If you thought your phonecalls are all they're after...

[Kutjara]

...here's a little article from CNet.

http://news.com.com/Congress+may+make+ISPs+snoop+on+you/2100-1028_3-6072601.html?tag=nefd.lede

<snip>

A prominent Republican on Capitol Hill has prepared legislation that would rewrite Internet privacy rules by requiring that logs of Americans' online activities be stored, CNET News.com has learned. The proposal comes just weeks after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Internet service providers should retain records of user activities for a "reasonable amount of time," a move that represented a dramatic shift in the Bush administration's views on privacy.

Wisconsin Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is proposing that ISPs be required to record information about Americans' online activities so that police can more easily "conduct criminal investigations." Executives at companies that fail to comply would be fined and imprisoned for up to one year.

In addition, Sensenbrenner's legislation--expected to be announced as early as this week--also would create a federal felony targeted at bloggers, search engines, e-mail service providers and many other Web sites. It's aimed at any site that might have "reason to believe" it facilitates access to child pornography--through hyperlinks or a discussion forum, for instance.

<snip>

'Terra' and 'kiddie porn:" the two biggest nails in the First Amendment's coffin.

[neoblues]

1. Those 'nails' are their primary cover

or excuse to insist on such a total crackdown on Internet Freedoms.

It seems that no matter what we do, we aren't actually accomplishing our missions--regarding getting Congress to not do various things. About all we get, if we get anything, are a few noises that "sound like" they're acknowledging they heard from us... but then the damned thing, whatever it is, passes--with no more than the least possible resistance.

What are we going to have to do? Have a million person march on Congress every time a truly important bill comes up for a vote?

[napi21]

2. What am I missing here. If they know the child porn sites, why not just

shut them down? I don't have any sympathy for anyone who views those sites, but if they kept a vigil watch out for the dites themselves, and shut them down immediately as soon as they're found, wouldn't that be a better approach? Seems like it would be a lot easier too!

Same thing as with always complaining about illegal immigrants, fine and imprison the employer and you eliminate the problem.

[heartofthesiskiyou]

7. your not missing anything

Shutting down domains that violate CP laws is easy. It could even be done at the InterNic. It could be done at the DNS host. It could be done at the most usual place the ISP.

This is about our logs. They've wanted our logs for a long time. We've been using security measures to keep them out, but they crack those measures sometimes. One problem is they can't do this easily without leaving clues as to who they are by doing traceroutes back to them or if your got an IP traceroute to them. With this legislation they are going to require ISP's to keep and make available to them logs on my clients activities when ever they want. They could have done this before but they know ISP's except people like AOL or MSN or those of that ilk would give them up without a warrant. I know I never would and no independent ISP would. The independent ISP Assoc. has clear guide lines on government activity. I've personally tracked, using sophisticated software called NEOTrace, were you send packets back at them and follow the packet to it's destination with a packet of your own sending back data on it's location. People would be really freaked if they knew what is going on in the ISP world. Most of the ISP's are there for the money and don't bother with this kind of stuff. The ones that do will tell you there's been .mil's and .gov's and .us's shenanigans going on for years. I've had machines and data destroyed by these folks lots of times. Pulling the entire contents of my hard drives happed all the time because they new I hosted a lot of left wing stuff.

I'm telling you this has nothing to do with CP. It has to do with monitoring who's doing what politically. There is no reason to know what your saying to granny. They don't care if your reading the news. They DO care who is opposed to the government, from what perspective, and with how much veracity and how effective you are at that veracity.

The same is true with alleged terrorist sites. They can be shut down in a matter of minutes if need be. At one time there was no such animal as a switch existing anywhere. Not so any more. They can kill it at the Internic along with a number of other ways. OR now they can kill it at AT&T using the equipment I've described in other posts. These people really piss me off. I feel like a the proverbial freeper with a head about to blow. They are playing the public and congress as dupes. FUCK THESE BASTARDS. Stick this in your frigin data bank. And FUCK the bush you rode in on you slime. Why don't you try someplace more to your liking. SAY RED CHINA MAYBE.

[napi21]

10. You are much more technical tha I, but said exactly what I've always

believed. Your ISP or any place above that in the hiearchy can shut down a web site in an instant.

Now, I understand why they'd be very interested in monitoring the DNC, DLC, DCCC etc web traffic for obvious reasons, but it escapes me why they would want to know what I was posting or emailing. Sre I've posted a lot of things negative about the Pubs, but just because they know what I'm thinking sure isn't going to make me vote for a PUB!

Most of the negative stuff is posted on DU, and for God sake, it's a public forum! So is Freeperland. So other than the mere fact that they can, what do they hope to accomplish?

[heartofthesiskiyou]

12. A complex question to understand

snip
'but it escapes me why they would want to know what I was posting or emailing. Sre I've posted a lot of things negative about the Pubs, but just because they know what I'm thinking sure isn't going to make me vote for a PUB!

Their interest is not to get you to vote repuke. It is possible that any given piece of mail is not incriminating. But it might be incriminating without you even realizing it, for example in who you sent it to. Let's say you like to post to a blog. The blog gets busted for activity the government doesn't want them to do (irrelevant of what that activity is). All those that sent mail there or were regular users could be thrown into one lump category could produce persecution or prosecution or entered into the data base for later use.

spip
'Most of the negative stuff is posted on DU, and for God sake, it's a public forum! So is Freeperland. So other than the mere fact that they can, what do they hope to accomplish?'

The problem is they are building data bases for future use. Who is looking at left wing sites. Who's looking at right wing sites. How effective are those sites. What are the tactics of those sites that have shown potential to have a political effect. What users show up on cross lists of other sites. The effect of building a data base of public activity can not be deduced by looking at a given piece of mail or even whole a given user. They are gathering data that is to be analyzed to influence policy, create new laws or techniques that can be used to oppose given political bodies beliefs and just tons of other things. While it is difficult for the public to grasp the significance because they look at their activity and see no threat to anyone and therefore they feel that it is not of any interest to government entities
the real detriment of monitoring public discourse in political matters of government entities will not be effectively passed in any single posting like this. It will take some research, reading some books on the subject, viewing what experts are saying on the issues to name a few. Anyone that views these effects of building data bases of political discourse I trust will come to the determination that is is far more detrimental then may appear at first blush.

[Kutjara]

11. Excellent post.

Back in the early '90s, I cofounded one of the first commercial ISPs in the UK. Within a year, we had the police turning up periodically with warrants authorizing the seizure of particular customers' records. We quickly set up a streamlined process for expediting these warrant searches; the police were clear about what they wanted (usually evidence of child porn) and the account or accounts they were targeting; we were able to give the police the access they wanted, while keeping a log of what was being searched (in case the police overstepped the powers of their warrent). We were able to protect our customers' privacy to the extent permitted by law and the police officers I spoke to expressed themselves satisfied that the system worked. They also felt that our logs helped to 'keep them honest' and could help them defend themselves if they were accused of unlawful search.

Roll on a few years, and the climate changed entirely. New legislation was introduced that allowed the police to issue a search order directly (without referral to a judge), sieze all materials that might be 'related' to a criminal offense, whever located, monitor the target's Internet traffic for an indefinite period and...the best bit...made it a crime to inform the target of searches that they were being watched. Even better was that, if the target somehow found out he was being monitored, he would go to jail for revealing the fact to anyone else. Yes, saying 'the cops are watching me' to your wife or husband became a crime.

Today, the security services rarely bother with even issuing search orders. They just snoop at will and, if they need to actually visit an ISP, they just stick out their hand and say 'hand it over.' I don't know of a single ISP in Europe that wouldn't bend over without a squeak.

[DELUSIONAL]

3. Guilty until proved Innocent . . . . .

Guilty of what? Who knows? The GOP idiots will think of something.

[Kutjara]

5. Don't bother your head...

...thinking about what laws you may have broken. We'll make those up for you when the need arises.

If we want you, we got you. The rest is theater.

[Lib Grrrrl]

6. Well, There Goes The Sixth? Amendment

Isn't it the Sixth that calls for no "ex-post-facto" laws??
Hang on, I got my little pocket Constitution right here...

Damn...read the whole Bill of Rights...and it isn't there...but I know there's SOMETHIHNG about ex-post-facto laws....

AHA!! HERE it is...in Article 1, Section 9: ...No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

So nice to have my handy Pocket Constitution. If you don't have one, you should get one. i got mine from my then-Congressman Lloyd Doggett. I lived in Texas back then. Now I live in Pennsylvania, but I still carry my pocket Constitution with me wherever I may be. Thanks, Lloyd!!

[Kutjara]

8. Remember though, in the immortal words of 'The Decider'...

...it's "just a goddamned piece of paper." He's neatly sidestepped the First and Fourth amendments already, so that one shouldn't cause too many problems either.

More seriously, our statutes, federal, state, county, city and local regulations fill more books than can be read in a dozen lifetimes. I'm sure there are enough laws already on the books to arrest every American for something or other, if needed. That's without even having to resort to catchalls like 'national security' and 'facilitating (fill in the blank).'

Getting a pocket Constitution is a good idea, thought. I might see if I can get an electronic copy for my PDA so that I can more quickly search for the rights I'm losing.



edit: typo

[Lib Grrrrl]

9. Yup.

Nevertheless, I keep my pocket Constitution with me everywhere.

I have a copy that stays on my computer desk at all times...the other copy stays in my purse.

[Doctor_J]

4. "dramatic shift in the Bush administration's views on privacy" - flip-flop

Resident "I'm a man of resolve", flipping and flopping again.