September 21, 2006 4:25 PM PDT

Data retention bill expected next week

WASHINGTON--A Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives said Thursday that she plans to introduce legislation next week that would force Internet providers to record customer information for one year.

Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado said that she is working with Republicans Reps. Ed Whitfield, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce oversight and investigations subcommittee, and Joe Barton, chairman of the full committee, to finalize language mandating a controversial practice known as data retention.

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 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.

June 27, 2006: Rep. Barton, chair of a House committee, calls new child protection legislation a "highest priority"

"Internet service providers across the board do retain this data for some period of time right now, so all were doing in this legislation is requiring a standard in the industry," DeGette said at a morning hearing here on online child pornography, which was at least the sixth event dealing with online child exploitation in the House this year.

The data retention requirement is necessary because members of Congress have "learned that Internet service providers and social networking sites have information that law enforcement needs when investigating pedophiles online, and that is the IP address on a particular date and time that will help identify those involved," said Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican who is also heading a probe into Hewlett-Packard's boardroom scandal.

Privacy groups and industry groups have generally opposed mandatory data retention, with some companies such as Comcast voluntarily agreeing to retain user data for longer periods. Also, under an earlier proposal described by DeGette, the information would be available not only to police but to civil litigants as well, including divorce lawyers hoping to track someone down or employers embroiled in a lawsuit with a former employee.

Plans to enact the Bush administration's data retention proposal--reiterated this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales--have been brewing in Congress for months but have received increased attention as the November elections draw near.

DeGette, for her part, planned this spring to introduce such a proposal (click for PDF) as an amendment to a House telecommunications bill but ultimately dropped those plans. A senior House Republican also drafted a bill this year (click for PDF) but then backed away from it.

DeGette's bill is expected to be consistent with repeated calls for mandatory data retention in recent months from Gonzales and from 49 state attorneys general (click for PDF).

The two law enforcement officials at Thursday's hearing, representing the cybercrimes division of Homeland Security's Immigrations and Customs Enforcement bureau and the U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey, also offered endorsements.

"We need more and more information, and we need it as quickly as we can possibly get it," said Christopher Christie, U.S. Attorney in New Jersey.

Details on data retention
In general, data retention legislation could follow one of two approaches.

One form could require Internet providers and perhaps social networking sites and search engines to record for a year or two which IP address is used by which user. The other form would be far broader, requiring companies to record data such as the identities of e-mail correspondents, logs of who sent and received instant messages (but not the content of those communications), and the addresses of Web pages visited.

During a series of meetings with Internet companies hosted by the Justice Department--first reported by CNET News.com--officials have been ambiguous about how they want legislation worded, private-sector participants say. Those involved have included AOL, Comcast, Google, Microsoft, Verizon Communications and trade associations.

DeGette said Thursday that her proposal would not require retention of the communications themselves, but would identify data so that law enforcement officials--if they had probable cause to believe a crime has been committed--could go in and get a subpoena and subpoena these IP addresses.

An IP address is a unique four-byte address used to communicate with a device on a computer network that relies on the Internet Protocol. An IP address associated with CNET.com, for instance, is 216.239.113.101.

Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said he liked that DeGette's proposal was not focused on retaining content. "Obviously this is a real dilemma for the Internet service providers for a host of reasons, and I think there is an appropriate time frame that can be established," he said. "But overwhelmingly, we support (data retention mandates)."

DeGette sought to allay concerns raised by privacy advocates about the approach, adding, "I'm concerned about privacy considerations, too, especially in light of what I believe to be illegal surveillance of telephone records by this administration."

See more CNET content tagged:
Rep., Internet provider, legislation, proposal, Bush Administration

17 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Rep. Degette is Married to Attorney Lino Lipinsky ACLU class action atty
Well isn't this interesting that Rep. Degette would sponsor/support a bill that ironically opposes what her husband does for work. Why do I feel like their's some future lawyer thinking going into the ramifications in the future for this law, and how it would benefit attorney's to suit once this data gets in the wrong hands. Her husband is an ACLU attorney and filed suit against the Denver Police Department for "compiling intelligence files" against citizens. This strikes me as odd that his wife is all for doing just that. If you don't believe me, go to Degette's website about section where it says she's married to Lino Lipinsky Attorney in Colorado. Then go to this website and see for yourself.

<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ccmep.org/hotnews2/032802aclu.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.ccmep.org/hotnews2/032802aclu.html</a>
Posted by enigma.live (48 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Double Agents Working in Congress
Now how does Rep. Degette a wife of attorney Lino Lipinsky come to sponsor a law that seems to open the door to the same abuses that her husband filed a lawsuit for the ACLU against the Denver police? Here's a quote from her husband about the lawsuit.

There is no legitimate reason to keep these kinds of files on the peaceful expression of political views and opinions, said Lino Lipinsky, of McKenna &#38; Cuneo, who filed the lawsuit as an ACLU cooperating attorney. "Denver residents should feel free to join a peaceful protest without fear that their names will wind up in police files.

Excerpts from the Spy Files attached to the ACLU lawsuit show that the Denver police have recorded the following kinds of information about specific individuals:



"membership in specific advocacy organizations labeled as criminal extremist, such as the American Friends Service Committee, End The Politics of Cruelty, and the Chiapas Coalition;



"organizing and speaking at events sponsored by Amnesty International;



attendance in 2000 at demonstrations sponsored by the Justice for Mena Committee, which sought to hold Denver police accountable for the killing of Ismael Mena in a botched no-knock raid in 1999;



"participation in protests against the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington, D.C.;



"the purported opinion of plaintiff Sister Antonia that global financial policies are responsible for the uprisings in Chiapas, Mexico;



"being seen at a demonstration in 2000 protesting the celebration of Columbus Day;



"license numbers and descriptions of vehicles used by individuals identified as participants in peaceful protest activities;



"home addresses and personal descriptions of individuals engaged in lawful expressive activity;



"the address of a private residence that an individual reportedly frequents;



There is no legitimate reason to keep these kinds of files on the peaceful expression of political views and opinions, said Lino Lipinsky, of McKenna &#38; Cuneo, who filed the lawsuit as an ACLU cooperating attorney. "Denver residents should feel free to join a peaceful protest without fear that their names will wind up in police files.

Now I ask you people is legislating a law that should not be legislated by government but should be voluntary compliance by the companies involved. Why do I feel that this is a congressman helping her husband have lot's of future cases, apparently they know that when the government has data that it's abused. Seems like a good way for her husband to get richer. Who's interest is she really looking out for?
Posted by enigma.live (48 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Do those idiots know how much that costs
Talk about trying to kill an industry or even worse make it more expensive for the general user. Data retention is expensive and a pain in the @#$ to manage. I bet these storage companies are out there lobbying for this, they must be salivating!!
Posted by Arrgster (92 comments )
Reply Link Flag
You are absolutely right
Anyway that congress can force more expense on a business they will do it. Vote these aholes out of office. Vote libertarian people, until you do you are going to get Peter and Paul (republican and democrat) laws. This Degette and her Husband Lipinsky are just one more example of dirty politiicians who are really in it for their own selfish interest. I can just imagine Degette and Lipinsky at the dinner table. Hey honey get that data retention law passed, it's like giving candy to law enforcement, they'll abuse it, and then I will have lot's of invasion of privacy lawsuits for citizen's groups and they will get an apology and honey we will get $1 Billion in Attorney Fees, heck honey this might even be bigger then the tobacco settlement money all those lawyers got.

People wake up to the truth of greed. These politiician's like Degette are manipulating the system for personal gain, under the guise of protecting children.

Expose her hidden agenda. Let's ask her and her Husband to voluntarily allow 2 years of retained data on their internet surfing habits be exposed before they use government to force business's to endure additional cost and jeapordize private citizen's privacy.
Posted by enigma.live (48 comments )
Link Flag
Why the fuss?
The government will use this information only if someone does
something bad. Unless you are breaking the law, there's nothing to
be concerned about. Don't you want to protect our children?
Posted by CBSTV (780 comments )
Reply Link Flag
sheesh.
this is exactly the attitude that makes this type of legislation so
dangerous. wake up and realize that freedom in america is a right,
not a privilege. allowing those in power to chip away at our right to
privacy will only result in the crumbling of all of our liberties. give
an inch, they'll take a mile. and screw the stupid children.
Posted by jbondo (26 comments )
Link Flag
Our children just want love...
Our children need parents that spend time with them and play games with them instead of parents that ship their children off to the internet to have fun. Some law that strips away privacy is not going to make you a better parent. Do you realize the likelihood of your child ever being a victim of some internet pedophile? It's like 1 in 100,000. There's a better chance that your kid will get cancer.

What these kids need are parents that teach them right from wrong. But leave it to Fat America to find a lazy way out of bad parenting.
Posted by HecticDialectics (38 comments )
Link Flag
Screw the idea "protect the children"
you are an idiot. you must have some vested interest in this law, because you are violating every patriot, with this "protect the children" crap. Reminds me of the idiocy we learned from "political correctness" and not being suspicious of middle eastern passengers buying 1-way tickets and learning how to fly but not land a plane. Yeah, I have something to hide, it's called my privacy you moron. I want my privacy is that so damn hard for you to understand. Why don't you send me pictures of you sitting on a toilet, you don't have anything to hide do you? Why don't you let me listen to you cry to your wife, you don't have anything to hide do you? Let me listen to you snore, you don't have nothing to hide do you? Let me look at your bank statements, you don't have nothing to hide do you? You violate me, you are a criminal and are a non-patriot. Go live in China,Iran or Cuba, since you have nothing to hide you should live fine.
Posted by enigma.live (48 comments )
Link Flag
Politician's Pimping our children
This is nothing more then politician's pimping our children to get what they want for their own dirty greed. That's called pimping the children, using in the "name of protecting children" to get what they want passed. It's sick and disgusting.
Posted by enigma.live (48 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Pimping "terrorism," too
Do you also see a similarity to how the Bush administration uses
the threat of terrorism to curtail civil liberties? They are clever at
exploiting people's fears to advance political agendas. Yet, the
majority of us acquiesce for fear of being labeled unAmerican or
a traitor or liberal or anti-military.

9/11 and child porn provide an effective cover for these guys to
weaken our privacy rights and civil liberties. Even if these threats
were to disappear one day, we'll never get back what we lost
because people will grow accustomed to the new laws.
Posted by CBSTV (780 comments )
Link Flag
Politician's Pimping our Children
I agree. This is offensive, but what are you, what am I going to do about it. I for one write my Congressmen and women and tell them what I think. I vote my conscience and won't vote for Bush or whomever the Rep front runner is, nor for Hillary or any Democrat. They are indistinguishable one from the other. Both of them will sell our freedom to gain power. To paraphrase Ben Franklin, "Those who give up freedom to gain security, soon find they have neither."

Vote all "connected" politicians out of office.
Make it illegal to use Congressional or other government positions to get a job in an industry over which they had oversight. No more FDA officials ******* for the Pharmaceutical corporations. No more Defense - defense industry ties. Make it illegal for life.

We need to change the rules of the game. We did it for presidents, now lets do it for Senators, Congressional Reps, and so on down the line. Fix it so they can only be voted into office twice. No more Kennedian Dynasties devoted to raping the American people for power and money!
Posted by Ram0n01 (1 comment )
Link Flag
To answer some viewers questions
Some of you may not understand this from a technical or business perpective and only see it as "security" or some other misplaced lingual entity. While others of you are confused as to why the gov can so blindly make these demands and expect intimidate cooperation.

For all of you, think about storing on your own computer everything website you have visited for a year. Most of your computers will clear this information every month. Sure data storage costs may be cheaper and cheaper but every isp is getting more and more people. These costs will amount to billions in just storing this data, let alone proving an infrastructure that meets government approval to allow them to freely access the information.

There is really no reason to store this information, and sue to its nature, the isps could be storing information of offshore users information. This leads to an invasion of privacy of non customers, non citizens.

Additionally, with the new nazi tactics in place by our executive branch, they can tap into anything and log anything they want. There is no reason to provide storage for information they can gather themselves. It should not be the companies responsibility to bypass users privacy and security so the government can feel tough.
Posted by arzynik (18 comments )
Reply Link Flag
the part that *REALLY* bothers me ...
"... the information would be available not only to police but to
civil litigants as well, including divorce lawyers hoping to track
someone down or employers embroiled in a lawsuit with a
former employee."

1. Can you say "conflict of interest"?

2. Oh, so now any old lawyer wanting to dig up some dirt on
someone can access these records, not just law enforcement
investigating some crime? I really like the idea of former
employers, unknown lawyers and the like peering through my
communications with a microscope trying to find something to
take out of context and embarrass me with publicly.

3. WAKE UP PEOPLE! This isn't about the children at all, it's about
the the most secretive government in US history deciding they
are the only ones who should have any secrets at all. You might
not think you have anything to hide, but I'll bet Maher Arar
thought that as well.
&lt;<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/" target="_newWindow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/</a>
2006/09/18/AR2006091800883.html?nav=rss_print/asection&gt;

4. Look, if you appreciate this kind of legislation, there are
countries that are already like this. China, Cuba, Iran and North
Korea will not turn you away. Here in America, we believe in
democracy being something other than a bunch of empty words.
BY THE PEOPLE - FOR THE PEOPLE!

IMPEACH THE SON OF A BUSH NOW!!!
Posted by Dalkorian (3000 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Total Situational Awareness
So, where does this all end? Should we have cameras in everyone's bathrooms etc... and record everything that everyone does every second of the day? Do the politicians need Total Situational Awareness? They talk about protecting childrens rights. What about the story on gangs in LA where children as young as nine are forced to kill people--yes, this is real. Then, we have to watch everything that the children do too as they might pose a threat to security. So, lets watch them in the bathroom as well. Lol--kinda makes all the people watching the children child pornographers then, doesn't it? See, they can't have their cake and eat it too. Sooner or later, conflicting realities will create worse problems than anything that exists now. Our society is slipping into madness and something other than just complaining about the bad trends must be done. Sorry, it might have to get "messy" if this horse ##$$ continues.

Also, could there not be a threat from "secret societies"? Even if good now, could a group like the Skull and Bones become evil at a later date. Perhaps, we need to monitor everything they do as well--put cameras into their private chambers and monitor all of their conversations--couldn't they be a potential threat. Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You've been warned!
Posted by MrHandle (71 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Congresswomen Degette out in 2008
Denver must make plans to remove the lady from Congress. She has desertered Denver and is obviously opposed to religion and our spiritual rights. She recently voted no to recognize Christmas and Christian on a special day. So what religion will she get next.
Even when we all have different opinions we do have the right to our religion in the constituion and she is obviously against anything that she personally doesn't believe in.

Vote NO on Degette in 2008 -- PLease find us a solid professional to represent us in Denver. We need someone that will will listen, a communicator , a business person and someone with some compassion for a chance and PLEASE NO LAWTERS
Posted by jaysero (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Agree on Degette our in 2008
WOW couldn't believe I saw a post here but I totally agree that Degette has to go. WE need a change and we meed a business person to help us focus on the needs of the business owner and health care in Denver and the country.
Degette is for raising our taxes, keeping the business owner in trouble and no releaf for taxes on what we want to pass to our children,.
She is a real bomshell and I am sorry I voted for her last election. I do believe as an independent that most of us that have been meeting will look for another candidate regardless of party and hopefull have a choice with someone that can listen to Denver and help us get some tax cuts and lower health care without considering socialized medicine. After all it has never worked, just ask Canada or Japan or UK. You will die waitng for major medical care if you are in a socialized health system. Degette supports this and it would only turn us into a third world country. I have lived in Canada and the health care really stinks, therein is the reason so many come to the US and pay for the proper care.

I will vote to get Degette out of office in 2008

We must wake up in Denver and realize she doesn't not have our interest first or that of our country she is very self serving and fighting some type of personal battle whatever it is..
Posted by Lindaloudenver (1 comment )
Link Flag
Degette has turned against Denver for sure
Are we stupid in Denver? I think our voters are mostly independents and yet we seem to have been taken advantage of by this Degette congressperson. I live in the middle of this districy in Cherry Creek and I feel as if I am in another country when it comes to Degette. Sure I'm Jewish and expect some crap everynow and then but I am tired of her games and I will encourage my friend and faith to move on and vote her out of office in 2008.She voted against the Christians and Christmas on in Decemnber 2007 and I suppose our faith is next and then what. GET HER OUT , this country is built on spiritual faith and choice and not on her personal values.

PLease give us someone we can feel good about to vote for this year. I want Degette out in 2008
Posted by sandragardendenver (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.