(Please read rest of article here:

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5748649.html ).

"Your ISP as Net watchdog"

"The U.S. Department of Justice is quietly shopping around the explosive idea of requiring Internet service providers to retain records of their customers' online activities.

Data retention rules could permit police to obtain records of e-mail chatter, Web browsing or chat-room activity months after Internet providers ordinarily would have deleted the logs--that is, if logs were ever kept in the first place. No U.S. law currently mandates that such logs be kept.

In theory, at least, data retention could permit successful criminal and terrorism prosecutions that otherwise would have failed because of insufficient evidence. But privacy worries and questions about the practicality of assembling massive databases of customer behavior have caused a similar proposal to stall in Europe and could engender stiff opposition domestically.

In Europe, the Council of Justice and Home Affairs ministers say logs must be kept for between one and three years. One U.S. industry representative, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the Justice Department is interested in at least a two-month requirement.

Justice Department officials endorsed the concept at a private meeting with Internet service providers and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, according to interviews with multiple people who were present. The meeting took place on April 27 at the Holiday Inn Select in Alexandria, Va.

"It was raised not once but several times in the meeting, very emphatically," said Dave McClure, president of the U.S. Internet Industry Association, which represents small to midsize companies. "We were told, 'You're going to have to start thinking about data retention if you don't want people to think you're soft on child porn.'"

McClure said that while the Justice Department representatives argued that Internet service providers should cooperate voluntarily, they also raised the "possibility that we should create by law a standard period of data retention." McClure added that "my sense was that this is something that they've been working on for a long time."

This represents an abrupt shift in the Justice Department's long-held position that data retention is unnecessary and imposes an unacceptable burden on Internet providers. In 2001, the Bush administration expressed "serious reservations about broad mandatory data retention regimes."

The current proposal appears to originate with the Justice Department's Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, which enforces federal child pornography laws. But once mandated by law, the logs likely would be mined during terrorism, copyright infringement and even routine criminal investigations. (The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.)

"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 entity."
"We were told, 'You're going to have to start thinking about data retention if you don't want people to think you're soft on child porn.'"
--Dave McClure, president, U.S. Internet Industry Association

Child protection advocates say that this process can lead police to dead ends if they don't move quickly enough and log files are discarded automatically. Also, many Internet service providers don't record information about instant-messaging conversations or Web sites visited--data that would prove vital to an investigation.

"Law enforcement agencies are often having 20 reports referred to them a week by the National Center," said Michelle Collins, director of the exploited child unit for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "By the time legal process is drafted, it could be 10, 15, 20 days. They're completely dependent on information from the ISPs to trace back an individual offender."

Collins, who participated in the April meeting, said that she had not reached a conclusion about how long log files should be retained. "There are so many various business models...I don't know that there's going to be a clear-cut answer to what would be the optimum amount of time for a company to maintain information," she said.

McClure, from the U.S. Internet Industry Association, said he counter-proposed the idea of police agencies establishing their own

Continued ..."

Please note how seemingly pure the motive for the governments' asking for this is - who could possibly have any qualms about doing whatever it takes to track down and prosecute child pornographers? What a public-relations nightmare for companies that are made to appear opposed to that, right?

But the key for understanding this push by the government is in the third paragraph of the article: "data retention could permit successful criminal and terrorism prosecutions that otherwise would have failed because of insufficient evidence. But privacy worries and questions about the practicality of assembling massive databases of customer behavior have caused a similar proposal to stall in Europe and could engender stiff opposition domestically."

Yup - it's that "homeland security" and 'patriot' act crowd using another slimy tactic in an attempt to get access to every single bit of online data about you that they can lay their hands on (for inclusion into your own personal dossier).

It's obvious, when you think about it - let's see, they're already hammering down the doors trying to get "administrative subpoena" power for the F.B.I. (are you going to let them?) - but, gee, it's not even a requirement that ISP's keep logs of all their customers' doings online yet! We can't have that! And they're already taking a lot of heat over the privacy-raping aspects of what they're already shoving down our throats - so how else can they get what they want but by posing the request in such a way (veiled threat/seemingly noble cause) than this?

I'll be interested to see how many people blindly fall for this. I'd also like you to read this one: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,159812,00.html - and ponder the fact that the arrest and prosecution took place entirely without the need for any ISP logs!

It's called good, solid, police work - imposed by legitimate judicial process.

And that works. Pete

This is a tough call, Pete. I agree that this is an unacceptable burden on ISPs. At the same time, new technologies are available to the bad guys and you won't accept the good guys using the same technology to catch them. I don't think that this is as Orwellian as you think. I do think we need controls on government, and I certainly wouldn't grant them everything they want. But you can't just look at every attempt as a vast conspiracy to take away your rights. I government doesn't keep up with new technologies, we will be overrun by the bad guys. No matter how you look at it, the barbarians are always at the door. This requires some leeway for law enforcement to keep up with it. In my view, it is always a balancing act. And we need watchdogs like you, though you may be a little overzealous.

Terry

"We were told, 'You're going to have to start thinking about data retention if you don't want people to think you're soft on child porn.'"
--Dave McClure, president, U.S. Internet Industry Association

Thought that was an interesting line... Nothing like using children or the threat against children to drive people into action.

>This is a tough call, Pete. I agree that this is an
>unacceptable burden on ISPs.

Quite right - you notice that there was absolutely no mention made of providing funding to the ISP's to cover this - the cost of having ourselves put under the government microscope at their whim is going to be passed on directly to us!

>At the same time, new
>technologies are available to the bad guys and you won't
>accept the good guys using the same technology to catch them.

Not so - I do accept the "good guys" (although I'm stretching that handle to the max here) using the same technology (or better) than the "bad guys" (be they terrorists or child pornographers') - where myself and the government part ways is at the point where they want absolutely no judicial over-sight whatsoever before being allowed to gather their information in whatever way they see fit using whatever means they can shove down everyone's throats'. They don't want to be bothered - period - with having to come up with "probable cause" for a warrant; they don't want to have to go through a regular judge (they want to exclusively use secret F.I.S.A court "judges"); they don't want to be bothered with having to inform someone their house has been searched or that they're being "bugged" (the warrants they get for these types of things they get from - you guessed it - the F.I.S.A secret court judges - who rubber-stamp the requests - and, BTW, they've applied for an extension on the time-limit before they even have to get it rubber-stamped again!). It's the emphasis that the government places on "secret" this and "secret" that which should be worrying the living hell out of everyone, Terry - because to put it quite bluntly, that's exactly how a police state operates.

>I don't think that this is as Orwellian as you think. I do
>think we need controls on government, and I certainly wouldn't
>grant them everything they want.

It's pretty-darned Orwellian to me (and a lot of others). I would remind you that you will "grant them everything they want" simply by not vocally fighting them every step of the way while we're still allowed to do so.

They're already forcing protestor's aside into "pens" when they want to voice any opinion other than the government "line" ( http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=18469&c=86 is just the latest example of this - and you can bet that the people who weren't arrested were photographed for later identification and a "file" creation or addition).


>But you can't just look at
>every attempt as a vast conspiracy to take away your rights.

It is as plain as day that if the request for "administrative subpoena" power for the F.B.I is granted that the 4th Amendment to the Constitution is dead, Terry.

When they find out they could get away with that, how long do you really think it will be before the 1st and 2 Amendments follow?


>If government doesn't keep up with new technologies, we will be
>overrun by the bad guys. No matter how you look at it, the
>barbarians are always at the door. This requires some leeway
>for law enforcement to keep up with it. In my view, it is
>always a balancing act. And we need watchdogs like you,
>though you may be a little overzealous.
>
>Terry

Once again, I am not against the government keeping up with "new technologies" - I am totally against the way they are going about doing so - at the expense of my liberty, freedom and privacy.

I am not the enemy.

And neither, my friend, are you. Pete

*Here's the letter I just composed that I'm fixing to start FAX'ing to both my Senator's and all the Representatives in my state:

"Please help stop the Justice Dept. push for "ISP record-keeping"

Dear Sir,
According to this article: http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5748649.html , the Justice Dept. is trying to IN-formally force ISP's to keep totally-inclusive records (indefinitely) on everyone's Internet usage.
If allowed, this is a potentially massive invasion of everyone's privacy - and certainly a Constitutional issue.
While the stated purpose of their efforts is to help combat child pornography, I (and a lot of others) feel that the actual purpose is to allow un-limited, secret access to everyone's communications by the "Homeland Security" side of the government - IOW, some more "stealth" "Patriot Act" fodder.
If allowed, the cost of such data-retention - aside from its' Constitutional aspect - would be passed directly on to the ISP's customers, since the government certainly isn't going to pay for it.
Such records-keeping will also (by design, I'm sure) play directly into the hands of such organizations as the R.I.A.A and the M.P.A.A.
We don't need or deserve this.
Therefor, should any proposed "legislation", "law" or "regulation" come to your attention that would force ISP's to keep full records of everyone's Internet activities, I ask as your constitutent that you refuse to co-sponsor such legislation and that you vote against it should such legislation arise.
Thank you. "

You might want to copy/paste that into a letter to your OWN reps.

Find/contact your Senator(s): http://www.theorator.com/senate.html

Find/contact your Reps: http://www.theorator.com/government/house.html

Pete

Just one more example of the massive degree of computer illiteracy in our government, and most of the public! Do you have any concept of the amount of storage capacity needed to just store all e-mail sent in even one month? Not to mention all internet activity for years! This is just a bunch of ignoramuses taking seriously the hair brained ideas of a bunch of other ignoramuses. There is not enough storage capacity on Earth to handle the traffic just on the Comcast networks

Shelly

Shelly - That's never stopped the government before! All the points you've mentioned were also covered in the article.

Better safe than sorry in a situation like this, I'm thinking. Pete