Reply With Quote
What the ?
First the internet gambling law gets snuck into a bill, then this!
Pretty soon LJ and I are going to be forced not to be Republican anymore.
FBI director wants ISPs to track users
Robert Mueller becomes latest Bush administration official to call for ISPs to store customers' data.
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: October 17, 2006, 4:18 PM PDT
FBI Director Robert Mueller on Tuesday called on Internet service providers to record their customers' online activities, a move that anticipates a fierce debate over privacy and law enforcement in Washington next year.
"Terrorists coordinate their plans cloaked in the anonymity of the Internet, as do violent sexual predators prowling chat rooms," Mueller said in a speech at the International Association of Chiefs of Police conference in Boston.
"All too often, we find that before we can catch these offenders, Internet service providers have unwittingly deleted the very records that would help us identify these offenders and protect future victims," Mueller said. "We must find a balance between the legitimate need for privacy and law enforcement's clear need for access."
The speech to the law enforcement group, which approved a resolution on the topic earlier in the day, echoes other calls from Bush administration officials to force private firms to record information about customers. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, for instance, told Congress last month that "this is a national problem that requires federal legislation."
Justice Department officials admit privately that data retention legislation is controversial enough that there wasn't time to ease it through the U.S. Congress before politicians left to campaign for re-election. Instead, the idea is expected to surface in early 2007, and one Democratic politician has already promised legislation.
Law enforcement groups claim that by the time they contact Internet service providers, customers' records may have been deleted in the routine course of business. Industry representatives, however, say that if police respond to tips promptly instead of dawdling, it would be difficult to imagine any investigation that would be imperiled.
It's not clear exactly what a data retention law would require. One proposal would go beyond Internet providers and require registrars, the companies that sell domain names, to maintain records too. And during private meetings with industry officials, FBI and Justice Department representatives have cited the desirability of also forcing search engines to keep logs--a proposal that could gain additional law enforcement support after AOL showed how useful such records could be in investigations.
A representative of the International Association of Chiefs of Police said he was not able to provide a copy of the resolution.
Preservation vs. retention
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 en y."
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, 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 charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency.
When adopting its data retention rules, the European Parliament approved U.K.-backed requirements saying that communications providers in its 25 member countries--several of which had enacted their own data retention laws already--must retain customer data for a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years.
The Europe-wide requirement applies to a wide variety of "traffic" and "location" data, including: the iden ies of the customers' correspondents; the date, time and duration of phone calls, VoIP (voice over Internet Protocol) calls or e-mail messages; and the location of the device used for the communications. But the "content" of the communications is not supposed to be retained. The rules are expected to take effect in 2008.
http://news.com.com/FBI+director+wan...3-6126877.html
-------------------
What the ?
First the internet gambling law gets snuck into a bill, then this!
Pretty soon LJ and I are going to be forced not to be Republican anymore.
Using historical internet records as evidence after someone is already charged with a crime is OK by me; compelling ISP's to maintain the data is not. If they happen to have it, and you get a warrant, fair enough. But don't make NOT having it criminal. Also, don't have the ISP's monitoring for su ious/illegal behavior: not their job.
Wow. I guess I should take down my profile at MyJihad.com
All they have to do is ask Google and AOL, who both have tons of data.
"We must find a balance between the legitimate need for privacy and law enforcement's clear need for access."
... mother ing hood and apple. With the Repugs, ins utions CRUSH individuals. Who trusts them to find "balance"
Rove and his ilk will certainly get their hands on this data for political purposes.
The radical right nutters would never support this, which they will in knee-jerk fasion, if Clinton were proposing it.
Oh, where does it say privacy is a right?All they have to do is ask Google and AOL, who both have tons of data.
"We must find a balance between the legitimate need for privacy and law enforcement's clear need for access."
... mother ing hood and apple. With the Repugs, ins utions CRUSH individuals. Who trusts them to find "balance"
Rove and his ilk will certainly get their hands on this data for political purposes.
The radical right nutters would never support this, which they will in knee-jerk fasion, if Clinton were proposing it.
I don't think anyone on this board, well except
jimcs, who likes the ladies, has anything to worry
about. And only Jim because his wife would
use it in divorce court.......
Just don't do that at work.
Who knows, but tell that to those pro choicers and people that advocate ass sex.
The analogy to this is phone records. The phone companies keep track of who calls whom when so they know how much to charge you for your phone bill. This information (called a pen register) is available to government investigators just by telling a judge they want to look. They don't even need to justify this reqest.
The phone companies however don't record your conversations. Government investigators must request and justify a court order to justify listening to your conservations (wiretapping).
Some of the above restrictions on the government might be relaxed by the new surveillance law.
The analogy made to web browsing is that you are communicating with a web site. I am not sure whether the information to be recorded is the web site or the specific URL. I suppose a post like this one corresponds to a conversation.
What the government wants is for the ISPs to keep track of where you browse for a certain amount of time just like the phone companies keep track of your phone call data so that they government can search your browsing data just like they can search your phone call data.
Xray, I really want a logical discussion on this. How is that not a violation of the Fourth Amendment?Oh, where does it say privacy is a right?
I don't think anyone on this board, well except
jimcs, who likes the ladies, has anything to worry
about. And only Jim because his wife would
use it in divorce court.......
See post #10. Pin registers have been going on
forever. Have your rights been violated because
of that. Except for one small exception to post #10.
Law enforcement has to go to the courts to get a pin
register. BUT they can get phone records and the phone companies are not obliged to inform the person
in question for 60 days, I may now be incorrect on this,
but that was the way in years past. And those records
were used to justify the pin register. And the pin
register was used to justify the real life phone tap. And
the rules governing phone taps are very strict.
The feds asked me to keep an eye on Nbadan in case he expresses an opinion. I expect all of you to do your patriotic duty in case you see it.
Yoni is already on that, Agent Dumper.
Move along.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions