Comments on: Congress may make ISPs snoop on you
Proposed law targets bloggers, search engines, and Web sites that might "facilitate" access to unlawful pornography.
Proposed law targets bloggers, search engines, and Web sites that might "facilitate" access to unlawful pornography.
December 28, 2009 2:39 PM PST
December 28, 2009 1:39 PM PST
December 28, 2009 12:45 PM PST
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
Related quotes
liberties. All under the guise of stopping "evil doers." These people
cannot be trusted at all. Call your members of Congress now to
urge them to oppose the Sennsenbrenner bill.
"The Bush Administration seems committed to trampling over civil liberties."
You have to remember that C-Net News, like most mainstream media, has a Bush-bashing, liberal leaning to it, and, while not as obvious as most of them, still attempts to sway you when it can. Note the following two sentences from the beginning of the article:
"A prominent Republican on Capitol Hill has prepared legislation that would rewrite Internet privacy rules..."
Okay, there's your truth. A Congressman has introduced the bill. Now for the spin:
"...a move that represented a dramatic shift in the Bush administration's views on privacy."
So, according to the article, all Republican Congressmen are mere pawns of President Bush, complying with his every whim. A summation that I'm pretty sure the aforementioned Congressmen would object to.
So now, with the words "Bush administration" lingering in the reader's mind, the article then launches into all the gruesome things the bill would do. As you read through them, it's only natural to think, "That damn Bush administration!", whereas what you should be thinking is, "Why did those jackasses in Wisconsin elect this jerk?", referring to Rep. Sensenbrenner.
Remember to watch for the buzzwords, folks. If the site is left-leaning, the telephone database collected by the NSA is "surveillance" of Americans. The monitoring of terrorists' phone calls is "domestic" spying. And, as in this case, watch for the term "Bush administration" where it simply doesn't belong.
Do you really think this is just about pedophiles on the internet?
I am a little confused as to what ?reason to believe' means stated by the atourney general. What I am reading here is that they are not trying to store all data and only for a limited time. Just data collected from these illegal web ISPs.
?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."
My question is: Is this a valid warrant. Something that the public will be aware of so they can make proper judgment or is this more of the terrorism 'total power' thing?
Basically I would be for it, with a warrant, because there are too many jerks on the Intent getting away with monstrous things. Frankly I'm sick of it. There are way too many kids getting raped in this country, I think because the Internet was a free-for-all in the late 90s when it got popular all in the name of privacy and freedom without respect of the privacy and freedom of the victim.
People can't just sit there a squawk freedom and then do nothing about crime.
One thing is for certain any government agency that can use this type of law won't be confused about what it means: It will mean what they want it to mean!
If you want to know what "reason to believe" means, that's a question for Rep. Sensenbrenner, not me.
As for the ECTRA, all that's required is a mere letter (no court order) from the FBI or other federal police agency. I received one once and wrote about it -- did you follow the links from the article?
heard, make an appointment with a couple of
friends to go visit the guy. Most congressmen
are deep into lots of other people's pockets --
a constituent's concerns might get some
consideration, but unless you go the extra mile
to really catch their attention, you'll be
marginalized.
I don't care about this so much. If it looks
like it'll pass, I promise I'll release an
open-source cross-platform internet traffic
noise generator to everyone. You can easily
render all of the records utterly useless and
too voluminous to be practical, and too noisy to
be reliable.
I'm not sure if they'd be able to push this
through before times up anyway.
Someone should tell this clown that this type of approach will not work, especially once Grandma Millie's IP address is spoofed or hacked by crooks and she's hauled off in handcuff's.
These two additions will just be put in the yearly budget or something that is so large it never gets fully read.
Now the G'ment has almost realtime ablility to monitor the Internet legally. You will know this is a reality when some idiot in congress spouts off that we need federal ovesight into the management and security of wireless networks. The last loophole over truely anonymous access will be closed. And George Orwell lives!
acceptable any more what this so called government
is starting to pull. Eerily like Orwell as I said farther
down on the postings.
If you want to write Congress, make sure that this law strictly enforces audit trails, etc and the information is used only for that purpose.
Let's provide some help for the innocent out there to try to prevent the next 9-11 or the girl down the street being abducted from a child molester..
Sorry, this was not aimed at you personally, your comments just opened the floodgates to my thoughts and they wound up being tagged to your message!
If this legislation is passed, then the predators will just use or invent technology to hide their tracks and allow them to hijack other people's computers. In fact, right now, you can download tools for free that will allow you to almost completely hide your tracks across the internet.
What you can count on is innocent people?s computers getting hijacked by these sick people so that any trails that do appear lead back to the hijacked computer and not the predator. This will usher in completely new methods for blackmail, corruption, and more criminal behavior.
Is that what you want? Because that is exactly what will happen.
Just think about it. What if it happened to your family? What if a sexual predator hijacked your parents? computer either through hacking or ?social engineering? and used it as a front to attack children on the internet? The trail would lead back to them, and they would be hauled off to jail.
Or worse, what if you became the target of revenge or blackmail? What if someone, say a disgruntled employee, hacked or ?social engineered? his way into your computer either at home or at work and used it to plant evidence that you were a sexual predator? All they would have to do is start up an internet browser on your computer and go to whatever sites they could visit that could incriminate you. Since all the logs will show that your computer browsed those sites, all the evidence will point back to you.
Are you still feeling comfortable now?
This is, in essence, why the whole idea of ?I have nothing to hide, therefore I don?t need privacy laws or government restraint? is a bunch of hogwash. People who think stuff like this is a good idea are the ones who take their freedoms for granted, think only of themselves, and ignore the sacrifice of all those who have died in the protection of these freedoms.
?Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety? - Ben Franklin
If this legislation is passed, then the predators will just use or invent technology to hide their tracks and allow them to hijack other people's computers. In fact, right now, you can download tools for free that will allow you to almost completely hide your tracks across the internet.
What you can count on is innocent people?s computers getting hijacked by these sick people so that any trails that do appear lead back to the hijacked computer and not the predator. This will usher in completely new methods for blackmail, corruption, and more criminal behavior.
Is that what you want? Because that is exactly what will happen.
Just think about it. What if it happened to your family? What if a sexual predator hijacked your parents? computer either through hacking or ?social engineering? and used it as a front to attack children on the internet? The trail would lead back to your parents, and they would be hauled off to jail.
Or worse, what if you became the target of revenge or blackmail? What if someone, say a disgruntled employee, hacked or ?social engineered? his way into your computer either at home or at work and used it to plant evidence that you were a sexual predator? All they would have to do is start up an internet browser on your computer and go to whatever sites they could visit that could incriminate you. Since all the logs will show that your computer browsed those sites, all the evidence will point back to you.
Are you still feeling comfortable now?
This is, in essence, why the whole idea of ?I have nothing to hide, therefore I don?t need privacy laws or government restraint? is a bunch of hogwash. People who think this is a good idea are the ones who take their freedoms for granted, think only of themselves, and ignore the sacrifice of all those who have died in the protection of these freedoms.
?Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety? - Ben Franklin
Yet those boneheads up in Wisconsin just can't seem to get enough of this guy!!??
Wisconsin has fascist ideals, that's why they have Doyle as Governor, and Sensenbrenner in the whitehouse.
ONE law that is needed is: NO laws may be passed at any time, or under ANY circumstance, regardless of the reason, that will deny, even in the smallest detail, any rights of any citizen, to do so will immediately force the law to be void and illegal, and ANY elected official, no matter his or her ranking WILL be held to answer to the people for the charge of treason and high crimes and shall be placed into federal prison for a term of not less than 25 years to life, depending on the severity of the rights said elected official attempted to subvert and deny.
This sort of law should be made permanent by a vote of the people with a ballot, and can ONLY be changed with a 2/3 vote by the same people.
The VOTERS make up 99/100ths of the nation's power, let's USE it to OUR advantage from this time forward!
Term limits are necessary...four years, no longer!
Wisconsin is a FASCIST STATE!
What else can you expect to see from NAZIS any way?
The second amendment is a RIGHT, NOT a 'privilege'!
Voting is a right, NOT a 'privilege'!
"The Bush Administration seems committed to trampling over civil liberties."
You have to remember, folks, that C-Net News, like most mainstream media, has a Bush-bashing, liberal leaning to it, and, while not as obvious as most of them, still attempts to sway you when it can. Note the following two sentences from the beginning of the article:
"A prominent Republican on Capitol Hill has prepared legislation that would rewrite Internet privacy rules..."
Okay, there's your truth. A Congressman has introduced the bill. Now for the spin:
"...a move that represented a dramatic shift in the Bush administration's views on privacy."
So, according to the article, Republican Congressmen are mere pawns of President Bush, complying with his every whim. A summation that I'm pretty sure the aforementioned Congressmen would object to.
So now, with the words "Bush administration" lingering in the reader's mind, the article then launches into all the gruesome things the bill would do. As you read through them, it's only natural to think, "That damn Bush administration!", whereas what you should be thinking is, "Why did those jackasses in Wisconsin elect this jerk?", referring to Rep. Sensenbrenner.
Remember to watch for the buzzwords, folks. If the site is left-leaning, the telephone database collected by the NSA is "surveillance" of Americans, or "spying" on Americans as the original C-Net article called it. The monitoring of terrorists' phone calls is "domestic" spying. And, as in this case, watch for the term "Bush administration" where it simply doesn't belong.
As far as the article goes, once again (for what feels like the 100th time in the past 20 years) I feel sorry for the poor ISPs that get caught in the middle. I loved this line:
"...and even the contents of communications."
That means, of course, that not only does an employee from the ISP have to read through every email before it's sent on, but actually has to try every link in said emails. Not every porn link is "www.GetSexHere.com", and that's doubly-true for sites trying to protect illegal contents.
Here's another goodie:
"It's aimed at any site that might have 'reason to believe' it facilitates access to child pornography--through hyperlinks or a DISCUSSION FORUM, for instance."
So, if someone states in a forum, "I've been surfing the web for years and, while I've certainly blundered my way across the occasional porno site, I don't ever recall seeing any child porno. So what's the government talking about?", and you answer, "The child porno is usually hidden", then you've just 'fascilitated' access to child pornography, right?
Well, I could go on and on, but I've got some things to do. I do, however, have one little question for the group first.
I've been surfing the web for years and, while I've certainly blundered my way across the occasional porno site, I don't recall ever seeing any child porno. So what's the government talking about?
No, wait.
Don't answer that. :)
Wouldn't it be easier to catch web sites that distribute illegal images and content by simply searching the web for them using the search engine of their choice and arrest their owners and shut them down? Of course it would be. Why won't the AG do this?
Why won't the Bush Administration enforce the current laws against makers and traffickers of illegal content (that are so easy to locate on the internet)? Sorry if that's seems like some sort of left-leaning question - I don't mean to offend you.
I'd say watch out for buzzwords like "bush-bashing", and "liberal" and the like this guy spewed in a vain effort to try to refute how much of a fascist society we have become. We are all Americans here, and we all want our country back.
> Bush-bashing, liberal leaning to it, and, while
> not as obvious as most of them, still attempts to
> sway you when it can.
Shut up already. We've been hearing the same things from you clowns for years.
I'll bet if you read the Constitution, you'd get on these forums with a screed deriding it as a "liberal" document.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".
God I hope America wakes up soon, before the document this Amendment came from becomes just a worthless piece of paper. Please fight for your rights, before you lose them!
The best watchdogs are able to notice when physical location discussions appear to be moving toward direct contact and also notice the bridge phrases that lead to hard-core sites.
The law enforcement then can use existing laws and their own judgement as to getting more information if they see cause to do so. This does not infringe anyone's private information, nor does it expose innocent people to false accusations, as the new law certainly would do. Watchdogging does not presume guilt, in fact it presumes innocence in asking legitimate authorities to take the steps necessary to investigate a specific situation before anyone gets accused of anything.
The new laws will presume guilt on the part of all adults who appear in risky discussions. This can include those who are involved in a completely innocent thread that later gets hijacked by new participants.
We have all seen groups in the internet change in character as membership evolves. We know that our membership info in groups we have long forgotten can persist.
This new ISP set of rules is absurdly dangerous and ineffective. It can only hurt the innocent and let the guilty swim free in a sea of confusion.
I don't mean to be overly critical because this is something that needs bringing to the forefront, but it's hardly new.
Let's face it we've known for years that you don't write anything in an email you wouldn't want the government to see, hence the existence of things like PGP and the government lawsuit to try to get it banned.
But this particular bill is so far out there it defies belief. The people responsible are on both sides of the house, and are using the rhetoric of tabloid news channels like CNN, MSNBC and Fox to justify it's existence.
What is curious is how they anticipate locally owned ISPs being able to store that much information without the resources of a Hollywood studio trying to digitise it's entire library of movies.
Obviously they feel we're not paying enough for our internet and ironically we'll end up paying in subscription charges for the equipment used to spy on us.
I probably wasn't clear enough in the article and I apologize for that. Basically we had a few data points including (1) a Democrat suggesting this (2) AG Gonzales suggesting this.
Now we have a close ally of the Bush administration ready to introduce legislation. So it's another step forward in the legislative process, and we'll be covering future ones as well.
Robert
- Party has a drug problem
- by rmiecznik May 16, 2006 12:34 PM PDT
- I think all the drugs that are ceased go straight
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (71 Comments)up the Republicans noses. It is a known fact that our current president used to snort cocaine up his nose and smoke marijuana, yet he is our president, and that he is part of some stupid Bones and Skulls club for little kids. lol
There is no doubt in my mind that Democrats will take over the Majority and the Presidency in the next election, only a moron would vote republican.