going to shrug over your indiscretion?
Of course not!
Giving the government the right to search you and your data at any time for any reason "in the name of child pornography" automatically keeps the barn door open for any and every kind of reprehensible violation of your civil rights.
Just like saying that the government has the right to tap any phone lines it wants without a warrant is justified because terrorism is such a bad thing and we need to prevent it.
I thought that Americans were against prior restraint!
Without any special powers, the government successfully foiled a few plots against America before 9/11... the Millenium Plot comes immediately to mind.
However, we didn't catch the 9/11 hijackers. SOMETHING MUST BE DONE! Monday Morning Quarterbacking shows that there were clues, but "nobody connected the dots." Why do Americans now happily give powers of prevention to the FBI, CIA, NSA, and other government agencies now? These agencies were PREVENTED from sharing data due to abuses during the 1970s (remember Watergate?).
However, if you fight against these new government powers, the government automatically accuses you of being on the side of terrorists.
It's the same thing with Child Pornography.
Let them take an inch in the name of the children, and you've given up just about every basic freedom you thought you enjoyed.
Our president uses the Constitution as a replacement for toilet paper, and you are willing to give the government EVEN MORE POWERS?
How stupid are you?
Parent
Re:Wow, this really sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know police who catch these bastards. Either you're so distant from reality that you think people don't really do evil things and it's all just "Big Brother"'s fault, or you just don't want the police to find your underage porn collection.
So... which is it?
You're missing the point. I think people do evil things all the time. I also think the police should do their best to catch criminals within a legal system that balances the rights and freedoms of an individual against being given carte blanche. The authorities are perfectly capable of pursuing online sex offenders without mandatory data retention laws. The US government is already abusing the Patriot Act, and AT&T apparently has plugged a pipe directly into the NSA, so you'll have to excuse me for blaming "Big Brother" and being somewhat hesitant to hand over yet another power to the state. This law has nothing to do with catching child porn offenders and everything to do with the government finding another way to exert more control over the general populace. You must be "distant from reality" if you think otherwise.Parent
Re:Wow, this really sucks. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't support these policies, you must believe that nothing bad ever happens to children, or you must bugger children in your basement. Which is it?
Parent
Re: Maybe it's just me, and I'm being insensitive. (Score:5, Interesting)
Not by a long shot. Child porn is a gross violation of the rights of the child being used to make it. The violation continues through the continued proliferation of the materials.
Is it rampant? No one knows. For all we know, there could simply be a pool of say, 1000, images that are simply being recycled via digital copying over and over. No one has any hard data on this. We know nothing, yet laws are being drafted, essentially on the basis of rhetoric.
Is it that big of a concern? Well, for the person directly involved, it may become the biggest concern in their entire lives, and possibly the biggest concern in the lives of their loved ones too. They are still being violated in a very real sense. Depending on the circumstances, some might be able to cope with this others might not.
Is it that big of a concern for the rest of society? Well, yes. I am personally offended that people's rights are violated in this way. Those responsible deserve to face justice and the judgement of their peers under the law. Like all sex crimes, everyone can agree something needs to be done.
But should everyone elses rights be violated in order to "do something"? Will this even work? Should more people suffer because of what has been done to the victims? I, and most Slashdotters, realise that we should have our rights forsaken or violated in response to the violation of others. Rather, we should use the law as it surrently stands to both protect people and bring the guilty to justice. It is up to the task.
I would like to think victims of sex abuse would agree with my sentiment that the rights of everyone shouldn't have to be lost or violated in response the the violation of the rights of the victims. But I don't know that this is the case. I would like to hear the opinions of an actual victim of either child sex abuse or child pornography, on all of this. What do the people for whom these laws are suppossedly made for actually think about them?
In all this, I don't think I've ever even heard the voice of the victim. Even once.
Parent