US Attorney General to ISPs: You Must Spy

Published on September 20, 2006 By Zoomba In WinCustomize News

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales went before Congress this week to urge senators to pass legislation that would require Internet Service Providers to retain logs of customers online activity for at least a year or two for use in police or federal investigations. This lobbying comes amidst the most recent push to regulate online content, specifically that which is considered unsafe for minors.

The proposed data retention rules are strongly supported by law enforcement officials at more or less every level, starting as low as local sheriffs and going all the way to 49 attorneys general. Privacy groups are expected to have a tough time gathering support to oppose any such laws.

Recent months have seen an increased interest in protecting minors online, with lawmakers turning their eyes to social networking sites like MySpace, Xanga and Facebook. Additionally, data retention and analysis regulations are being considered for any organization that receives federal funding, specifically targeted at schools.

Currently, ISPs and other data connectivity providers are only required to retain data for up to 90 days, beyond which they can be deleted. Specifics on how such records should be stored for the proposed 1-2 year period are not yet clear, and will likely pose a significant technological challenge to any service provider or social networking site required to comply.

Comments (Page 1)

ZubaZ

on Sep 20, 2006

I have mixed feelings about this . . I don't like gov't intrusion into private businesses. But I have kids and I'd want everything done to protect them and/or prosacutes anyone who hurt them.

I can't see a down side for the ISPs.

Zoomba

on Sep 20, 2006

Zubaz: Why should it be federally mandated though? As a parent, you're in the best position possible to protect your kids. Is it fair for your desire to protect your kids to trump my constitutional rights to privacy?

The down-side for the ISP (or any service or site that gets targeted for this) is the cost incurred in data retention. Tapes, hard drives, people to manage the information. Services to store it all (IronMountain isn't cheap). The degree of security you now have to have to protect data for privacy means. Keeping data for 90 days can be done without shipping data off-site since it's a small enough chunk of information that you can easily house it internally. Going up to 1-2 years and suddenly you're looking at a different sort of ballgame where you need to either build additional facilities for storage (especially for large ISPs) or go through the expense of securing then shipping your data elsehwere.

The ultimate down-side is this will easily force small/localized ISPs out of business because the costs incurred won't be recoverable like they will for large companies like AOL or Comcast.

Matches_Malone

on Sep 20, 2006

Very good point Zoomba. That's exactly what's going to happen. RIght now there are plenty of tools set-up from various ISP providers as well as your os system to protect your children and whomever else from going to specific sites on your computer like parental controls, and security controls, etc.
What the attorney genenral, and like-minded individuals are doing is nothing but a crutch. Their ultimate motive is just another means for the big-brother or the government to possess yet another tool to spy on us. And ultimately use that information against you and pick you out as a target in their so-called investigations and make an example out of you just to prove that this particular system works.
Which means to me that we are not americans, citizens, tax-payers, consumers, but guinnea-pigs for the government.

Astyanax

on Sep 20, 2006

Yes! Take away my constitutional rights! Wait! Consta-what?

KiloKrash

on Sep 20, 2006

I have a strong opinion on this article. Actually, I have a strong opinion on many bills that affect the rights I am entitled to as a U.S. citizen (naturally). Instead of ranting or debating, I only wish to ask one question. Why, every time a person, party, or department of Government proposing a bill that would infringe on the rights of a U.S. citizen, does so using children as their reasoning or defining argument?

SirSmiley

on Sep 20, 2006

Once they open the door for this reason you know it's going to be used elsewhere. A number of times individuals have given DNA samples to rule themselves out as suspects then that has come back to bite them on the ass later. Because they catalog it.

The children part is a nice ploy because it tugs at people's greatest fears; however, does anybody think that if what happened in Russia at that school ever happened hear that people wouldn't respond. Don't even think the terrorists are dumb enough to attempt that.

Astyanax

on Sep 20, 2006

Its the only way they get anyone to listen to the BS that comes out of their politition mouths.

seldomseen

on Sep 20, 2006

The ultimate down-side is this will easily force small/localized ISPs out of business because the costs incurred won't be recoverable like they will for large companies like AOL or Comcast.

We live in a relatively small community. Our ISP is the only locally-owned and operated one here. I get hands-on service and can go "lean on the counter" and chat any time, 24/7.

I have mixed feelings about this . . I don't like gov't intrusion into private businesses. But I have kids and I'd want everything done to protect them and/or prosacutes anyone who hurt them.

I've got kids, and anyone attempting to harm them probably would simply disappear. My kids are well-versed in appropriate behaviors, online and in the world at large. I'm blessed today that they've come to no harm. For us, vigilance and teaching are an important part of home and school life.

I'm angry, and alarmed for the world I'm leaving my kids. I'm sitting here thinking about what I can do to halt the insidious and rapid progress of the erosion of The Constitution of the United States.
Zoomba, funny you should post this!

I was collecting data from the very site to post here...got it on .txt and came to post...and you were on the same radio station! Funny how that works...
Hang in there, everyone. Keep the faith. This is an issue to pay attention to. Concrete and laws are difficult to change once cast. I'm going to the range, see y'all after a bit... ...peace

RPGFX

on Sep 20, 2006

The government can have whatever info they want as far as I'm concerned, to protect our nations safety, and my personal safety, and the safety of my children. If you aren't doing anything devious online, what do you care? Only those who are the authorities targets should be worried. And they SHOULD be worried.

kryo

on Sep 20, 2006

1) This would cause large costs to ISPs, killing small ones and causing the large ones to pass the cost on to the consumer.

2) Large repositories of personal data have a tendency to leak...

3) Once the government has the info to 'save the children', it's all too easy to look for other things in that info, without having to do anythign special to get into it.

seldomseen

on Sep 20, 2006

Only those who are the authorities targets should be worried

more info: Link
and: Link

Sea Hourse

on Sep 20, 2006

This is just one more example of the dangerous direction that the country is heading. First, the justification was to fight terrorism. OK. Now we hear that expanded powers are needed to protect our children. Well, it's certainly hard to be against that. But where does this stop? And who is doing the actual deciding as to what is legal and what is not? Are people who criticise the government's foreign policy in the Middle East automatically terrorists? Are people who feel that Israel is responsible for 90% of the problems in that area terrorists? Are people who criticise the government as regards to other programs, domestic for example, now a target because they are indirectly interfering with "larger issues of importance"? And when the government changes what guarantees to do we have that new leaders will not use the powers to "pay back" those who did not support them? We certainly know this is the norm in EVERY 3rd world country.

As to the children aspect, no one denies the need to get rid of trafficers in child porn and molesters of all types. But with the history of this government, and past ones also, in ever increasing the amount of observation and interference in private lives where are they going to stop? Is porn in general going to be targeted to the glee of feminazis and bible bangers and who is going to decided what is porn and what is art or simply self expression in a medium content that obligates no one to access it? Do we begin to go after people who live lifestyles that others may feel to be offensive and dangerous to society? West Virginia and 7 other states have laws against men and women living together who are not married. And don't even mention men with men or women with women. What about prostitution? A real hot button for some groups. Are we going to spend time and money attacking people who are engaged in a consentually act? And an act that is either outright legal or tolerated in virutally every country on the planet except for bastions of liberty like Iran, Saudia Arabia, and the United States.

We know from sad experience that any government that obtains powers that allow it to take total control over the lives of its citizens always, and I mean always, results in abuses and ultimately a totalitarian system which holds its power by destroying all forms of dissent and "abnormal" behavior. This government, and the ones that will follow it, are no exceptions to the rule.

Sorry for the long post on a web site that deals, at least for the moment, with the free expression of people's creativity. I feel very strongly about this issue. History tells me that I am seeing the end of a system that allowed millions of people to prosper in an open environment while presenting an example to the rest of the world of what freedom could offer.

commands

on Sep 20, 2006

"If you sacrifice liberty for security, than you deserve neither liberty nor security." - Ben Franklin

The internet is OUR place and we have tools to protect OUR place. As far as I'm concerned the internet belongs to this generation and we will maintain / operate it on our agendas, not the governments.

seldomseen

on Sep 20, 2006

History tells me that I am seeing the end of a system that allowed millions of people to prosper in an open environment while presenting an example to the rest of the world of what freedom could offer.

amen, Sea Hourse, I hear you...

MIKE031489

on Sep 20, 2006

I think we all need to be reminded that just because we are free...does NOT mean that we are free to do wrong. We are ONLY free to do GOOD, pursue life, liberty and happiness. AND NOT at the expense of others.

People, in general, always think that just because we are free, that we can do all or some of the above mentioned.

On the internet...there are a lot of problems but a lot of good things. In the real world, when someone does something wrong, they get put in jail or pay a fine. It should be pretty much the same online. I realize that you can't find the people online as easily, but you can locate the server that the "bad" pages are hosted on. So, we should go after the ones who host such sites and pages.

I would also agree, that we DON't even HAVE to do anything about the "bad" online content, we just need to make sure that our computers are safe and unable to view such sites.
At the same time, there needs to be consequences for those who are abusing our freedom.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!