- Related Stories
-
ISP snooping plans take backseat
May 18, 2006 -
Republican politico endorses data retention
May 5, 2006 -
FCC approves Net-wiretapping taxes
May 3, 2006 -
Congress may consider mandatory ISP snooping
April 28, 2006 -
U.S. attorney general calls for 'reasonable' data retention
April 20, 2006 -
EU data retention directive gets final nod
February 22, 2006 -
Europe passes tough new data retention laws
December 14, 2005 -
Your ISP as Net watchdog
June 16, 2005
Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller privately met with representatives of AOL, Comcast, Google, Microsoft and Verizon last week and said that Internet providers--and perhaps search engines--must retain data for two years to aid in anti-terrorism prosecutions, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussion who spoke on condition of anonymity on Tuesday.
"We want this for terrorism," Gonzales said, according to one person familiar with the discussion.
Gonzales' earlier position had only emphasized how mandatory data retention would help thwart child exploitation.
In a speech last month at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Gonzales said that Internet providers must retain records to aid investigations of criminals "abusing kids and sending images of the abuse around the world through the Internet."
If data retention becomes viewed primarily as an anti-terrorism measure, recent legal and political spats could complicate the Justice Department's efforts to make it standard practice.
Especially after recent reports that AT&T has opened its databases to the National Security Agency, Internet and telecommunications executives have become skittish about appearing to be cooperating too closely with the federal government's surveillance efforts.
In addition, the positive publicity that Google received during its legal dispute with the Justice Department over search terms has demonstrated to Internet companies the benefits of objecting to government requests on privacy grounds.
"A monumental data trove is a crazy thing from a privacy perspective," said one person familiar with Friday's discussions. "It's crazy that the U.S. government is going to retain more data than the Chinese government does."
Comcast said in a statement that "we fully share the attorney general's concern with the need to combat illegal use of the Internet for child pornography, terrorism and other illegal activities. We applaud the attorney general's initiative in convening an internal task force on this issue and look forward to continuing to cooperate with him and the FBI."
"The reasons for skepticism are growing," said Jim Harper, an analyst at the free-market Cato Institute and member of the Department of Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee. He predicted the reaction among Internet and telecom companies will be "mildly unfavorable but people are not yet to the point where they'll say the emperor has no clothes."
ISP snooping time line
In events first reported by CNET News.com, Bush administration officials have said Internet providers must keep track of what Americans are doing online. Here's the time line:
June 2005: Justice Department officials quietly propose data retention rules.
December 2005: European Parliament votes for data retention of up to two years.
April 14, 2006: Data retention proposals surface in Colorado and the U.S. Congress.
April 20, 2006: Attorney General Gonzales says data retention "must be addressed."
April 28, 2006: Rep. DeGette proposes data retention amendment.
May 16, 2006: Rep. Sensenbrenner drafts data retention legislation, but backs away from it two days later.
May 26, 2006: Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller meet with Internet and telecommunications companies.
Details of the Justice Department's proposal remain murky. One possibility is requiring Internet providers to record the Internet addresses that their customers are temporarily assigned. A more extensive mandate would require them to keep track of the identities of Americans' e-mail and instant messaging correspondents and save the logs of Internet phone calls.
A Justice Department representative said Tuesday that the proposal would not require Internet providers to retain records of the actual contents of conversations and other Internet traffic.
Until Gonzales' public remarks last month, the Bush administration had generally opposed laws requiring data retention, saying it had "serious reservations" (click for PDF) about them. But after the European Parliament last December approved such a requirement for Internet, telephone and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, top administration officials began talking about it more favorably.
Two proposals to mandate data retention have surfaced in the U.S. Congress. One, backed by Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, 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 be discarded only at least one year after the user's account was closed.
The other was drafted by aides to Wisconsin Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a close ally of President Bush. Sensenbrenner said through a spokesman earlier this month, though, that his proposal is on hold because "our committee's agenda is tremendously overcrowded already."
'Preservation' vs. 'retention'
At the moment, Internet service providers typically discard any log file that's no longer required for business reasons such as network monitoring, fraud prevention or billing disputes. Companies do, however, alter that general rule when contacted by police agencies performing an investigation--a practice called data preservation.
A 1996 federal law called the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act regulates data preservation. It requires Internet providers to retain any "record" in their possession for 90 days "upon the request of a governmental entity."
Because Internet addresses remain a relatively scarce commodity, ISPs tend to allocate them to customers from a pool based on if a computer is in use at the time. (Two standard techniques used are the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol and Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet.)
In addition, Internet providers are required by another federal law to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is in turn charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency.
When adopting its data retention rules, the European Parliament approved U.K.-backed requirements saying that communications providers in its 25 member countries--several of which had enacted their own data retention laws already--must retain customer data for a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years.
The Europe-wide requirement applies to a wide variety of "traffic" and "location" data, including the identities of the customers' correspondents; the date, time, and duration of phone calls, VoIP calls, or e-mail messages; and the location of the device used for the communications. But the "content" of the communications is not supposed to be retained. The rules are expected to take effect in 2008.
See more CNET content tagged:
terrorism, attorney general, Internet provider, proposal, telecommunications
their arguments have been.
So far, the government has used past powers granted to "protect
us from terrorists" to do virtually everything BUT go after
terrorists.
The latest NSA phone tracking is going after journalists.
Apparently all journalists (that speak out against the
administration) are terrorists.
This is YET ANOTHER ABUSE OF POWER by this administration.
They use fear to force capitulation.
Enough is enough!
We should never, ever let them take our guns away from us. When that starts to take place, then we know that a police state is fully in place and they will control us through a dictatorship that even Hitler would envy.
Viet Vet Kripto
their arguments have been.
So far, the government has used past powers granted to "protect
us from terrorists" to do virtually everything BUT go after
terrorists.
The latest NSA phone tracking is going after journalists.
Apparently all journalists (that speak out against the
administration) are terrorists.
This is YET ANOTHER ABUSE OF POWER by this administration.
They use fear to force capitulation.
Enough is enough!
We should never, ever let them take our guns away from us. When that starts to take place, then we know that a police state is fully in place and they will control us through a dictatorship that even Hitler would envy.
Viet Vet Kripto
Most Americans agree...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051200375.html
NON issue.
Most Americans agree...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051200375.html
NON issue.
What can we learn from this? The government is us. It's acting out our worst sides. If we the people weren't scared sheep, greedy and power-hungry, entitled to stomp the earth for our comforts, we couldn't have a government that shows all these appalling traits. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
What can we learn from this? The government is us. It's acting out our worst sides. If we the people weren't scared sheep, greedy and power-hungry, entitled to stomp the earth for our comforts, we couldn't have a government that shows all these appalling traits. We have met the enemy, and he is us.
child porn
adult porn
"terrorists"
"enemy combatants"
medical marijuana
hemp growers
whistleblowers
leakers
Viet Vet
child porn
adult porn
"terrorists"
"enemy combatants"
medical marijuana
hemp growers
whistleblowers
leakers
Viet Vet
What ever happened to "Give me Liberty or Give me DEATH!!"
No one in OUR Government ever get's called on this wire tapping program. Did everyone suddenly forget that it was a failure to communicate between government agencies, not the inability to wire tap without a warrant that let the 9-11 hijakers pass unnoticed?
What ever happened to "Give me Liberty or Give me DEATH!!"
No one in OUR Government ever get's called on this wire tapping program. Did everyone suddenly forget that it was a failure to communicate between government agencies, not the inability to wire tap without a warrant that let the 9-11 hijakers pass unnoticed?
1) If the govt is looking to match dial up sign on to assigned IP address, well, that's already logged and retained. No big issue there.
2) If the govt is asking for a record of any and all online activity while connected, then again no worries there. Why?
Simple:
A) Its unenforcable. Think about the amount of logging that would have to occur and then the database retrival. The cost and size would have a negative impact on your ISP's ability to provide service.
B) Who exactly must retain what? Does Sprint have to retain the traffic of their ISP subscribers or resellers of bandwidth? In addition to that ISP tracking their customers?
C) Does this mean that these ISPs are not considered common carriers?
The point and bottom line is that those making the decisions do not understand the technology and have not taken the time to think things through.
And no, the US today is not 1933 Germany.
The big difference is that in today's world, the threat is real. And of course, the US today does not think about the problem before attempting to apply a knee jerked patch to try and fix it.
With respect to the article, its sad that the author tries to tie this back in to the Telco's opening up their call logs to the US Govt. Again this issue has nothing to do with that.
The year is 2006....technology is a weapon used by the bad guys whenever possible.
True enough but the threat is NOT from the American people. This administration doesn't seem to get that.
>The big difference is that in today's world, the threat is real.
FACT: There is no want to guarantee we won't be attacked again.
That is the cost of living in a free society. What is happening is
that our gov't has decided to remove those freedoms in order to
protect us. But again, we will ALWAYS be open to an attack.
If this administration was TRULY interested in protecting
America, it wouldn't have gone into Iraq, instead -- it would
have focused all its attention on finding Bin Laden and if they
were truly interested in stopping terrorism, they would first
focus on improving security on everything shipped into America.
This ploy by Gonzales is nothing more than phishing expedition.
Look how they're using the NSA phone tracking, to go after
journalists that have opposing views. Yeah, they're the threat
(please!).
Your comments suggest that you're willing to place your
freedom in the place of the water and watch it is slowly boiled
away. Like the frog story, the water heats up slowly -- so we
won't notice.
Remember, the gov't already knew about Bin Laden, the
terrorists and their plan -- and either didn't or couldn't stop
them before. NO, the "T" word was used to instill fear to seek
capitulation by the masses that don't know better.
1) If the govt is looking to match dial up sign on to assigned IP address, well, that's already logged and retained. No big issue there.
2) If the govt is asking for a record of any and all online activity while connected, then again no worries there. Why?
Simple:
A) Its unenforcable. Think about the amount of logging that would have to occur and then the database retrival. The cost and size would have a negative impact on your ISP's ability to provide service.
B) Who exactly must retain what? Does Sprint have to retain the traffic of their ISP subscribers or resellers of bandwidth? In addition to that ISP tracking their customers?
C) Does this mean that these ISPs are not considered common carriers?
The point and bottom line is that those making the decisions do not understand the technology and have not taken the time to think things through.
And no, the US today is not 1933 Germany.
The big difference is that in today's world, the threat is real. And of course, the US today does not think about the problem before attempting to apply a knee jerked patch to try and fix it.
With respect to the article, its sad that the author tries to tie this back in to the Telco's opening up their call logs to the US Govt. Again this issue has nothing to do with that.
The year is 2006....technology is a weapon used by the bad guys whenever possible.
True enough but the threat is NOT from the American people. This administration doesn't seem to get that.
>The big difference is that in today's world, the threat is real.
FACT: There is no want to guarantee we won't be attacked again.
That is the cost of living in a free society. What is happening is
that our gov't has decided to remove those freedoms in order to
protect us. But again, we will ALWAYS be open to an attack.
If this administration was TRULY interested in protecting
America, it wouldn't have gone into Iraq, instead -- it would
have focused all its attention on finding Bin Laden and if they
were truly interested in stopping terrorism, they would first
focus on improving security on everything shipped into America.
This ploy by Gonzales is nothing more than phishing expedition.
Look how they're using the NSA phone tracking, to go after
journalists that have opposing views. Yeah, they're the threat
(please!).
Your comments suggest that you're willing to place your
freedom in the place of the water and watch it is slowly boiled
away. Like the frog story, the water heats up slowly -- so we
won't notice.
Remember, the gov't already knew about Bin Laden, the
terrorists and their plan -- and either didn't or couldn't stop
them before. NO, the "T" word was used to instill fear to seek
capitulation by the masses that don't know better.
Also, if Europe is doing it, why the hell aren't we avoiding it like the plague? When did it become fashionable in this country to follow Europe's lead?
- It figures...
- by J_Satch May 31, 2006 5:37 AM PDT
- ...that Comcast would so feverishly lead the charge to kiss the government's ass and gleefully hand over anything asked of them.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (292 Comments)Also, if Europe is doing it, why the hell aren't we avoiding it like the plague? When did it become fashionable in this country to follow Europe's lead?