Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Off Topic
>
House panel approves broadened ISP snooping bill
date
newest »
newest »
So much bullshit. What is wrong with these people?!
*shrugs* Annoying but really easy to get around for folks in the know
As a matter of fact it wouldn't be very hard for a sneaky, evil person to use this type of tracking manifesto to their advantage in order to digitally frame folks.
Hrrmmmmmmmm....
Hrrmmmmmmmm....
Politics...how does it always go so wrong?
Tracey--do we need a falling Skies thread? ;)
Dangerous laws created by well intentioned people today can be used by dangerous people with evil intentions tomorrow.” - Alan EppersShould I also list the one from Ben Franklin about those willing to give up freedom for supposed security?
On my library web sight when I type in my card number there's a selection: Reading History. If you click on it it says we don't access this except with patrons permission.
Hog wash. The fact that it can be accessed means that the computer records everything I check out on my card.
Didn't this used to be a free country?
Most libraries only track reading history on an opt-in basis by the patron. Holds and fines tend to be tracked for obvious reasons, but most librarians are dead set against anyone looking at library histories.
☠The Dread Pirate Grant☠ wrote: "As a matter of fact it wouldn't be very hard for a sneaky, evil person to use this type of tracking manifesto to their advantage in order to digitally frame folks. Hrrmmmmmmmm...."
So Grant, can we trade immunity for some sort of food stuffs or something?
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been covering this. If you would like to send a letter of opposition to your representative in congress this link will help:Don't Let Congress Order Internet Companies to Spy on You: Oppose the Data Retention Bill
Denae, you'll probably think I'm paranoid, but think about it. If you can "opt in" that means the records have to be there. They're not supposed to be accessed unless you opt for it, but they exist. When we do a Google or Yahoo search after a couple of letters it asks "this search?" That's because the sight records the searches from your computer.
Courtesy cards, credit cards, library cards, YMCA cards, every time we make a purchase in way electronically or any time there is any transaction it's recorded. Kroger knows what I tend to buy from their card...they send me coupons accordingly... everywhere we go everything we do if electronics are involved there's a record.
Kernos wrote: "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has been covering this. If you would like to send a letter of opposition to your representative in congress this link will help:Don't Let Congress Order Interne..."
Thanks for the link, I signed and posted to FB, this is dumb, I don't want the gov't lookin' at what I say here on GR, or looking at my Google search record, or even seeing what games I play online. Crazy!
Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "Denae, you'll probably think I'm paranoid, but think about it. If you can "opt in" that means the records have to be there. They're not supposed to be accessed unless you opt for it, but they exist..."I suppose you think I'm naive for believing the ALA actually acts on the principles it espouses and goes to court to protect. I suppose your argument is that they do in fact begin keeping records prior to one choosing to have them kept. I personally find it more than plausible that they did indeed stop keeping them, save at the request of a patron or if a court battle is lost, once the post-Patriot Act litigation began. Obviously I cannot speak for every library, but it seems like a bit of self-preservation on their part. They cannot hand over records they do not keep. I have not done any research, but I suspect this preservation act is at least partially directed at ALA policies.
I wish my library did keep a record of what I checked out, b/c there's a book I've been trying to remember for over 10 years now that I borrowed back in 8th or 9th grade, and I've had absolutely no luck finding it on here or anywhere else. If they had my record, I could say, "hey, what's the name of that big hardback book I checked out back in '99-'00 about Queen Isabella and her husband who preferred men?" Sigh... but yea, I wouldn't want anybody else to be able to walk into the library and say, "hey, let me see what Kit's checked out over the years."
All I'm saying is that the records have to be in the system somewhere, even if no one is supposed to be able to access them. Government agencies across the board do things they aren't legally supposed to and don't do things they are legally supposed constantly (ask the people who have paid into Social security all their lives only to be told "oops, we put that money into the general fund and spent it..there never was any trust fund or lock box...sorry). I pretty much assume any government agency will lie to us if it's convenient to, on spec. I won't drag this out, it's cool we disagree. I know most people would think I'm a bit paranoid...I still suspect that if someone showed up with a subpena for anyone's reading history at any library the reading history would be "able to be found" or however it should be phrased. I'm one of the politically conservative people who was against a lot of the provisions in the (so called) Patriot Act...warrantless searches among them.
Just my opinion. We can disagree and still be friends.
Kit★ wrote: "I wish my library did keep a record of what I checked out, b/c there's a book I've been trying to remember for over 10 years now that I borrowed back in 8th or 9th grade, and I've had absolutely no..."Have you tried that GR group, 'what's the name of that book?' or something of the sort?
Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "All I'm saying is that the records have to be in the system somewhere, even if no one is supposed to be able to access them. Government agencies across the board do things they aren't legally suppo..."I agree, Mike. And resent that they're now calling Social Security an 'entitlement' program. Not.
Yep, they helped me narrow it down to about 4 possible books, which was a big help. Now I just need to get those 4 and read 'em and find out which one it is. If I can find copies... :)
Sandra aka Sleo wrote: "Mike (the Paladin) wrote: "All I'm saying is that the records have to be in the system somewhere, even if no one is supposed to be able to access them. Government agencies across the board do thing..."Entitlement in this case is used in the original sense of the word, without the negative connotations the word has acquired. People are entitled to those benefits. That should never have been referenced as a negative thing or in the sense it is so often used, that of someone feeling entitled to something they did not earn. It is also used to denote something that is not discretionary, or at least shouldn't be.
As for library records, I really don't believe the legal actions the ALA has taken against the government are a feint. I obviously do not know the details of their computer systems, but it is possible to have a system erase data automatically based on specific parameters and I do find their announced policy of combatting government demands for records in part by just not having the data available both admirable and logical. In short, their pretty anti-government and I trust them more as a result. Not completely and I know not every library follows the same protocols, but more than most groups. (Incidentally, Nashville is one of the better systems for this that I have encountered.)
ETA: I consider you a friend as well. I disagree with many of my friends on something or the other. :)
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."
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.
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