A controversial bill regarding retention of Internet records passed through committee and was approved for consideration by Congress in December.
The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 would require Internet providers to retain archives of every subscriber’s online activity for up to 18 months, including phone records, credit-card numbers, websites visited and bank-account data.
Max Ayalla, a senior from Kansas City, Kan., who works at Information Technology, said he’s worried about the information’s security.
“If someone hacks into the data, it would be disastrous,” he said.
Another issue is the measure’s effectiveness and legality. Under U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 121, to obtain the records from Internet providers, no probable cause is needed; the government would only have to request a warrant or find a judge who is willing to give them one. Subscribers with no criminal record are also subject to requests.
Supporters of the bill argue that law enforcement is unable to track child pornographers under current laws.
“Child pornography may be the fastest growing crime in America, increasing an average 150 percent per year,” stated Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in a news release. “These disturbing images litter the Internet, and pedophiles can purchase, view or exchange this material with virtual anonymity. Investigators need the assistance of ISPs to identify users and distributors of online child pornography.”
Critics of the bill see ineffective legislation with high potential for abuse.
“It poses numerous risks that well outweigh any benefits, and I’m not convinced it will contribute in a significant way to protecting children,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) in a judiciary hearing.
Child pornographers often use proxies such as The Onion Router, which mask a person’s Internet protocol address, or submit illicit material through public Wi-Fis.
Professor of Law Stephen McAllister said the Jan. 23 ruling in Jones v. United, which declared the warrant-less attachment of a GPS device to a suspected cocaine dealer’s SUV unconstitutional, may call the bill’s legality into question.
“To the extent it may permit government effectively to engage in surveillance - without a warrant - of citizen’s use of the internet might concern several U.S. justices,” he said. “Justice Sotomayor in her separate opinion mused about whether the Court would have to consider new ways of looking at expectations of privacy in the digital age, and she gave examples of all sorts of activities that might be monitored, like Internet and cell phone usage, but in which people would expect privacy.”
The bill currently has 39 co-sponsors.
For those who don't want to read, Lamar Smith is trying to sponsor a new law. Covered in the guise of 'preventing child porn', it would require ISPs to record every financial transaction you make and save that data for 18 months.
How did this moron even get into office?
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
This is pre-WWII. You can sort of tell from the sketch style, from thee way it refers to Japan (Japan in the 1950s was still rebuilding from WWII), the spelling of Tokyo, lots of details. Nothing obvious... except that the upper right hand corner of the page reads "November 1931." --- Simon_Jester
If the ISPs have a say, this will never pass. This is downright insane, although I'm guessing that Lamar does not even comprehend what he is demanding.
Chewy, he is not demanding that ISPs record financial transactions, but everything. Every website visited, every IP connected, etc.
Combine that with god-knows-how-many millions of users means that ISPs would have to change their infrastructure immensely to make this work. And by "work" I mean "make the ISPs follow this insane law". Because now you have terabytes of data, uselessly lazing around whatever gigantic buffer the ISPs have to make. For what? The effort to wade trough them is barely more than just tapping whatever suspect they want to see.
I'm slowly starting to wish ISPs would start lobbying themselves a bit just so people like Lamar would stop making insane demands of them.
Credo!
Chat with me on Skype if you want to talk about writing, ideas or if you want a test-reader! PM for address.
We have a thread in SLAM talking about how a Brit couple were deported from America for "Destroy America" being in one of their Tweets. Turned out that it was called in rather then the government actually targeting them for the phrase, but it points out that the government doesn't have the time or resources to even verify suspicious behavior. If they can't even check twitter before going into action how can they sift through the epic fucking loads of data these plans are going to generate.
I bet if you just filled whatever records with random numbers the Government wouldn't be any wiser, since they haven't the time to even read twitter before deporting people.
the engines cannae take any more cap'n
warp 9 to shroomland ~Dalton
Heard about this bill as SOPA was losing steam, along with the theory that SOPA will be tacked on to the end of this bill on the basis that any opposition will result in loud screams of "YOUR DEFENDING CHILD PORN".
I can see any opposition of the bill as it stands being yelled at in the same way depending on how serious they are to get this passed.
"May God stand between you and harm in all the empty places where you must walk." - Ancient Egyptian Blessing
Ivanova is always right.
I will listen to Ivanova.
I will not ignore Ivanova's recommendations. Ivanova is God.
AND, if this ever happens again, Ivanova will personally rip your lungs out! - Babylon 5 Mantra
I really don't see the issue here. I mean, yes, if they tack on the amendment turning it into SOPA, it's a problem, but as it stands right now, I don't see the issue. I think this is turning into a knee-jerk reaction to any action taken by the US Congress regarding the internet and privacy. I think Lamar Smith isn't intentionally doing this to fuck with the internet, but is dancing to the tune of someone else under the guise of "this is a good idea". I imagine the conversation in his office goes like this.
Lobbyist: "Hey Smith. I got a bill for you to introduce. It's going to curb internet piracy that's costing Americans billions."
Smith: "Oh excellent. We'll stop these thieves and help get the economy back on track."
Later...
Lobbyist: "The pirates have corrupted everyone, but that's ok. Just introduce this bill. We want to also curb other illegal activity."
Smith: "I agree! We can't have this going on! And no one would oppose this bill or they're just as bad!"
"I subsist on 3 things: Sugar, Caffeine, and Hatred." -Baffalo late at night and hungry
"Why are you worried about the water pressure? You're near the ocean, you've got plenty of water!" -Architect to our team
