New Sensenbrenner Bill Will FORCE ISP's to Snoop

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by spy1, May 16, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. spy1

    spy1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Posts:
    3,139
    Location:
    Clover, SC
    http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-6072601.ht...g=st.util.print

    "Congress May Make ISP's Snoop on YOU"

    "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. "

    "Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, called Sensenbrenner's measure an "open-ended obligation to collect information about all customers for all purposes. It opens the door to government fishing expeditions and unbounded data mining." "
     
  2. spy1

    spy1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Posts:
    3,139
    Location:
    Clover, SC
    Read the rest of the article here:
    http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6074070.html ) -

    "ISP snooping plans take backseat"

    "A prominent Republican in the U.S. Congress has backed away from plans to rewrite Internet privacy rules by requiring that logs of Americans' online activities be stored.

    Wisconsin Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said through a representative this week that he will not be introducing that legislation after all.

    The statement came after CNET News.com reported on Tuesday that Sensenbrenner wanted to require Internet service providers to track what their users were doing so police might more easily "conduct criminal investigations," including inquiries into cases involving child exploitation and pornography. The concept is generally called data retention."
     
  3. spy1

    spy1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Posts:
    3,139
    Location:
    Clover, SC
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w...i_wants_internet_records_kept_2_years_source/

    "By Jeremy Pelofsky and Michele Gershberg | June 1, 2006

    WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Federal Bureau of Investigation wants U.S. Internet providers to retain Web address records for up to two years to aid investigations into terrorism and pornography, a source familiar with the matter said on Thursday.

    The request came during a May 26 meeting between U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller with top executives at companies like Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Time Warner Inc.'s AOL."


    =======================================================


    That didn't take long now, did it? I guess we're going to wait until after the mandatory cameras are installed on top of all our t.v's and computer's before we begin to get alarmed about this kind of thing, right? Pete
     
  4. securityx

    securityx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Posts:
    149
    I've been following this Pete. I have a hard time understanding how this is apparently ok with so many people. Don't people realize that it's not just their "privacy" being lost, but their freedom? State-sponsored surveillance of its people, tracking movements and actions, it's all straight out of the USSR circa 1970. This is frightening stuff.

    ----securityx----
     
  5. spy1

    spy1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Posts:
    3,139
    Location:
    Clover, SC
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/02/washingt...ssyahoo&emc=rss

    "At the meeting with privacy experts yesterday, Justice Department officials focused on wanting to retain the records for use in child pornography and terrorism investigations. But they also talked of their value in investigating other crimes like intellectual property theft and fraud, said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, who attended the session.

    "It was clear that they would go beyond kiddie porn and terrorism and use it for general law enforcement," Mr. Rotenberg said."


    ....

    "
    "This is a sharp departure from current practice," he said. "Data retention is an open-ended obligation to retain all information on all customers for all purposes, and from a traditional Fourth Amendment perspective, that really turns things upside down."

    ====================================================

    Isn't that too sweet? They haven't even gotten around to making "formal proposals" yet - and they're already building in mission creep! Better look out, all you file sharers - you can bet the R.I.A.A and the M.P.A.A are licking their chops over the possibilities inherent in this! Pete

    securityx - I don't know what it's going to take to get the American people involved in a meaningful way. The actual abuses and potential for abuse of all these things is right out there in the open - there's hardly any way to ignore it - and the government just gets more and more brazen about what they demand.

    If we don't wake up and act, we're going to get totally steam-rolled and silenced (in every meaningful way) forever. Pete
     
  6. whistl3r

    whistl3r Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Posts:
    69
    Roe vs Wade, (concept of individual rights)

    The Amendment protects individual privacy against certain kinds of governmental intrusion, but its protections go further. 4 Other provisions of the Constitution protect personal privacy from other forms of governmental invasion. 5a 5b But the protection of a person's general right to privacy - his right to be let alone by other people [6 - See Warren & Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harv. L. Rev. 193 (1890)] - is, like the [389 U.S. 347, 351] protection of his property and of his very life, left largely to the law of the individual States. 7a 7b 7c


    No law can Constitutionally evade the Right to Privacy, regardless of it's nature, it's against Federal and Fundamental law. Same applies for EULA's stating if you do not agree to their privacy terms you can not use their software..... illegal to even write such term yet Business's and Corporations seem to be immune of infringing upon your Rights. However, living in the United States, your already a born crimianal, in the eyes of the Government.

    http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/CPC/index.html



    It's mostly because of PR done during the event of Post September 11, 2001. It had an enormous impact on the United States culture (way I see it) and it seems that everyone, overnight, grew with open arms, to allow the Government to do anything and everything it needed to protect national security, which in turn threatened our Constitutional Rights. The only thing we can do now is fight back, regardless of the consequence.

    By the way, our constitutional right, besides our privacy, is to stand up and protect the Constitution and fundamental rights of this country, if the government does not observe the constitutional rights, civilians then have the supreme judicial authority to arrest and convict officers of the state. Though, as you will find out, the Government will overturn that very quickly, even though it's stated in the Constitution.
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2006
  7. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,698
    Hello,
    MPIA, RIAA and other .......... can suck my PeerGuardian 2 fully updated ip blocker list.
    Mrk
     
  8. <DreamCatcher>

    <DreamCatcher> Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Posts:
    154
    LOL, second that!
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.