Manage updates with the Download AppApril 28, 2006 5:06 PM PDT
Congress may consider mandatory ISP snooping
- Related Stories
-
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 -
Europe to push ahead with ISP snooping law
June 9, 2005 -
FBI adds to wiretap wish list
March 12, 2004 -
My (brief) career as an ISP
October 10, 2003 -
FBI targets Net phoning
July 29, 2003
Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a Republican, gave a speech saying that data retention by Internet service providers is an "issue that must be addressed." Child pornography investigations have been "hampered" because data may be routinely deleted, Gonzales warned.
Now, in a demonstration of bipartisan unity, a Democratic member of the Congressional Internet Caucus is preparing to introduce an amendment--perhaps during a U.S. House of Representatives floor vote next week--that would make such data deletion illegal.
Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette's proposal (click for PDF) 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. (Details would be left to the Federal Communications Commission.)
Rep. Diana DeGette"We're still addressing some of the issues, and we will have those issues or answers before we introduce this as either an amendment or a standalone bill," Brandon MacGillis, a spokesman for DeGette, said in an interview on Friday.
CNET News.com was the first to report last June that the Justice Department was quietly shopping around the idea of legally required data retention. In a move that may have led to broader interest inside the United States, the European Parliament last December approved such a requirement for Internet, telephone and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers.
U.S. politicians began talking publicly about mandatory data retention during a series of House of Representatives hearings on child pornography and in speeches, News.com reported earlier this month. Legislation similar to DeGette's has been circulating in the Colorado legislature, and another hearing on child exploitation is planned for next Wednesday.
The Bush administration's current position is an abrupt reversal of its previous long-held belief that data retention is unnecessary and imposes an unacceptable burden on Internet providers. In 2001, the Bush administration expressed (click for PDF) "serious reservations about broad mandatory data retention regimes."
DeGette said in a statement that her amendment was necessary because: "America is the No. 1 global consumer of child pornography, the No. 2 producer. This is a plague we had nearly wiped out in the seventies, and sadly the Internet, an entity that we practically worship for all the great things it has brought to us, is being used to commit a crime against humanity."
For their part, Internet providers say they have a long history of helping law enforcement in child porn cases and point out that two federal laws already require them to cooperate. It's also unclear that investigations are really being hindered, according to Kate Dean, director of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association.
MacGillis, a spokesman for DeGette, said his boss is likely to introduce her data retention proposal as a standalone measure or as an amendment to a broad telecommunications bill that's moving rapidly through the House.
The bill (click for PDF)--best known for a debate this week over its Net neutrality sections--was approved by a House committee on Thursday and is expected to receive a floor vote next week. (DeGette had considered adding it as an amendment during the committee vote but decided against it at the last minute.)
"Our main concern on the bill is privacy, protecting the privacy of everyone out there on the Internet, but also retention of those records so law enforcement officials will have access to them, so we just need to really tinker with the language," MacGillis said.
Child porn as surveillance excuse?
Critics of DeGette's proposal have said that, while the justification for Internet surveillance might be protecting children, the data would be accessible to any local or state law enforcement official investigating anything from drug possession to tax evasion. In addition, the one-year retention is a minimum; the FCC would receive the authority to require Internet companies to keep records "for not less than one year after a subscriber ceases to subscribe to such services."
Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the free-market Cato Institute, said: "This is an unrestricted grant of authority to the FCC to require surveillance."
"The FCC would be able to tell Internet service providers to monitor our e-mails, monitor our Web surfing, monitor what we post on blogs or chat rooms, and everything else under the sun," said Harper, a member of the Department of Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee. "We're seeing a kind of hysteria reminiscent of the McMartin case. The result will be privacy that goes away and doesn't come back when the foolishness is exposed."
The McMartin case was probably the most extreme example of the hysteria over "Satanic ritual abuse"--a widespread scare in the 1980s that children were molested, murdered and tortured, even though no evidence was found. In the McMartin preschool case, a family was falsely accused of Satanic activities and the charges were eventually dropped.
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 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."
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 is charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency.
CNET News.com's Anne Broache contributed to this report.
See more CNET content tagged:
amendment, Internet provider, Bush Administration, record, Internet Service Provider
72 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
In fact, this scheme is actually a two-part plan.
Part 1. Requires "data retention".
Part 2. Requires legislation to allow virtually unfettered government-access to such data.
And, this isnt just a U.S. scheme. Europe already HAS implemented "Part 1 - data retention". And, the United States HAS already implemented "Part 2 - unfettered-access", ...to virtually any "stored ISP" information. Such "records" can now be demanded by virtually any "law-enforcement agency", for virtually "...any ongoing investigation", of virtually any alleged "...wrong-doing". And, I believe, Canada has already actually implemented both parts.
You would have to be a FOOL to not understand that this IS going to happen, NO MATTER WHAT. Or, what this really means.
Remember when being innocent until proven guilty, and citizens expectation of "due-process"... in other words, ..."Freedom", ...actually meant something?
In fact, this scheme is actually a two-part plan.
Part 1. Requires "data retention".
Part 2. Requires legislation to allow virtually unfettered government-access to such data.
And, this isnt just a U.S. scheme. Europe already HAS implemented "Part 1 - data retention". And, the United States HAS already implemented "Part 2 - unfettered-access", ...to virtually any "stored ISP" information. Such "records" can now be demanded by virtually any "law-enforcement agency", for virtually "...any ongoing investigation", of virtually any alleged "...wrong-doing". And, I believe, Canada has already actually implemented both parts.
You would have to be a FOOL to not understand that this IS going to happen, NO MATTER WHAT. Or, what this really means.
Remember when being innocent until proven guilty, and citizens expectation of "due-process"... in other words, ..."Freedom", ...actually meant something?
Personally, I love having access to the internet, but I'm thinking about giving it up too. I don't do anything illegal, but I guess that doesn't matter. My country makes me feel like I'm guilty. We may be better than China or North Korea or countries like that, but for how long.
Personally, I love having access to the internet, but I'm thinking about giving it up too. I don't do anything illegal, but I guess that doesn't matter. My country makes me feel like I'm guilty. We may be better than China or North Korea or countries like that, but for how long.
The statement "Child pornography investigations have been "hampered" because data may be routinely deleted"
If this data exists today to begin with I am going to assume the data is not actual web traffic, but instead things like keeping record of who had what IP address at what time.
Because if that all they are looking to retain for longer periods of time I say fine.
I think some clarification is needed before I cast my vote in either direction on the issue. (I know, I know, I am suposed to let Slashdot and the IT media think for me).
The statement "Child pornography investigations have been "hampered" because data may be routinely deleted"
If this data exists today to begin with I am going to assume the data is not actual web traffic, but instead things like keeping record of who had what IP address at what time.
Because if that all they are looking to retain for longer periods of time I say fine.
I think some clarification is needed before I cast my vote in either direction on the issue. (I know, I know, I am suposed to let Slashdot and the IT media think for me).
been any better, but Bush has been a huge disappointment in so
many ways. His record on civil liberty is an especially bitter pill
to swallow. And clearly our current Attorney General is the point
man for the soft-fascist police state of the 21st Century. Ive
watched the UK lead the way in this regard and that experiment
hasnt gone well.?
?
As long as you include the words terrorism, child pr0n, or
meth then any destruction of civil liberties is not only
acceptable, but absolutely required. I used to not give a rats ass
what happened to some foreigner detained in Guantanamo Bay
till I realized that the current administration sees us all as
potential suspects and potential enemies of the state.?
?
It isnt that Bush and his administration is evil, but rather this is
just one more example of how good intentions--combined with
unchecked statist power--can go awry in a serious hurry. ?
?
I wish I could take refuge in the other major party but they have
their own safetycratic agenda, whether its taking away my
guns, or legislating away my choice of smoking or eating
unhealthy food. And theyll be just as happy to take advantage
of all this new snooping power to enforce their own vision of
utopia.
It doesn't matter if those detainees are foreigners(many are not), that the US governement could disappear people should have been a huge red flag.Just remember this, the US has set a dangerous precedence, you could now say something bad about another country and could come into the US and take you for as long as they wish with no charges and abuse you. They can do this because this is exactly what you supported. Hopefully someone will invade and take Bush away to suffer an ironic punishment he so richly deserves.
Three shameful facts about america:
1. Over 50% of the people do not vote.
2. Of those that voted, ~25% voted for bush
3. That means that 75% of the population are morons.
been any better, but Bush has been a huge disappointment in so
many ways. His record on civil liberty is an especially bitter pill
to swallow. And clearly our current Attorney General is the point
man for the soft-fascist police state of the 21st Century. Ive
watched the UK lead the way in this regard and that experiment
hasnt gone well.?
?
As long as you include the words terrorism, child pr0n, or
meth then any destruction of civil liberties is not only
acceptable, but absolutely required. I used to not give a rats ass
what happened to some foreigner detained in Guantanamo Bay
till I realized that the current administration sees us all as
potential suspects and potential enemies of the state.?
?
It isnt that Bush and his administration is evil, but rather this is
just one more example of how good intentions--combined with
unchecked statist power--can go awry in a serious hurry. ?
?
I wish I could take refuge in the other major party but they have
their own safetycratic agenda, whether its taking away my
guns, or legislating away my choice of smoking or eating
unhealthy food. And theyll be just as happy to take advantage
of all this new snooping power to enforce their own vision of
utopia.
It doesn't matter if those detainees are foreigners(many are not), that the US governement could disappear people should have been a huge red flag.Just remember this, the US has set a dangerous precedence, you could now say something bad about another country and could come into the US and take you for as long as they wish with no charges and abuse you. They can do this because this is exactly what you supported. Hopefully someone will invade and take Bush away to suffer an ironic punishment he so richly deserves.
Three shameful facts about america:
1. Over 50% of the people do not vote.
2. Of those that voted, ~25% voted for bush
3. That means that 75% of the population are morons.
So what are they going to do now with that information??? Are they going to arrest me. Monitor me??? Put me on a list?
Are they good 'ole Americans from the stock of our fore-fathers or are they big meanies?
I frankly don't care about the constitution because I am not stuck in the past and am more concerned about the original intention of this country as it should be to move foward. They can interprait the constitution any way they want and that's reality because the president is givin full power. Period.
Right now they are a runaway government, just doing their job, hellbent on controlling everything from what goes in your mouth to out your anus. All in the name of 'state secrets.' Why because they are obsolete.
The U.S. is worse then any of the past evil natiopns put together because they are the world leaders. Most conservatives support this with heavy rationalization.
So for, me the government has had it. My new government is the www.eff.org and other non-profits that do not tax me; so have an incentive to work for me based on merit. Since today most of the world is run by non-profits anyway. They don't need your money because they have your support.
I can't wait to see the final showdown. EFF will win hands doesn't because simply they don't need money as much as the government does to survive. The government can try to stop them all they want but EFF is more nimble and has better backing overall. Special Interests rule today period. The non-profit Internet companies like Open Source software and Hardware rule.
They dont need you U.S.
So what are they going to do now with that information??? Are they going to arrest me. Monitor me??? Put me on a list?
Are they good 'ole Americans from the stock of our fore-fathers or are they big meanies?
I frankly don't care about the constitution because I am not stuck in the past and am more concerned about the original intention of this country as it should be to move foward. They can interprait the constitution any way they want and that's reality because the president is givin full power. Period.
Right now they are a runaway government, just doing their job, hellbent on controlling everything from what goes in your mouth to out your anus. All in the name of 'state secrets.' Why because they are obsolete.
The U.S. is worse then any of the past evil natiopns put together because they are the world leaders. Most conservatives support this with heavy rationalization.
So for, me the government has had it. My new government is the www.eff.org and other non-profits that do not tax me; so have an incentive to work for me based on merit. Since today most of the world is run by non-profits anyway. They don't need your money because they have your support.
I can't wait to see the final showdown. EFF will win hands doesn't because simply they don't need money as much as the government does to survive. The government can try to stop them all they want but EFF is more nimble and has better backing overall. Special Interests rule today period. The non-profit Internet companies like Open Source software and Hardware rule.
They dont need you U.S.
Committee hysteria of the late 40's and early 50's under Sentaor
Joe "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy, where everyone was seeing
Communist subversives under every rock and a popular satirical
song of the period said: "If your mommy is a Commie, then
you've got to turn her in!"
Same thing, but far more damaging is this push to look at
EVERYTHING we do as the net becomes more and more the only
way we really communicate - VOIP, email, video, file sharing,
you name it. And once again, the government wants to be able
to look at everything - without a warrant.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm
from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan.
And this porposed legislation falls under that terrifying idea of
"trying to help." Help us out of our right to privacy, our right to
freedom of interference in our daily lives by the government and
our right to say what we want, when we want, without the fear
that the government isn't listening in and won't take retribution
for what we have said.
Another step on that slippery slope to tyranny. A BIG step.
Not to mention one that simply isn't feasible from a technical
standpoint. The storage requirements are simply unthinkable.
Again, showing that a Congresscritter has two ends - a thinking
end and a sitting end and, as their job depends on keeping their
seat, they have little use for the other end, at all.
Lee Darrow, C.H
Chicago, IL
P.S. Five will get you ten that this gets me audited - again.
Committee hysteria of the late 40's and early 50's under Sentaor
Joe "Tailgunner Joe" McCarthy, where everyone was seeing
Communist subversives under every rock and a popular satirical
song of the period said: "If your mommy is a Commie, then
you've got to turn her in!"
Same thing, but far more damaging is this push to look at
EVERYTHING we do as the net becomes more and more the only
way we really communicate - VOIP, email, video, file sharing,
you name it. And once again, the government wants to be able
to look at everything - without a warrant.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm
from the government and I'm here to help.' - Ronald Reagan.
And this porposed legislation falls under that terrifying idea of
"trying to help." Help us out of our right to privacy, our right to
freedom of interference in our daily lives by the government and
our right to say what we want, when we want, without the fear
that the government isn't listening in and won't take retribution
for what we have said.
Another step on that slippery slope to tyranny. A BIG step.
Not to mention one that simply isn't feasible from a technical
standpoint. The storage requirements are simply unthinkable.
Again, showing that a Congresscritter has two ends - a thinking
end and a sitting end and, as their job depends on keeping their
seat, they have little use for the other end, at all.
Lee Darrow, C.H
Chicago, IL
P.S. Five will get you ten that this gets me audited - again.
the planet at least twice. I'll e-mail stuff to everybody on the
planet at least twice. I also plan to invest all my money in
companies that sell storage drives because there isn't enough
available now for all the stuff going around the web.
Did you notice that this is one bill both parties can agree on. It
seems they hate each others guts unless it involves trampling all
over our civil rights. Who said "Don't Tread on me"? Maybe
somebody should remind both parties its "We the People".
the planet at least twice. I'll e-mail stuff to everybody on the
planet at least twice. I also plan to invest all my money in
companies that sell storage drives because there isn't enough
available now for all the stuff going around the web.
Did you notice that this is one bill both parties can agree on. It
seems they hate each others guts unless it involves trampling all
over our civil rights. Who said "Don't Tread on me"? Maybe
somebody should remind both parties its "We the People".
Are we turning into China?
Civil Liberties/Rights
I have just read several articles in the news that Congress may consider mandatory ISP (Internet Service Provider) snooping reminicent of legislation that Europe has recently enacted. Sorry, but in my opinion, this is going too far. It seems that more and more each day we are loosing one by one our personal freedoms and liberties, heading toward a police state/survellince society similar to what is described in Orwell's 1984. The DoJ are claiming that this is to assist in Child Pornography investigations. My question to them is "How much is enough?" After all, we have the Patriot Act, so what more does the DoJ need? The last time that I checked, I lived in the United States of America, not The People's Republic of China.
Are we turning into China?
Civil Liberties/Rights
I have just read several articles in the news that Congress may consider mandatory ISP (Internet Service Provider) snooping reminicent of legislation that Europe has recently enacted. Sorry, but in my opinion, this is going too far. It seems that more and more each day we are loosing one by one our personal freedoms and liberties, heading toward a police state/survellince society similar to what is described in Orwell's 1984. The DoJ are claiming that this is to assist in Child Pornography investigations. My question to them is "How much is enough?" After all, we have the Patriot Act, so what more does the DoJ need? The last time that I checked, I lived in the United States of America, not The People's Republic of China.
If that is not acceptable to our control-crazed circus of a government, then that proves their intentions are not what they are trying to sell. The government is no different than someone trying to pick someone up at a bar, "They will say anything to get you into bed." If they cared so much about the safety of children, how come there isn't legislation/laws/whatever that would hold the ISP's accountable for making sure no content that exploits children is anywhere on their servers, and they are not hosting content of that nature; or they will be prosecuted.
That would make sense because without hosting services and servers of ISP's, having content on the web would be quite difficult.
With that being said, there is NO reason for ISP snooping! Plus, it is the government that should be looked upon by us citizens - because of their ignorance, greed, and hunger for more power and control that there are innocent children getting killed in the war they started, our own children at home are without health insurance, without adequate treatment, affordable treatment, services, and medications. I think that they are also endangering the lives of children, and unfortunately, children die everyday because services that would save their lives is only available to those who are priveleged.