February 6, 2007 6:40 PM PST
GOP revives ISP-tracking legislation
- Related Stories
Data breach bills resurface in CongressFebruary 6, 2007
Qwest calls for mandatory data retention lawsAugust 22, 2006
Congress' broadband battlesJune 28, 2006
Senators adopt Web labeling requirementJune 27, 2006
Web labeling mandate surfaces in SenateJune 14, 2006
Industry, others object to data retentionMay 31, 2006
ISP snooping plans take backseatMay 18, 2006
Republican politico endorses data retentionMay 5, 2006
FCC approves Net-wiretapping taxesMay 3, 2006
Congress may consider mandatory ISP snoopingApril 28, 2006
U.S. attorney general calls for 'reasonable' data retentionApril 20, 2006
EU data retention directive gets final nodFebruary 22, 2006
Europe passes tough new data retention lawsDecember 14, 2005
Your ISP as Net watchdogJune 16, 2005
Europe to push ahead with ISP snooping lawJune 9, 2005
My (brief) career as an ISPOctober 10, 2003
Employees of any Internet provider who fail to store that information face fines and prison terms of up to one year, the bill says. The U.S. Justice Department could order the companies to store those records forever.
Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, called it a necessary anti-cybercrime measure. "The legislation introduced today will give law enforcement the tools it needs to find and prosecute criminals," he said in a statement.
A second requirement, also embedded in Smith's so-dubbed Safety Act (PDF), requires owners of sexually explicit Web sites to post warning labels on their pages or face imprisonment. This echoes, nearly word for word, a proposal from last year that was approved by a Senate committee but never made it to a floor vote.
Even though both requirements are central to a Republican-led effort, neither data retention nor Web labeling are that partisan. A Senate committee approved a telecommunications bill that included Web labeling by a 15-7 vote in June. And Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, has been the most vocal proponent of data retention in the entire Congress.
ISP snooping timeline
In events that were 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 timeline:
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 Alberto Gonzales says data retention "must be addressed."
April 28, 2006: Democrat proposes data retention amendment.
May 26, 2006: Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller meet with Internet and telecom companies.
October 17, 2006: FBI director calls for data retention.
January 18, 2007: Bush administration says it will approach Congress for data retention laws.
The legislative fusillade marks the renewal of a political tussle that began in earnest last April, when Attorney General Alberto Gonzales called on Congress to target Internet providers with new regulations, which have been generally opposed by telecommunications companies and civil liberties organizations. CNET News.com was the first to report that the Bush administration has been pushing for such a rule privately since mid-2005.
Until this week, however, no formal bill had been introduced in the U.S. Congress.
Supporters of the proposal say it's necessary to help track criminals if police don't respond immediately to reports of illegal activity and the relevant logs are deleted by Internet providers. They cite cases of child molestation, for instance. Industry representatives respond by saying there's no evidence that Internet providers have dragged their feet when responding to subpoenas from law enforcement.
Details about data retention requirements would be left to Gonzales. At a minimum, the bill says, the regulations must require storing records "such as the name and address of the subscriber or registered user to whom an Internet Protocol address, user identification or telephone number was assigned, in order to permit compliance with court orders."
19 commentsJoin the conversation! Add your comment