Facebook    Twitter    YouTube    Instagram

House panel approves bill to make ISPs keep Web logs

Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    I Run This Place
    Prince's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Las Vegas

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    607 Posts
    Rep Points

    House panel approves bill to make ISPs keep Web logs

    House panel approves broadened ISP snooping bill
    By Declan McCullagh July 28, 2011

    Internet providers would be forced to keep logs of their customers' activities for one year--in case police want to review them in the future--under legislation that a U.S. House of Representatives committee approved today.

    The 19 to 10 vote represents a victory for conservative Republicans, who made data retention their first major technology initiative after last fall's elections, and the Justice Department officials who have quietly lobbied for the sweeping new requirements, a development first reported by CNET.

    A last-minute rewrite of the bill expands the information that commercial Internet providers are required to store to include customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses, some committee members suggested. By a 7-16 vote, the panel rejected an amendment that would have clarified that only IP addresses must be stored.

    It represents "a data bank of every digital act by every American" that would "let us find out where every single American visited Web sites," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, who led Democratic opposition to the bill.

    Lofgren said the data retention requirements are easily avoided because they only apply to "commercial" providers. Criminals would simply go to libraries or Starbucks coffeehouses and use the Web anonymously, she said, while law-abiding Americans would have their activities recorded.

    To make it politically difficult to oppose, proponents of the data retention requirements dubbed the bill the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011, even though the mandatory logs would be accessible to police investigating any crime and perhaps attorneys litigating civil disputes in divorce, insurance fraud, and other cases as well.

    "The bill is mislabeled," said Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the panel. "This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It's creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes."

    ISP snooping time line

    In events that were first reported by CNET, Justice Department officials have been lobbying to require Internet providers to track of what Americans are doing online. Here's the time line:

    June 2005: Justice Department officials quietly propose data retention rules.

    December 2005: European Parliament votes for data retention of up to two years.

    April 2006: Data retention proposals surface in Colorado and the U.S. Congress.

    April 2006: Attorney General Gonzales says data retention "must be addressed."

    April 2006: Rep. DeGette proposes data retention amendment.

    May 2006: Rep. Sensenbrenner drafts data retention legislation--but backs away from it two days later.

    May 2006: Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller meet with Internet and telecommunications companies.

    February 2009: Two data retention bills target ISPs, hotels, coffee shops

    February 2009: Copyright holders would benefit from data retention

    January 2011: Justice Department calls for mandatory data retention

    February 2011: White House undecided on data retention

    May 2011: Wireless providers exempted from Rep. Smith's bill

    July 2011: National Sheriffs' Association endorses data retention

    Supporters of the measure characterized it as something that would aid law enforcement in investigating Internet crimes. Not enacting it "would keep our law enforcement officials in the dark ages," said its primary sponsor, House Judiciary chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas).

    "Both Democratic and Republican administrations have called for data retention for over a decade," said Smith, who noted that groups including the National Sheriffs' Association, the Major County Sheriffs' Association, and the Fraternal Order of Police have endorsed the concept.

    For a while, it seemed like opposition from a handful of conservative members of Congress, coupled with Democrats concerned about civil liberties, would derail the bill.

    Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and previous chairman of the House Judiciary committee, had criticized it at a hearing earlier this month, and again in the voting session that began yesterday and continued through this morning.

    "I oppose this bill," said Sensenbrenner. "It can be amended, but I don't think it can be fixed... It poses numerous risks that well outweigh any benefits, and I'm not convinced it will contribute in a significant way to protecting children."

    So did Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who has made privacy a signature issue and introduced a geolocation bill last month after trying to curb the use of airport body-scanners two years ago.

    The original version of the bill, introduced in May, required Internet providers to "retain for a period of at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account, unless that address is transmitted by radio communication." The wireless exemption appeared to be the result of lobbying from major carriers, but drew the ire of the Justice Department, which says it didn't go far enough, and was removed in a revised draft.

    The mobile exemption represents a new twist in the debate over data retention requirements, which has been simmering since the Justice Department pushed the topic in 2005, a development that was first reported by CNET. Proposals publicly surfaced in the U.S. Congress the following year, and President Bush's attorney general, Alberto Gonzales said it's an issue that "must be addressed." So, eventually, did FBI director Robert Mueller.

    In January 2011, CNET was the first to report that the Obama Justice Department was following suit. Jason Weinstein, the deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division, warned that wireless providers must be included because "when this information is not stored, it may be impossible for law enforcement to collect essential evidence."

    Smith introduced a broadly similar bill in 2007, without the wireless exemption, calling it a necessary anti-cybercrime measure. "The legislation introduced today will give law enforcement the tools it needs to find and prosecute criminals," he said in a statement at the time.

    "Retention" vs. "preservation"
    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."

    Because Internet addresses remain a relatively scarce commodity, ISPs tend to allocate them to customers from a pool based on whether a computer is in use at the time. (Two standard techniques used are the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol and Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet.)

    In addition, an existing law called the Protect Our Children Act of 2008 requires any Internet provider who "obtains actual knowledge" of possible child pornography transmissions to "make a report of such facts or circumstances." Companies that knowingly fail to comply can be fined up to $150,000 for the first offense and up to $300,000 for each subsequent offense.

    Read more: House panel approves broadened ISP snooping bill | Privacy Inc. - CNET News

  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Aug 2004

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points

    We need to stop electing these idiots to government.

    "Smaller government! Get rid of the debt! But, sure, the government can spy on Internet users. And don't you dare decrease military spending!"

    If you think that this bill is good, please read this: What You Need to Know About the Internet Snooping Bill (and How You Can Protect Yourself)
    You might be wondering what this has to do with child pornography and protecting children, as the bill claims to exist for those reasons. The idea is that child pornographers will be easier to catch if these records are available, and that, in turn, will protect children. According to the Denver Post, child pornography cases have been on the rise and there have been over 10,000 arrests since 1996. While the police should be prosecuting child pornographers and consumers, the problem isn't so out of control that these extreme measures are necessary.

    Internet World Stats reports that there are currently 272.1 million Americans connected to the internet. The 10,000 known child pornography consumers make up a tiny fraction of a percent of Americans online. Even if the number of child pornography consumers were as much as 1,000,000, it still wouldn't make up a single percent. That's not to say that we wouldn't want to prosecute them and get them to stop, or that even 10,000 is a small number when it comes to a crime like this, but making a year's worth of records doesn't solve the problem.

    Consider the browser history of a single person over the course of a year, and then multiply that by 272,100,000. Then try to find 10,000 people in that data that have, at some point during that year, downloaded at least a single piece of child pornography. Finding a needle in a haystack is hard, but it gets to be pretty close to impossible when that haystack is the size of a country. There are too many people not downloading child porn to easily locate an offender and too few policemen to thoroughly look through the information. Like we've seen when the RIAA prosecuted music downloaders with little success, you get nowhere going after the consumers. Instead, you have to go after the providers. It's why police are much more interested in drug dealers than the people who buy from them. You need to cut off the source. But this bill isn't targeting the source at all. Furthermore, there are already provisions in place (like the Protect Our Children Act of 2008) that give the police a means of collecting information on a potential child pornography consumer.

    Essentially, this bill does nothing more than make the browsing histories of approximately 272.1 million Americans readily available to the police. And that information comes with credit card numbers, addresses, and more. It not only encroaches upon personal privacy but is a complete waste of resources.

  3. #3
    lnvanry's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Rep Points

    does anyway have the house bill # or a list of the names and their votes?

Similar Threads

  1. Boehner: White House Should Support Jobs Bill
    By Curt James in forum Anything Goes
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 10-09-2012, 05:27 PM
  2. House Panel Approves Subpoena on Solyndra Loan
    By Curt James in forum Anything Goes
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-04-2011, 08:44 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-02-2009, 04:37 PM
  4. Senate Approves Amnesty Bill!!!!
    By andyo in forum Anything Goes
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-26-2006, 10:29 PM
  5. House approves PH ban.............
    By ZECH in forum Supplements
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 05-19-2004, 08:06 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Copyright© 2001-2018 IronMag® Bodybuilding Forums