Bill proposes ISPs, Wi-Fi keep logs for police
Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations.
The legislation, which echoes a measure proposed by one of their Democratic colleagues three years ago, would impose unprecedented data retention requirements on a broad swath of Internet access providers and is certain to draw fire from businesses and privacy advocates.
"While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children," U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said at a press conference on Thursday. "Keeping our children safe requires cooperation on the local, state, federal, and family level."
Joining Cornyn was Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who said such a measure would let "law enforcement stay ahead of the criminals."
Two bills have been introduced so far--S.436 in the Senate and H.R.1076 in the House. Each of the companion bills is titled "Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act," or Internet Safety Act.
Each contains the same language: "A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least two years all records or other information pertaining to the identity of a user of a temporarily assigned network address the service assigns to that user."
Translated, the Internet Safety Act applies not just to AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and so on--but also to the tens of millions of homes with Wi-Fi access points or wired routers that use the standard method of dynamically assigning temporary addresses. (That method is called Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol, or DHCP.)
"Everyone has to keep such information," says Albert Gidari, a partner at the Perkins Coie law firm in Seattle who specializes in this area of electronic privacy law.
The legal definition of electronic communication service is "any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications." The U.S. Justice Department's position is that any service "that provides others with means of communicating electronically" qualifies.
That sweeps in not just public Wi-Fi access points, but password-protected ones too, and applies to individuals, small businesses, large corporations, libraries, schools, universities, and even government agencies. Voice over IP services may be covered too.
Under the Internet Safety Act, all of those would have to keep logs for at least two years. It "covers every employer that uses DHCP for its network," Gidari said. "It covers Aircell on airplanes--those little pico cells will have to store a lot of data for those in-the-air Internet users."
In the Bush administration, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had called for a very similar proposal, saying that subscriber information and network data should be logged for two years.
Until Gonzales' remarks in 2006, the Bush administration had generally opposed laws requiring data retention, saying it had "serious reservations" about them. But after the European Parliament approved such a requirement for Internet, telephone and VoIP providers, top administration officials began talking about the practice more favorably.
After Gonzales left the Justice Department, the political will for data retention legislation seemed to ebb for a time, but then FBI Director Robert Mueller resumed lobbying efforts last spring.
This tends to be a bipartisan sentiment: Attorney General Eric Holder, a Democrat, said in 1999 that "certain data must be retained by ISPs for reasonable periods of time so that it can be accessible to law enforcement." Rep. John Conyers, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said that FBI proposals for data retention legislation "would be most welcome."
Smith, who sponsored the House version of the Internet Safety Act, had previously introduced a one-year requirement as part of a law-and-order agenda in 2007.
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 whether 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.
The Internet Safety Act is broader than just data retention. Other portions add criminal penalties to other child pornography-related offenses, increase penalties for sexual exploitation of minors, and give the FBI an extra $30 million for the "Innocent Images National Initiative."
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
Can I get a Stimulus Check to pay for a server to keep the data for 2 years worth of web / email / game logs / ect
This is going to damned far.
This is rediculous.
I can see if we had people that were tech savy running these wifi access points.
But by and large most have not a damned clue one what they are doing when they put up a WiFi access point. The majority NEVER turn on the security, including the businesses. And even when the security is turned on it is NEVER of the type that is not easy to break through. Remember all the Credit Card Scandals not but months ago where the drive by hijacking of Credit Card Numbers were happening.
No LAWS were put in place then.
But NOW, we are concerned about Child Porn and Exploitation.
Rip People off. But protect the children.
Smacks of Hipocritical Politics.
Pass the law requiring that EVERYONE Turn on the Security that Can not Easily be broken for personal use PERIOD.
Then require those that do not comply for what ever reason to keep the records.
If they want the records so darned bad, then require that the logs be sent to a central log server at the local police station if it is so important to have the freggin logs then make the PD responsible for collecting them.
We all want to protect children, but this nantra is being abused to infringe on our freedoms just like the drum beat against terrorism. As Benjamin Franklin said: Those who give up freedom for security will soon have neither (because the security itself will become the oppressor).
First line of the article. Doesn't say Democratic politicians...
Regardless who called for it or who votes for it, it must be stopped.
Not my line but i do like it:: Republicans want government just small enough to fit in your bedroom."
This will never pass. They might as well make sunrise illegal and try to enforce it. Besides ,what good would it do to know that my linksys gave someone 192.168.1.102 for an hour on Tuesday January 28th. I won't know who it is.
Cornyn [Texas] is a REPUBLICAN sponsoring the Senate bill [without co-sponsors]; who, in
my opinion, ought to be investigated for consorting with, and accepting monies from the 'thieves of Enron'...[By the way, let's examine Ken Lay's coffin to be sure that it contains HIS body!]
And, Representative Lamar S. Smith [Texas/21st district] is a REPUBLICAN...the sole sponsor
of the House bill.....Both bills have been referred to 'committees'; where, hopefully, they will die an ignominous death...
Anyways, democratic and republican politicians have been for the most part technically ignorant, and so many in the house and especially senate are technologically inept. Obama is the first president to come into office as a serious internet user, and I am sure that the technical expertise regarding data retention is "beyond his pay grade". One hopes that he will listen to the experts, since it seems the house and the senate does not.
This is a perfect example of legislators trying to pass laws about things they simply don't understand.
And why does it always have to be about "the children?" Screw the children!
Can I subscribe to your newsletter?
screwing children is what this whole mess is supposed to prevent.
This is just another attempt to regulate the internet. The Government Class doesn't like the freedom of the internet. When people feel they can speak freely, they say all sorts of things that the government lackies don't want them to say.
The point of legislation like this is not so much to actually implement a law restricting speech, but to create the climate of fear, uncertainty and doubt on the internet that exist in real life. The idea is that if people THINK they aren't free to speak their minds without sanctions, then they will censor themselves, and we can go right along continuing to believe we are a free society.
Ken
www.kenStech.com
Get such laws passed and you instantly create demand for products that people will be mandated to buy... It's a bit like the auto insurance scam where everyone is mandated to have insurance no matter what... You, me, and everyone will be forced to buy these devices and software in order to comply with the new law.
Take heed.
This will further harm the have-nots because they won't be able to afford internet access, so kids in poor neighbourhoods who now have access to the internet for free will have their connection shut off. It's brilliant, really... unless of course, you're trying to make ends meet and can't afford internet access.
Winners and losers: that's the mindset here. Create winners and losers, even when the way we have it now doesn't even have a game to be played.
I agree with mattumau to a point. There is probably some lobbying going on but the need for technology drives invention and thus the American way. American have always had the freedom to capitalize on meeting the needs that are presented. Many jobs can be created with this particular situation.
There are countries out there whose citizens would love to have the opportunities that we enjoy here even though we have to weed through the lobbyists, corruption and propeganda to actually see our free enterprise system at work. I'm very thankful we have the systems in place in our country that help us survive through all of this.
I agree with carydc2, that if they really want to log everyone's Wi-Fi usage for police, then the police should be responsible for it.
All I want my ISP to do is provide a connection to the internet.
Talk about bypassing the Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures. First they give the NSA warrantless wiretaps, now they're giving Big Brother the right to make us spy on each other.
Love Orwell, hate the fact that George was 100% right.
10th amendment anyone? It doesn't allow the government to do things like this, but no one ever questions it on those grounds.
Perhaps you can explain, in detail, why you think only Republicans like this approach?
Maybe because bill S.436 is sponsored by Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and bill H.R.1076 is sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX)? Call me crazy but that sounds like Republican support to me. However, both sides of the aisle are supporting some version of this bill.
"Better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and prove it"
Once again, people with little to no knowledge coming up with stupid ideas. Isn't it obvious to everyone by now that we've suffered enough of this? There's very little left for these people to ruin.
The headline led me to believe a whole party had rallied behind it, when in fact, precisely two Republicans with no co-sponsors re-introduced a measure formerly proposed by a few Democrats, but opposed by a Republican administration. We call that "bipartisanship". Perhaps not *good* bipartisanship, but blaming this on either party is unfair. When Charles Rangel (D-NY) introduced a bill to reinstate selective service in 2003, credible headlines didn't proclaim, "Democrats: We Want to Draft You to War". Such one-sided sensationalism might make a great blog entry title, but shouldn't be tolerated in news reporting, unless objectivity is no longer a priority.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/27/rangel.draft/
DHCP [_]
Where's your law now?
But seriously, what a bunch of tools.
This is impossible to pull off without massively changing EVERYTHING.
And good luck storing ALL of that information.
I really hope something bad happens to the people who thought of that, something really bad.
They always use the stupid "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" bull. to try and get the attention of people.
IT WON'T WORK AGAIN, IDIOTS.
If this one goes through, i suggest every one of you complain to everyone you can, flood their servers and phone lines if you have to.
Get it through their thick skulls that this is simply impossible, and such a massive waste of money and time.
No, I think this law is more to create a reason to prosecute access point owners than it is find child molesters.
Call your representatives and rail against this....dont be a dummy like "R"
AMEN!!!! Big government is what is ruining this country. The USA was founded with 13 colonies working together for a common goal. That shouldn't have changed. The states should be the one's with the majority power for their land. the federal government should be a small "peace keeper" for states that don't get along.
This is surveillance, wrapped up in the guise of protecting children and it needs to be fought vigorously.
- by sparrowhyperion February 20, 2009 6:20 AM PST
- I'm all for protecting kids, but.......
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Rē February 20, 2009 6:29 AM PST
- You probably already own a wifi router, perhaps linksys, dlink, or heck even one of those crappy Belkin routers can assign a 10dot class A network range to your computers and have the lease expire after two years. IT'S NOT THAT HARD! geesh... and corporations (even small businesses) can easily afford to keep that kind of record for that period of time for private ip assignments. Like I said, ISP's would have a tougher, but not impossible task of doing the same, just with a smaller pool of public addresses.
-
-
- by champion77 February 22, 2009 4:47 PM PST
- R2,
-
-
Showing 1 of 5 pages (119 Comments)Someone needs to insert a particle of grey matter into these idiot politicians who have no idea what would be involved in implementing this pile of rubbish. I know I can't afford the kind of equipment it would take to do it on my home network.. And I won't even begin to get on the subject of to what a huge privacy risk this bill would create. Hopefully our new President is smarter than the last one (Any member of Alvin and the Chipmunks would qualify for that..)
Now if your talking about prevening MAC spoofing, now your into the whole realm of network security not just DHCP address management, but nothing in that article even hints at that.
I agree that it is probably doable, and I know people are worried that they would have to purchase new hard drives or whatever, but the issue is that the govt is really grossly overstepping their bounds on privacy. I am all for investigating child porn. child porn and exploitation is a horrible injustice against children. But they need to find other ways to investigate it.
Start with human trafficking.
Maybe keep logs of sex offenders. But not innocent America.
That is the issue, my friend.