AT&T Tech Support 360
September 21, 2006 4:25 PM PDT
Data retention bill expected next week
- Related Stories
-
Gonzales: ISPs must keep records on users
September 19, 2006 -
Qwest on data retention laws: Oops
August 23, 2006 -
Congress targets social-networking sites
June 29, 2006 -
Industry, others object to data retention
May 31, 2006 -
ISP snooping plans take backseat
May 18, 2006 -
Lawmakers take aim at social-networking sites
May 10, 2006 -
Republican politico endorses data retention
May 5, 2006 -
FCC approves Net-wiretapping taxes
May 3, 2006 -
Congress may consider mandatory ISP snooping
April 28, 2006 -
U.S. attorney general calls for 'reasonable' data retention
April 20, 2006 -
ISP snooping gaining support
April 14, 2006 -
EU data retention directive gets final nod
February 22, 2006 -
Europe passes tough new data retention laws
December 14, 2005 -
Your ISP as Net watchdog
June 16, 2005 -
Europe to push ahead with ISP snooping law
June 9, 2005 -
Europe likely to opt for biometric passports
October 27, 2004 -
FBI adds to wiretap wish list
March 12, 2004 -
My (brief) career as an ISP
October 10, 2003 -
FBI targets Net phoning
July 29, 2003 -
Perspective: Privacy lessons from Europe
October 23, 2002
Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado said that she is working with Republicans Reps. Ed Whitfield, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce oversight and investigations subcommittee, and Joe Barton, chairman of the full committee, to finalize language mandating a controversial practice known as data retention.
ISP snooping timeline
In events that were first reported by CNET News.com, Bush administration officials have said Internet providers must keep track of what Americans are doing online. Here's the timeline:
June 2005: Justice Department officials quietly propose data retention rules.
December 2005: European Parliament votes for data retention of up to two years.
April 14, 2006: Data retention proposals surface in Colorado and the U.S. Congress.
April 20, 2006: Attorney General Gonzales says data retention "must be addressed."
April 28, 2006: Rep. DeGette proposes data retention amendment.
May 16, 2006: Rep. Sensenbrenner drafts data retention legislation -- but backs away from it two days later.
May 26, 2006: Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller meet with Internet and telecommunications companies.
June 27, 2006: Rep. Barton, chair of a House committee, calls new child protection legislation a "highest priority"
"Internet service providers across the board do retain this data for some period of time right now, so all were doing in this legislation is requiring a standard in the industry," DeGette said at a morning hearing here on online child pornography, which was at least the sixth event dealing with online child exploitation in the House this year.
The data retention requirement is necessary because members of Congress have "learned that Internet service providers and social networking sites have information that law enforcement needs when investigating pedophiles online, and that is the IP address on a particular date and time that will help identify those involved," said Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican who is also heading a probe into Hewlett-Packard's boardroom scandal.
Privacy groups and industry groups have generally opposed mandatory data retention, with some companies such as Comcast voluntarily agreeing to retain user data for longer periods. Also, under an earlier proposal described by DeGette, the information would be available not only to police but to civil litigants as well, including divorce lawyers hoping to track someone down or employers embroiled in a lawsuit with a former employee.
Plans to enact the Bush administration's data retention proposal--reiterated this week by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales--have been brewing in Congress for months but have received increased attention as the November elections draw near.
DeGette, for her part, planned this spring to introduce such a proposal (click for PDF) as an amendment to a House telecommunications bill but ultimately dropped those plans. A senior House Republican also drafted a bill this year (click for PDF) but then backed away from it.
DeGette's bill is expected to be consistent with repeated calls for mandatory data retention in recent months from Gonzales and from 49 state attorneys general (click for PDF).
The two law enforcement officials at Thursday's hearing, representing the cybercrimes division of Homeland Security's Immigrations and Customs Enforcement bureau and the U.S. attorney's office in New Jersey, also offered endorsements.
"We need more and more information, and we need it as quickly as we can possibly get it," said Christopher Christie, U.S. Attorney in New Jersey.
Details on data retention
In general, data retention legislation could follow one of two approaches.
One form could require Internet providers and perhaps social networking sites and search engines to record for a year or two which IP address is used by which user. The other form would be far broader, requiring companies to record data such as the identities of e-mail correspondents, logs of who sent and received instant messages (but not the content of those communications), and the addresses of Web pages visited.
During a series of meetings with Internet companies hosted by the Justice Department--first reported by CNET News.com--officials have been ambiguous about how they want legislation worded, private-sector participants say. Those involved have included AOL, Comcast, Google, Microsoft, Verizon Communications and trade associations.
DeGette said Thursday that her proposal would not require retention of the communications themselves, but would identify data so that law enforcement officials--if they had probable cause to believe a crime has been committed--could go in and get a subpoena and subpoena these IP addresses.
An IP address is a unique four-byte address used to communicate with a device on a computer network that relies on the Internet Protocol. An IP address associated with CNET.com, for instance, is 216.239.113.101.
Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, said he liked that DeGette's proposal was not focused on retaining content. "Obviously this is a real dilemma for the Internet service providers for a host of reasons, and I think there is an appropriate time frame that can be established," he said. "But overwhelmingly, we support (data retention mandates)."
DeGette sought to allay concerns raised by privacy advocates about the approach, adding, "I'm concerned about privacy considerations, too, especially in light of what I believe to be illegal surveillance of telephone records by this administration."
See more CNET content tagged:
Internet provider,
Rep.,
legislation,
proposal,
Alberto Gonzales
http://www.ccmep.org/hotnews2/032802aclu.html
?There is no legitimate reason to keep these kinds of files on the peaceful expression of political views and opinions,? said Lino Lipinsky, of McKenna & Cuneo, who filed the lawsuit as an ACLU cooperating attorney. "Denver residents should feel free to join a peaceful protest without fear that their names will wind up in police files.?
Excerpts from the Spy Files attached to the ACLU lawsuit show that the Denver police have recorded the following kinds of information about specific individuals:
?membership in specific advocacy organizations labeled as ?criminal extremist,? such as the American Friends Service Committee, End The Politics of Cruelty, and the Chiapas Coalition;
?organizing and speaking at events sponsored by Amnesty International;
attendance in 2000 at demonstrations sponsored by the Justice for Mena Committee, which sought to hold Denver police accountable for the killing of Ismael Mena in a botched no-knock raid in 1999;
?participation in protests against the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in Washington, D.C.;
?the purported opinion of plaintiff Sister Antonia that ?global financial policies are responsible for the uprisings in Chiapas, Mexico?;
?being ?seen? at a demonstration in 2000 protesting the celebration of Columbus Day;
?license numbers and descriptions of vehicles used by individuals identified as participants in peaceful protest activities;
?home addresses and personal descriptions of individuals engaged in lawful expressive activity;
?the address of a private residence that an individual reportedly ?frequents?;
?There is no legitimate reason to keep these kinds of files on the peaceful expression of political views and opinions,? said Lino Lipinsky, of McKenna & Cuneo, who filed the lawsuit as an ACLU cooperating attorney. "Denver residents should feel free to join a peaceful protest without fear that their names will wind up in police files.?
Now I ask you people is legislating a law that should not be legislated by government but should be voluntary compliance by the companies involved. Why do I feel that this is a congressman helping her husband have lot's of future cases, apparently they know that when the government has data that it's abused. Seems like a good way for her husband to get richer. Who's interest is she really looking out for?
something bad. Unless you are breaking the law, there's nothing to
be concerned about. Don't you want to protect our children?
For all of you, think about storing on your own computer everything website you have visited for a year. Most of your computers will clear this information every month. Sure data storage costs may be cheaper and cheaper but every isp is getting more and more people. These costs will amount to billions in just storing this data, let alone proving an infrastructure that meets government approval to allow them to freely access the information.
There is really no reason to store this information, and sue to its nature, the isps could be storing information of offshore users information. This leads to an invasion of privacy of non customers, non citizens.
Additionally, with the new nazi tactics in place by our executive branch, they can tap into anything and log anything they want. There is no reason to provide storage for information they can gather themselves. It should not be the companies responsibility to bypass users privacy and security so the government can feel tough.
civil litigants as well, including divorce lawyers hoping to track
someone down or employers embroiled in a lawsuit with a
former employee."
1. Can you say "conflict of interest"?
2. Oh, so now any old lawyer wanting to dig up some dirt on
someone can access these records, not just law enforcement
investigating some crime? I really like the idea of former
employers, unknown lawyers and the like peering through my
communications with a microscope trying to find something to
take out of context and embarrass me with publicly.
3. WAKE UP PEOPLE! This isn't about the children at all, it's about
the the most secretive government in US history deciding they
are the only ones who should have any secrets at all. You might
not think you have anything to hide, but I'll bet Maher Arar
thought that as well.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/
2006/09/18/AR2006091800883.html?nav=rss_print/asection>
4. Look, if you appreciate this kind of legislation, there are
countries that are already like this. China, Cuba, Iran and North
Korea will not turn you away. Here in America, we believe in
democracy being something other than a bunch of empty words.
BY THE PEOPLE - FOR THE PEOPLE!
IMPEACH THE SON OF A BUSH NOW!!!
Also, could there not be a threat from "secret societies"? Even if good now, could a group like the Skull and Bones become evil at a later date. Perhaps, we need to monitor everything they do as well--put cameras into their private chambers and monitor all of their conversations--couldn't they be a potential threat. Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You've been warned!
Even when we all have different opinions we do have the right to our religion in the constituion and she is obviously against anything that she personally doesn't believe in.
Vote NO on Degette in 2008 -- PLease find us a solid professional to represent us in Denver. We need someone that will will listen, a communicator , a business person and someone with some compassion for a chance and PLEASE NO LAWTERS
PLease give us someone we can feel good about to vote for this year. I want Degette out in 2008