Justice Department takes aim at image-sharing sites

The Bush administration has accelerated its Internet surveillance push by proposing that Web sites must keep records of who uploads photographs or videos in case police determine the content is illegal and choose to investigate, CNET News.com has learned.

That proposal surfaced Wednesday in a private meeting during which U.S. Department of Justice officials, including Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand, tried to convince industry representatives such as AOL and Comcast that data retention would be valuable in investigating terrorism, child pornography and other crimes. The discussions were described to News.com by several people who attended the meeting.

A second purpose of the meeting in Washington, D.C., according to the sources, was to ask Internet service providers how much it would cost to record details on their subscribers for two years. At the very least, the companies would be required to keep logs for police of which customer is assigned a specific Internet address.

Only universities and libraries would be excluded, one participant said. "There's a PR concern with including the libraries, so we're not going to include them," the participant quoted the Justice Department as saying. "We know we're going to get a pushback, so we're not going to do that."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has been lobbying Congress for mandatory data retention, calling it a "national problem that requires federal legislation." Gonzales has convened earlier private meetings to pressure industry representatives. And last month, Republicans introduced a mandatory data retention bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would let the attorney general dictate what must be stored and for how long.

Rachel Brand,
assistant attorney
general for
legal policy

Supporters of the data retention proposal say it's necessary to help track criminals if police don't immediately discover illegal activity, such as child abuse. Industry representatives respond by saying major Internet providers have a strong track record of responding to subpoenas from law enforcement.

Wednesday's meeting represents the latest effort by the Bush administration to increase the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to monitor Internet users. Since 2001, the administration has repeatedly pushed for more surveillance capabilities in the form of the Patriot Act and a follow-up proposal that--if it had been enacted--would have given the FBI online eavesdropping powers without a court order for up to 48 hours.

Often invoking terrorism and child pornography as justifications, the administration has argued that Internet providers must install backdoors for surveillance and has called for routers to be redesigned for easier eavesdropping. President Bush's electronic surveillance program, which was recently modified, has drawn an avalanche of lawsuits.

ISP snooping timeline

In events first reported by CNET News.com, Bush administration officials have said Internet providers should 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, followed by a Republican.

May 26, 2006: Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller pressure Internet and telecom companies.

September 26, 2006: Politicians suggest that Web hosts and registrars might have to comply. Search engines are also mentioned.

January 18, 2007: Gonzales says administration will ask Congress for new laws.

February 6, 2007: Republicans introduce mandatory data retention "Safety Act."

The Justice Department's request for information about compliance costs echoes a decade-ago debate over wiretapping digital telephones, which led to the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. To reduce opposition by telephone companies, Congress set aside $500 million for reimbursement and the legislation easily cleared both chambers by voice votes.

Once Internet providers come up with specific figures, privacy advocates worry, Congress will offer to write a generous check to cover all compliance costs and the process will repeat itself.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday. The U.S. Internet Service Provider Association, which has been critical of data retention proposals before, declined to comment.

Because the Justice Department did not circulate a written proposal at the private meeting, it's difficult to gauge the effects on Web sites that would be forced to record information on image uploads for two years. Meeting participants said that Justice officials (including Brand, the assistant attorney general for legal policy and a former White House attorney) did not answer questions about anonymously posted content and whether text comments on a blog would qualify for retention.

In practice, some Web businesses already make it a practice to store personal information forever. Google stores search terms indefinitely, for instance, while AOL says it deletes them after 30 days.

David Weekly, a San Francisco-area entrepreneur who founded popular Wiki-creation site PBWiki.com, said the Justice Department's proposal would be routinely evaded by people who use overseas sites to upload images. (PBWiki, which recently raised $2 million from Mohr Davidow Ventures, lets people embed photographs on pages they create with a point-and-click editor.)

If the proposal were to become law, PBWiki would already be in compliance, Weekly said. "We already keep all that data pretty much indefinitely because it's invaluable for us to mine and figure out how people use services," he said. "How do they use services now versus a year ago? Was February a bad month for traffic?...We already have the data there. It's already searchable. It's already indexed."

[markdoiron]

Monitoring People's Actions

The fact that technology permits monitoring people's activities, that it can be made "affordable", and that by doing so we can stop bad people from doing bad things, simply isn't justification for taking such action. That's because this is a free country. Unfortunately, there are people who don't understand that. They are worse than the criminals themselves, because the actions they propose will deny every American freedom for the rest of eternity.

mark d.
CMSgt, USAF, Retired

[whargoul]

Re: Monitoring People's Actions

You're only kidding yourself if you think you're not already being monitored/tracked online. They just want access to it.

whar,
programmer/web developer/database guy/tracker

[kvhcnf]

Your Right on

Don't forget why we have the greatest country!
Its not because we stop or watch it because, we allowed.

Everyone is against
but lets not let fear take away our American freedoms.
Of the millions of internet users how many are really child abusers?

[PzkwVIb]

Our glorious leader

and his pet Attorney General and YES man, care not a whit for your rights. They are almost single handled shredding the Constitution.

[fireofenergy]

Let'm monitor

That way we can stop a few bad apples. It shouldn't cost us much since the tech is cheap (copiable). As for freedoms, when "they" make it harder by making costly laws, we must take action and refuse to obay (such as we do already in traffic). The only reason they control is because we buy! They "make" us buy (insurance, voilent activity on TV ect). The only way to save the planet is to buy less, promote massive (cheap) renewable energy and to be aware. we are not enough because we watch too much of what "they" want us to see. Afterall, it is well known by old conspiricy theory that the best way to assume control is by infiltering ALL avenues in the name of "FUN". So we buy in, spending trillions on things such as insurance (fun for the industry that forged the seat belt law also), movies and anything else that will detrack from what is really going on. It's neet that we can be this aware and not be punished. but they already are by giving us a life that is really a lie. All the trivial stuff, does it really matter. What matters is that if people really cared about our COLLECTIVE FUTURE, there would be more positive change, more concerned children, more advance energy reseach, and indeed a real chance to escape post oil syndrome, the energy poor future of humanity complete with mass starvation. So what (sarcasm), if the establishment actually reads all of internet activity, what the heck, add a few million trillion nano cams just to catch the cather's in their framing activity (seen 'Enemy of the State' recently), just don't buy in to their responses. Usually it's about desires and fears!

[fredtheviking]

I would be ok with monitoring...

The activity I part take in on the interest, I am ok with FBI have access to. The idea is I don't do anything illegal. I don't even download illegal Mp3s or software. My only concern is what law enforcement individual do with data they are retaining.

If I could monitor the Justice department use of my activities. Know when they are looking at my activities and why they are. As long as I am kept in the loop. I don't care, knock yourself out. However, if I have no visiablity, then I am not OK. I don't trust all law enforcement agents. I know most of them are good, but there definitely some of them that are bad. And could provide my activities to other third parties that are not in the government.

Also, I don't trust Bush and his government. Everything he does smells bad and I know he is up to no good.

[TravP]

Just because you don't break the law...

There are probably a number of people who are being indefinitely detained who have done nothing wrong but are being held until it is decided that there is no evidence of a committed crime.

It used to just be exaggeration to say, "You don't have to break the law to be guilty," but these days, it is very much a reality.

If the government wishes to declare you a terrorist for whatever reason, they are entirely within their right at this time to remove you from family, friends, and impartial legal representation for however long they see fit.

It is troubling to hear that you would be okay with the government watching your every online move, because all you would need to do is trip the wrong filter with your traffic and off you'd go without any legal recourse.

[alegr]

Irony

The irony is that percentage of rogue guys in law enforcement is likely much higher than percentage of criminals among all internet users that the gov claims is targeted by these retention rules.

[Glimmering Girl]

Be a true patriot, save our freedoms

The Jews didn't do anything illegal either, but it didn't save them from the Fascists.

[lesfilip]

You might want to think about that

If you really think you are going to be kept in the loop you are a
fool. You might be a fool anyway because you appear to be OK with
monitoring but then you go on to say you don't trust anyone. Was
the first part of your post supposed to be sarcastic?

Have a nice day!

[MTGrizzly]

It matters not a whit...

...whether you think you don't engage in illegal activities. It is
what the government thinks. And, if they want you, they will
deem whatever you do "illegal" and use the information they
have gathered on you - legally or illegally - to "prove" you are
what they say you are.

Letting the government monitor anything, surveil anything or
engage in any information gathering on citizen is a BAD idea. it
contrary to the concept of "freedom" and "liberty" upon which
this nation was founded to let them do this. Gonzales is not
interested in helping anyone but himself and President Bush.
And these two have proven, time after time, they are not
interested in individual civil liberties. They are interested in
acquiring as much power, (and information is power), as they
can over as many people as they can...

this is not even considering what the people collecting the
information for the government will do with it. You think your
inbox is flooded with spam, now...

[LarryLo]

All the world is a Crimer Scene

If you follow the logic, the DOJ wants ISP, photo sites etc to save these logs for the possibility...that in the event...of a future crime uncovered.. they can go back and investigate you.

That sounds like everything you do on the internet has the potential of being illegal and hence should be recorded to help law enforcement in future investigations.

I all about putting bad people in jail and protecting the children. I just worry this is a little much.

Actually no its far enough...I thinking we should all be forced to have surgically implanted cameras that cannot be removed and it should record everything we do online or off and store that information for up to five years...you know...just in case.

the potential for abuse is just a little too much here..there are plenty of other ways to investigate and prosecute those who break the law, online or otherwise.

[ralfthedog]

Keeping my logs for two years would not be fun.

I would almost have to rent a new server just for the logs. I wonder if the Bush administration will pay for my new server?

[baswwe]

Is every place you drive recorded?

Or is that next? Will we all have GPS and monitoring devices in our cars to track where we travel and when?

[Below Meigh]

EZPass...credit cards...

They know when you are on a EZPASS roadway. How long does the state keep the logs? Or how long does the CC company keep purchase info (they could build a shopping profile of you daily by what is registered).

Besides, this will boon anon-proxy services. As long as the service purges its logs daily, you are safe. Then again, where are you surfing and viewing that you need to be so secret?.

[jjnitzh]

You already are.

If you have a cell phone turned on while you're in the car you already are being tracked.

Also your onboard computer (1996 and up cars) already records speed and distance (no direction yet) that you travel for 4-7 days back. This has used by police for crash investigation for years.

Worse, if you have an OnStar equipped vehicle you are not only being tracked but you could be being listened to by police without a warrant. This has already been used in two convictions that I know of. When police didn't have enough probable cause for a cell phone tap warrant but could open the OnStar microphone and listen to one end of the cell phone calls made in the car. This applies even if you don't have a subscription to their service.

[MTGrizzly]

Sounds like...

...OnStar to me and we're already there...

[Methuss]

I have a question...

How many people charged with child pornography have been found not guilty specifically because law enforcement did not have access to internet logs?

Betcha the number is so low (in the single digits) that their argument to surveil internet activities is nothing more than an excuse. "But its to protect the children..." Bull. Its so some power-happy nimrods can watch everyone's every move and pounce on them for anything they don't like. It's to supress and control the population.

[whargoul]

Good Question

That is an excellent question. I wish there was some way we could pose these questions to the people proposing and voting on these laws.

[RA_REBORN]

IT IS A FRONT FOR CONTROL...

government, whether Democrat or Republican, is in collusion with corporations. It is about greed and power. Corporations now control this country - not politicians.

[ericblr]

re: I have a question

I wholeheartedly agree! This is one conservative ready to see this
entire administration thrown out on its ear!!

[john55440]

Web 2.0 = More Government Spying

With online applications, the government can spy on every word processor document you create, every spreadsheet you create, every photo you edit...

[whargoul]

Simple solution

Don't use online applications.

[sumwatt]

No... that was Web 1.5

Web 2.0 is just pretty pictures and big buttons and streamlining the interface to enhance [strike]spying[/strike] the user experience.

[jjnitzh]

Orwell wasn't off by much.

Scary that this trend was obvious almost 60 years ago but this country hasn't veered from it's course of federal prying into individual lives. I wonder; how long before communist china has intrusion into / surveillance of their people's lives then we do?

[mrjam32]

The problem with this is where does it stop?

I have no problem with keeping logs of IP addresses. This should be something that ISP's do already.

The problem is that eventually you will stiffle everything that the internet has become. Let me explain. Once ISP's are mandated to track your every move, the bad people (whoever you are) will stop using broadband connections at home, and will start using free Wifi elsewhere. Whether it's your neighbor that didn't configure his access point correctly, or the coffee shop at the corner, everyone will be required to "know who you are", and "log the IP address that was provided to you".

Once this happens, the mandates will start filtering down to everybody that provides some sort of connectivity to the internet. Pretty soon, you will have to provide some DNA to check your e-mail in the morning (over coffee).

Stop it now before everything becomes a governmental mandate (for security reasons). Put more money to the CIA, and let them do their job.

Jeff

[Wizardzip]

Coming Soon: Lance Your Finger For DNA

I think they are trying ti kill the Internet.
ALSO - we'll hear of CEO's arrested because their hardrives CRASHED before they could submit records. No sympathy...it'll still be against the law NOT to retain records...even on your OWN computer. It will become ILLEGAL to throw away hard drives, even those erased, and they'll need to be LICENSED as well.

The shyest among us will stop voicing ANY opinion, or STOP shopping online, etc (Is THIS helping 21st Century Business?)...as we move further into this age...and the Internet is our only place for news. Our populations will dumbdown further and they hope - become easier to control. The Internet will be slowed down further as 95% of folks worldwide refuse to stick their fingers into a machine to sample a drop of blood (DNA), unless absolutely neccessary; in order to activate their computers. (It'll get there eventually if you are going to demand tracking.)

Painful finger lancing will be for EVERYBODY to ID with definity. (Finger prints can be faked, so can a retina scan.) Kids will then FEAR using computers and going on the Internet...and the Internet slows to a crawl worldwide. And we go into the techno dark ages almost overnight. It's something to think about. Just DON'T go down that path in the first place.

[Sportez06]

Goverment Looking on Us

I don't like the idea that the government will have or known our ISP address. They will know what we are doing all the time even if we are not doing anything wrong. I think the government instead should look at all the people who are child molester, or people who have been in and out of the court system.

[gggg sssss]

wrong today

What is OK today may not be OK tomorrow. Your support of Hillary today may be criminal tomorrow. UnAmerican was what it was called. Don't like Bush? They will know who you are. And where to find you. Today its child porn, tomorrow it may be disparaging the RIAA. Imagine if McCarthy had today's tech.

Whatever happened to the fifth amendment?

[feliusrex]

Noise in the signal

Seems that it's time to start using a random spider to walk the internet whenever I'm not actually doing anything with my computer. Generates lots of 'noise' in any log of my computer usage. If the government really wants to see what sorts of things I do on my computer, let them sort it out of 10 million random sites.

[jmbattaglia]

Bush NAZIs are at it again!

The Bush Nazis are at it again.

That's the interesting about character: you can count on people to be consistent. You can see the pattern. Slow learners and historians may need to piece together 25 years of data to look back at and say, "Hey, yeah, those guys really were the American versions of up-tight Fascists. We can see it now! They claimed to do patriots who were doing everything in the name of defending the FatherLand. They used the same old fear tactics and propaganda techniques to pick some scapegoats and some enemies to stir the moronic crowd to support their misguided, misanthropic anti-Life agenda. And they attempted to silence all their critics by either illegally imprisoning them or passing legislation to erode their power.

But those of us who are still awake see precisely what these totalitarian Neanderthals are doing. Hopefully, there are still enough dissenters to stop the assault on civil liberties by these demented Bushers.

JMB

[jmbattaglia]

Bush NAZIs are at it again!

The Bush Nazis are at it again.

That's the interesting thing about character: you can count on people to be consistent. You can see the pattern. Slow learners and historians may need to piece together 25 years of data to look back at and say, "Hey, yeah, those guys really were the American versions of up-tight Fascists. We can see it now! They claimed to do patriots who were doing everything in the name of defending the FatherLand. They used the same old fear tactics and propaganda techniques to pick some scapegoats and some enemies to stir the moronic crowd to support their misguided, misanthropic anti-Life agenda. And they attempted to silence all their critics by either illegally imprisoning them or passing legislation to erode their power."

But those of us who are still awake see precisely what these totalitarian Neanderthals are doing. Hopefully, there are still enough dissenters to stop the assault on civil liberties by these demented Bushers.

JMB

[RA_REBORN]

NOT SIMPLY BUSH - BUSINESS!

Don't think for a second that your average "liberal" isn't as close-minded or greedy as "conservatives". Anyone who doesn't ultimately end up in the middle ("liberal" sometimes and "conservative" other times, middle most of the time) is close-minded and brainwashed.

Corporation power started with the 14th Amendment, created to protect from slavery, with corporations (which were originally created for a specific, pointed common public good such as building such and such bridge) getting the Supreme Court to grant a corporation the identity of a person. The problem is corporations are literally legally bound to the interests of their shareholders! They are literally violating the law if they aren't consumed by greed. Watch the movie "The Corporation" and don't just stop there. Verify the information on companies like Monsanto (the seed is listed under a holding of theirs) and their "terminator seed" and other multi-national corporations, as extreme examples, that are no longer under the control of government because they can wield power outside of our borders. Look at IBM and the punch card machines they had to individually program for the Nazis at each concentration camp. They had to program in categories such as "executed" or "homosexual" for Nazi records. IBM claims it is all false, but records exists of memos and receipts to the Nazi party - not from IBM of Germany, but IBM of NY. These machines were leased! Think about the implications of involvement that is intrinsic to leading a durable good. Look at Coca Cola. Coke had a nightmare on their hands of losing profits in Germany during WWII. So, they created Fanta Orange! We can't let the Nazis go without Coke products while they murder our own people! I have never cared particularly for Michael Moore (I too must ask myself how much has the media dug their claws into me to come to this conclusion), but he brings up a great point. Why would the large parent corporation pay for this documentary when it goes against everything they are trying to do? Simple - greed and an attitude that they own us. They think they have conceived us into brainwashed sheep who will simply see documentaries like this as entertainment and they make millions more in the meantime. Anyway, we all need to open our eyes and hold politicians and companies accountable (not just corporations because most companies lust to wield the money and power of corporations - most people including myself would become Faust without even drawing a correlation between my mansion on the hill and my Ferrari and the harm being done). Who the hell cares about money if the legacy is cancer and a dead planet? It is simply special green paper that we give power. All I am pleading is that we all just open our eyes, scrutinize and use our minds!

[canadianregistration]

we need more of you !

i can't understand how they got away with it 25 yrs ago and still runnung strong ! actually stronger....

[Alexlonebear]

Two Problems

First there is absolutely no reason to believe that the Democrats will not continue this same trend. We've already seen how Hillary has tried to use the power of the government to get back at her supposed enemies.
What really bothers me is this combining Terroism and Child Porn. I firmly believe that we will see another attack on our country. We are at war and we need to admit it and get on with protecting ourselves. You can have freedom or safety but you always have to give up one for another.
That said, Child pornography is a serious issue but I don't believe it rises any were near the level of problem that Terroism is. The government can not even define child pornography and it remains a "moving target". People are already awaiting trial, that have done nothing more than post pictures of there children on the internet fully clothed. Some judges now believe that if a pose seem lasivious to them, nudity is not important. Under these circumstances there are probably photos in every family album in this contry that could be considered child porn. The real test seems to be if it's posted on the internet because everyone knows that the Internet is just for porn. Show a 12 year old girl being raped and walking around in a "sexy" manner in her underware on the internet and you'll likely see the inside of a cell. But make a movie with Dakota Fanning doing these things and it get shown at Sundance and a judge see no problem. A situation like this makes laws like we are speaking of very scary.

[Xenu7-214951314497503184010868]

Stifling dissent, the Republican way

The Internet is the best place to dissent from the fascist war-profiteering corporate money-worshiping policies of the Bush-Cheney Regime that has hijacked our country and taken it on this dive towards the dark side. These are the same people who got the FBI to spy on a group of little grandmothers who opposed the war. Of course they want to stifle dissent, it's the Republican approach to free speech: "our speech, or no speech." Hitler was pretty good at it too, except his concentration camps were a tad bigger.

[jchandler15]

Why??

Why must the goverment be so intrusive to our sites we use to share photos, come on!!

Josh Chandler
http://www.techoriphic.com

[RA_REBORN]

THE WHY IS IN MONEY...

It isn't about child porn or terrorists as much as it is about opening the door for control. Once there is control over everything we look at the government empowers itself and the corporations. The government has given so much away to big business that now they work for big business. Watch, this will all cycle back around regardless of which party is in the White House. They think they are in a symbiotic fight with big business against the fodder sheep call "us", when really they are being pimped out by money. Why else do you think all of this genome mapping of humans and animals is getting huge resources from companies like Pfizer? It is because ever since the first organism patenting with the bacteria that broke down the oil from the Exxon Valdez spill, patenting has been widespread by companies on organisms. They own the genome they own all the related drug dealing such as we see in commercials each day from acronyms for ******** like RLS (Restless Legs Syndrome). WHY DO YOU THINK FDA DECREED RECENTLY THAT CLONING OF ANIMALS DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED TO CONSUMERS? CLONE THE ANIMAL - PATENT THE ANIMAL AND SOON THE ORGANIC INDUSTRY SHRINKS!

[antonio.rodriguez]

It's happening already

There is a silver lining here: after all most of us running web
services area already keeping all of this information and the fact
of the matter is that most people won't read the TOS or the
privacy policy to find out.

Where things will get sticky is in what qualifies as good reason
for tunring this data over to authorities. In the case of output-
focused businesses (the modern-day versions of photo
processors) the law is pretty clear, but with some of these newer
offerings , we're going to have to figure it all out.

[spruceman]

The New USSR?

It's interesting to note that we are becoming more and more like the old USSR when it comes to personal freedom and privacy. If the USSR had Bush in charge in the 1980s, their evil empire probably would be alive and well today. I wonder at what point, we will have the same percentage of our GDP devoted to surveillance on citizens as high as it was behind the old Iron Curtain?

[unknown unknown]

The only reason to keep everyones data is to go on fishing expeditions

They could just extend the length of time ISPs keep data on an individual or individuals when law enforce issues preservation order. There must be oversight and steps must be taken to minimize the effect on innocent people's privacy. The Bush administration has constantly tried to skirt oversight requirements and the constitution.

[easycatch]

A Bit Extreme

I'm all for stopping criminals, in their tracks, but as an honest citizen, aren't I entitled to some privacy? It's gotten to the point, where I'm reluctant to go on line, and yet, everything that I do is above board. I'm not a saint. However, if it's between adults, shouldn't it remain private? And yet, I understand where you're coming from. There are a lot of bad people, out there, and the rest of us, deserve protection. Nevertheless, I still can't help but think, that this is a bit extreme.

[canadianregistration]

protection from who? Them!

Come on ! you seem to have a grasp on reality...
did you see the actual 911 Controled demolition story?
then try to understand who's who...
If you still don't get it
look at this..

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/50.html

[jachamp]

i agree with a couple of things..

this is a blatant attempt to get private companies to help the government fish and it's also reminiscent of the gestapo/kgb.

the bush adminstration, in fact most on the right, believe that you do not have any right to privacy. they believe that everything you do should be available to employers and government institutions but you shouldn't be allowed to know any of it nor should you be able to control how that data is displayed or even if it's correct or not.

personally...i would love to see a law banning the collection of all identifiable data. no more cookies, no more terabytes of shopping data, no more nothing. kill it all.