Digg

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

New Bill Requires ISPs to Monitor All Email Traffic and Surfing Activity

theseminal.com — The 1984-esque Safety Act would require ISPs to record all users ’ surfing activity, IM conversations and email traffic indefinitely. Can anyone explain how this is constitutional?

Bury

diggamer 1 year 242 days ago, made popular 1 year 241 days ago

1613 diggs
digg it

168 Comments
Who Dugg It?
Blog It
Email It

geonet, on 10/12/2007, -7/+71I thought Google already monitored all traffic. Why do we need a new Bill?
- littlebylittle, on 10/12/2007, -8/+101"Can anyone explain how this is constitutional?"
  
  No.
  
  We need politicians who understand technology to write sane legislation about online privacy.
- shadus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+138It's not constitutional but our government threw out that document on 9/11.
  
  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Inscribed on the plaque at the base of the statue of liberty.
- HalFTW, on 10/12/2007, -6/+100Every website needs to start using HTTPS by default.
- dumbblah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+100I believe the exact quote is:
  
  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  
  - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
  
  Not that I'm being picky or anything, but it is my favorite.
- Lyph4, on 10/12/2007, -2/+128"We need politicians who understand technology to write sane legislation about online privacy."
  
  We need politicians who understand the constitution.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+90"we need politicians that understand anything besides dollar signs"
- SIRBERUS, on 10/12/2007, -8/+37Forget stopping terrorism. They need to kill off the spammers first.
- simondotcalvin, on 10/12/2007, -25/+8Also, that terrible "Give your tired, your poor..." poem is inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty. Wow. Strike two.
- superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14"Every website needs to start using HTTPS by default."
  
  https only has a point if you have exclusive access to some content (i.e. your bank account, university student pages, etc.) otherwise, if everyone can access the page, someone can just pick up the URL you're using and find out the encrypted content. i don't believe the URL is encrypted.
- caleb4mj, on 10/12/2007, -14/+6Google isn't an ISP and Google doesn't share with Uncle Sam. Or was that a rhetorical question?
  
  Want everyone to adopt https? Just call it Web 3.0.
- TortfeasorG, on 10/12/2007, -4/+71"Can anybody explain how this is constitutional?"
  
  Yes.
  
  I will start with why so many people believe this should not be constitutional. Most people think this kind of monitoring is unconstitutional because it is a firmly established rule of constitutional law (4th amendment) that the content of telephone conversations is protected from unreasonable searches. This is so because telephone conversations are considered things in which we have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." The 4th amendment thus operates as such: if one has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a thing, then the Gov't must obtain a warrant to search that thing.
  
  There are certain exceptions to this rule, with which many people have some familiarity, such as: exigent circumstances (police can search for you in your home if they have been chasing you and you ran into your home; or in an automobile stop, police can search your car without a warrant). In such cases, the Gov't is exempt from the warrant requirement, as long as they can establish that they had probable cause to believe a crime has been or was being committed by the subject being searched.
  
  In any event, the key factor is that one must have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a thing before it is given this full 4th amendment protection. The law is that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the trunks of their cars, but not in whatever is lying in plain view on the back seat. Similarly, people have a reasonable expectation of privacy as to what was said on their phone conversation, but not as to what number they called. This is so, like it or not, because when you call someone, you are routing that destination number through a third party intermediary. You have thus divulged to a third party the number that you are calling, and hence cannot reasonably expect that information to be kept private. You may argue whether the phone company owes you some duty to not disclose that information, but as far as 4th amendment jurisprudence is concerned, that information has been disclosed to a third party, thus you cannot reasonably expect that information to be kept totally private.
  
  Unfortunately, this is how the law has evolved to deal with internet communications. The law sees internet communications as more analogous to tracking numbers dialed than to listening to the content of phone conversations. In my opinion, this is improper, and we ought to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in our internet communications.
  
  However, we all know that our internet communications are not private, each packet we send and receive is sent through a host of intermediaries. We do enjoy a certain amount of privacy through obscurity, however, given the sheer volume of internet communications.
  
  I would argue, though probably unsuccessfully, that telephone conversations are the same way; people can tap into them and listen in on what you're communicating, that doesn't mean you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of your communication. If the susceptibility of the medium to tapping does not, for 4th amendment purposes, invalidate the reasonable expectation of privacy in the telephone context, then why does it in the internet context?
  
  I hope I have cleared this up somewhat. I'm certainly open to other thoughts, but I am pretty sure this explains roughly the constitutionality of the proposed bill. Who knows, though, maybe the threat of this kind of bill and its consequent 1984-ish monitoring of communication will make those 9 wise souls on the Supreme Court think a little differently about what ought to be private and what ought not to be.
- Szandor, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30Good, maybe they'll catch me on www.bigbrothercansuckmyballs.com.
- HalFTW, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27"https only has a point if you have exclusive access to some content (i.e. your bank account, university student pages, etc.) otherwise, if everyone can access the page, someone can just pick up the URL you're using and find out the encrypted content. i don't believe the URL is encrypted."
  
  Your browser does not send packets an URL, it sends packets to an IP. The page you are requesting is send in those packets, so it is encrypted with HTTPS. The site you are visiting can be obtained by watching your DNS requests, or by doing reverse DNS lookups for an ip, but they can't tell what the page you have requested it, or what is on it.
  
  Something like TOR might be the answer, but at the moment it is to slow for widespread use. Also people should start signing and encrypting their email with programs like PGP/GPG.
  
  The stupid thing is that 'terrorists' or whatever bad people can already be completely anonymous on the net if they know what they are doing. With all this spying BS they are just infringing on the civil liberties of the masses.
  
  It's a bit like how DRM only hurts legitimate owners of content.
- diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34I wonder how far they will go claiming people are ISPs? Am I an ISP for providing email for my extended family? We login via https and our email to each other never leaves the server. What keeps a terror cell from having their own webmail server like I do? Nothing!
  
  People need to wake up! This is not about child porn or terrorists. This is about spying on everything you do. The hardcore pedos and terrorists are already using encryption, so it must be to monitor us, the average joes.
- zttrx, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21Calm the ***** down, people. This bill has been passed around every year for the last NINE years. It has never passed, and it won't pass any time soon.
  
  And it's not your rights that keep it from passing...its very loud, very large ISPs complaining continually that such monitoring would absolutely decimate their bottom line, forcing them out of business, because that kind of thing is VERY expensive to implement.
- sketchydave, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9tortfeasorg:
  
  That was an incredibly well reasoned, well argued, and well written response. I would argue that the ISPs should not be forced to monitor all traffic, but be forced to be ABLE to monitor all traffic on a customer's machine when served a warrent by a judge. ISPs are not in the habit of tracking you (I've worked at 2 in my time.) They maintain a connection to the Internet for customers. Tracking all data, caching it, would be a huge expense, take up a lot of resources, and require more staff to run. Plus there is no profit in it, why the hell would they want to do it?
  
  Warrants are issued for individuals and companies, they can't "go fishing" with them. If you have a warrant out on you, there is usually a good reason for it. So regulate that ISPs have some standard of tracking this data that can be used in court after a warrant is obtained and then gather the evidence. This is due process and something lawmakers should remember.
- JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Not only is it unconstitutional, it's unenforceable.
  
  Skype is encrypted by default, and anyone can learn how to encrypt email.
- bigturns, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I wish to propose the creation of the Open Source Spook Initiative (OSSI). Where by we allow the spooks to spook whomever they choose whenever they choose with one small caveat. They open source the technology allowing an enabling the citizens to also spook both their neighbors as well as the spooks themselves.
  
  In this way, all knowledge would be public knowledge. Those who aim ill will upon their brothers will be outed. Those who wish to conspire against their government will be outed. Those, in the government, who wish to conspire against our nations citizens will be outed. Through a successful implementation of the OSSI, all topics will be debated, ad nauseum, across the open American forum.
- broomett, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Actually, can YOU explain how this is UNconsitutitional?
- Flame0001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@tortfeasorg
  
  So then our mail should be opened as well, correct? We are sending our mail through an intermediary (USPS) and the location was disclosed to said third party. And I do believe it's very illegal for anyone to open mail that isn't theirs.
- TortfeasorG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ Flame0001
  
  The mail situation is analogous in that you have a reasonable expectation of privacy vis a vis the *content* of your mail, but you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy vis a vis who you are mailing to, or receiving mail from. This is the same as the phone companies knowing who you called, but they don't necessarily know what you said.
otheruser, on 10/12/2007, -11/+18Arghh! Even as a minority they're still causing difficulties.

If you want to stop this bill, please see below for #s/emails regarding this:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/12/8520/60718
- anonymoustroll, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26> Arghh! Even as a minority they're still causing difficulties.
  
  You, sir, are making the incorrect assumption that absolute power does not corrupt absolutely.
  
  It does... which is why you should *NEVER* give them any power in the first place...
- tidu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+61There's not stopping it now; they added the word "terrorism" to the bill.
brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+54 I've already seen somthing like this on cnet. Its pretty ***** nazified if you ask me. Someone really needs to put a stop to this police progression.
- GawtMilk, on 10/12/2007, -31/+4I don't see the big whup. Any one who visits my site gives me their IP address. You can do an IP check thesedays on sites like DNSStuff, it'll often tell you the ISP. If you visit a government owned site with illegal material (child porno, etc), they could verify your IP with your ISP and potentially prosecute you with the evidence, no?
- brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10nope. Learn how spoofing/proxies work.
- Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24I have to agree with brokekneck. People can change/mask their IPs. Plus the cost of archiving this data, and the cost of maintenance required would greatly increase the cost on the customer's end.
  
  I also believe whistleblowing is a necessary condition for a free and just society. How is a whistleblower supposed to expose government corruption if they know their monitored email activity will expose themselves to their superiors? Deep Throat (Watergate whistleblower) remained anonymous for 30 years. I feel a scared government weary of their secrets and crimes being outed by its own people, wanting mechanisms in place to identify and punish any and all who speak out from within, is the real reason this Bill is being pushed forward.
- JackHoffman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11So did I, and submitted it 6 days ago. At least their server can handle a couple of visitors, unlike this one.
  http://digg.com/politics/ISPs_must_track_users_face_fines_or_up_to_one_year_in_prison_otherwise
  
  As usual, Digg fails to promote stories and promotes crowd behavior instead.
- tardmongerster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Proxies won't help a thing. It will be your ISP that retains all the data about your online activity. Your ISP is the first hop of your connection, before the traffic gets to a proxy or anything else.
  
  The only thing that may help would be point to point encryption, such as VPN.
- JackHoffman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10VPNs will not help. They're mostly interested in metadata. They want to know whom you talk to and which websites you visit, not what you talk about. They can get that with a normal wiretap if you've made yourself suspicious by association. To avoid meta-data capturing, you would have to use mixes/onion routing. Unfortunately these are slow. Consequently only people who need them use them, which in turn means that using mixes/onion routing is suspicious.
2ndRevolution, on 10/12/2007, -5/+44Police State USA. Eventually, we'll have to retake control of this country. Either that or we go from serfs to slaves.
- john2kx, on 10/12/2007, -17/+12serfs to slaves? That's the same thing.
- Slash23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31No technically they are not the same things. Serfs technically belong to the land they farm, in theory they are slaves to the land, however there are landlords who own those lands therefore they own the serfs. Slaves are not bound to the land, but rather to the owner or buyer. Slaves are property. But good try at attempting to be cute and putting someone down; so now I will put you down, get YOUR facts straight before you jump on someone.
- eswartz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14neither of which are desirable?
  Perhaps we're looking for "free"?
- pglowiak, on 10/12/2007, -8/+5We're aren't there already?
- TheElectricMonk, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1that would make a bad ass crustpunk chorus
Swiftfeet8, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33I work for a smaller independent ISP, and we have been having to get ready and comply with this by May. If you want some more information on it check out "CALEA". Also check out:

http://www.fcc.gov/calea/
- TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -18/+2Bury me. Ya know, like you would a Christians or conservative.
- howski, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7With pleasure.
repins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18This has been going on for a while now, they just want to make it all nice an legal now :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnivore_(FBI)
- Thuktun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Some here will remember the movement on Usenet and email to saturate the net with keywords for Echelon to pick up, flooding their computers with false-positives.
  
  Time for a Firefox extension to redirect all surfing through hugeurl?
obrysii, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24And suddenly our porn surfing habits become more than just a personal affair.
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Not really. Porn will put in place tools to protect your identity/hide which pages you viewed well before anyone else. HTTPS, perhaps a system to randomly mask the full url from the browser history, etc. If people feel they're being watched, they'll stop watching porn, and porn will respond.
VTmruhlin, on 10/12/2007, -14/+1I really wouldn't mind the collecting and storing of information, so long as they needed some hefty approval to actually have a human look at it.

An "everything about you" database would come in handy, both for the prosecution or defense in any legal trial. But I don't want some corrupt cops going around blackmailing people for legal-yet-embarrassing stuff they do.
- gmiley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19The problem I have with this is that by collecting mass data on anyone and everyone they are effectively assuming everyone is a criminal waiting to be caught. Pre-investigation. I do agree that it would make things easier for law enforcement, however I would much more prefer to live with a little bit of insecurity in this world and be free rather than have a warm and fuzzy in my tummy and be watched 24/7. Your life is yours to live, not anyone else's.
- VTmruhlin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well, the hypothetical situation I'm talking about is sort of like the old tree falling in the woods question. If the data's being gathered, but nobody's looking at it, does it count as spying?
  
  /Either way is a moot point cause we'd never be responsible enough to pull it off without some jackass sneaking a peek.
- ChagrinRiddle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"If the data's being gathered, but nobody's looking at it, does it count as spying?"
  Yes.
  If I download child porn, but I don't look at it, is it still illegal?
  Yes. Same thing.
Darkestblaze, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4What about those of us who communicate with people who actually live *outside* the US? It's kosher for the government to spy on what they're saying to us as well?
astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1** points to pile of words that read such phrases as 'get free Gap clothing' **

This can be chucked into the pile of eMail hoaxes that have been around for years...
gmerin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16since constitutionality isn't an important concern for the president, why should it be a concern for congress?
Neoisamu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21It seems to me that we're trying to become more like China when it comes to activity monitoring and censorship... next thing is street side public executions.
JasperM, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1If you want to send a secure message, why not use the United States Postal Service? You could even encode it if you want. The problem with the Internet and other mediums, is the loss of "expectation of privacy." With all the points that a message is relayed from there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, especially of messages in plain text form. The same can be said for cell phone conversations, and even conversations with people in a public setting.

Privacy is not an explicit right in the constitution, it is an implied right and is therefore more subjective to the interpretation of the legislative branch, and the validation of the Supreme Court. Checks and Balances....
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Read the IXth and Xth amendments. You have the sense of the Constitution backwards: Anything NOT in the Constitution is NOT a legitimate power of government.
  
  What we need is to make exceeding constitutional authority a capital crime. A few hanged bureaucrats displayed along the roadside would be a good education program for the people who are supposed to be serving and representing us.
- musicbaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"If you want to send a secure message, why not use the United States Postal Service? "
  
  Because that's not private either. http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/485561p-408789c.html
  
  "President Bush has quietly claimed sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant, the Daily News has learned.
  The President asserted his new authority when he signed a postal reform bill into law on Dec. 20. Bush then issued a "signing statement" that declared his right to open people's mail under emergency conditions."
- toppgun, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Im actually writting an essay for an essay contest about this and I beg to differ.
  
  /elite private school
  //top 10% of my class
rgeide, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Not that I agree with the bill, but technically, I don't believe the Constitution grants us a "right" to privacy. Obviously, this is something that needs to be explicitly stated elsewhere to prevent this kind of garbage.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+22the constitution doesnt grant rights, it forbids the government from infringing upon rights. your rights are considered 'god given' and are not granted to you by any government (and no government can take them away)
- eswartz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Does the Constitution Contain a Right to Privacy?
  
  by Harry Browne
  
  http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm
- Borfo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You (purportedly at least) have a right not to be subject to "shotgun" searches which don't target specific and identified information. In reality you don't, of course, but that's what your Constitution says.
  
  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2You're making sense. The Constitution does not contain any explicit right to privacy. The courts have derived a "right to privacy" by stringing together a handful of amendments and then explaining that collectively they "amount" to a right to privacy.
  
  It's a real debate. Many issues are affected by this. Judicial appointments are basically decided by whether or not the nominee agrees or disagrees that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution.
  
  I think we ought to amend our federal Constitution to include one. However, I don't think we'll ever get one because it will stall in debate. There are too many competing interests that would support and oppose a privacy amendment. I'd rather we have one because I think the courts are going to make things much much worse by continuing their judicial debacle.
- LocalH, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@gabriels:
  There is a right to privacy from the explicit fact that the Constitution does not give blanket overriding powers to the feds.
diecastbeatdown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9sarbanes oxley has been doing this for a while now. but only on publicly trading companies, schools, etc. now it will be all ISPs which is quite dreadful. it was the end the moment the internet was introduced and we left the bbs/phone days. logging and monitoring has been taken to the extreme. if you dont proxy yourself, ssl or use shell accounts before acccessing the world then you can forget your online freedom. if you use google for anything, you're *****.
morningmatters, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9The potential for abuse with this kind of technology outweighs the beneifts by a large margin. Whoever has access to this will have the ability to blackmail or ruin the lives of anyone they want.
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1You'll have to explain that allegation.
  
  Naturally, with the advent of technology and increasing reliance on the Internet for communication, law enforcement is eventually going to request access to and compliance with commercial organizations that carry communications for people in the United States.
  
  The law currently states that law enforcement can tap a phone with a warrant approved by a judge. However, how does VOIP fit into the law? How does email fit into the law?
  
  These are real questions and real concerns if the means of communication lack the means to comply with federal law providing for the monitoring of certain communications if a judge approves a warrant.
  
  Digg users appear to be very alarmed by this law, but this doesn't come off as a serious discussion unless you assume that wiretapping phones is an act law enforcement should not have at its disposal.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6***** being monitored. Any government that monitors its people doesn't deserve to survive. People who engage in such monitoring are subhuman scum. Just because phones CAN be wiretapped, it does not create a legitimate government power to monitor packets.
truegodofwar, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3I submitted this 3 days ago...

http://digg.com/politics/Senator_wants_ISPs_to_scan_every_email_for_illegal_porn
- superpotential, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6porn? that's what the government is concerned about? not bombs?
TheNemeses, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Me and my classmates were talking about this in Govt. class yesterday, since I am tech savvy, it is pretty easy to stay away from the watchful eye of "big brother" the only thing I am afraid of is if they noticed im not being tracked. I.e. "Hey why haven't you been surfing the net lately, or where is your activity?" Then i might get slammed for trying to bypass that but we will found out. But yeah this bill is total nonsense.
mickhead, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Time to quit the internet.
pallen, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1http://www.duggmirror.com
- rages4calm, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1should check before posting it, duggmirror did not catch it.
- pallen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Sorry, was my first time posting a mirror link. How do you check if it caught it or not? In other news, looks like Coral Cache missed it too.
- rages4calm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@pallen
  
  Usually just goto duggmirror.com website and click where it says "dugg" :)
- jdstorer2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Or use this handy dandy little link in your toolbar:
  
  javascript:window.location.href=window.location.href.replace('digg', 'duggmirror');
dgh1973, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11"It's not constitutional but our government threw out that document on 9/11.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Inscribed on the plaque at the base of the statue of liberty."

That's a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

No surprise, the U.S. is more paranoid than a crackhead in a glass house now, wanting to stare out of every window looking for a threat that doesn't exist.
- caleb4mj, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I like these quotes:
  "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the limits of the law," because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." - TJ
  "What county can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance." - TJ
  
  The greatest theat to our liberty might wear a suit and carry a pen.
gemmakicn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I think maybe rather than worshipping a badly written bronze age book, the us government should consider meditating on the nature of their founding document....
wounded625, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11the government is taking too much control over us! they should not even be doing this!
we have the right to overthrow the government in desperate times when the government has gone corrupt and has gotten to powerful!
the time is now! we must end this god damn chain of corrupt/stupid leaders and politicians!
inurb, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6unconstitutional
negotiator, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Actually, these bills are just that... congressional bills. In fact, there is a large number of BILLS that are unconstitutional when first presented. They generally reflect the influence of lobbyists on congressmen and women. Once the bill hits the floor, the others in Congress will generally wipe out the parts that appear unconstitutional. In only a small number of cases, does actual unconstitutional laws become enacted. Except recently, it seems as if more and more of those are becoming law
spyd3rweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13The ninth and tenth amendments were included to make absolutely sure there was no misunderstanding about the limited powers the Constitution grants to the federal government.

Amendment IX:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now, where's the right to privacy?

It is clearly in those two amendments.

The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.

That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution.
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3You cannot overlook the fact that the Constitution requires the federal government to protect and defend the territory and people of the United States. You can quote the entire constitution to back up your argument, but you should include the relevant portions that explicitly lay out what the federal government must do. Defending the territory and the people from foreign threats is one of those duties.
  
  As a result, the federal government must be empowered with certain powers in order to fulfill its constitutional requirements. If the federal government cannot perform its required responsibilities then we must replace it with a new one. However, changing the federal government doesn't change the external threats.
- williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@gabriels
  
  The people that snoop on Americans are an INTERNAL threat. They are like mad dogs. A danger to society. They should be eliminated form society.
Oversoul, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Is the government really asking for the ability to "monitor" email/surfing activity, or are they asking for such activity to be logged so "if" they need to look at it in the future, in relation to a criminal investigation one would assume, there would be some historical data to look at?

I have a hard time believing they (the government) could mine this date in "real-time", or even collect it into a central database for "keyword" searching, etc.

I think for purposes of prosecuting pedophiles, and various other Internet stalkers, this might be a "good" thing...

I DON"T think it's a good idea if the intent is truly to "monitor" private communications of the general public for "political" purposes.
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1There is no reason you should have negative ratings for your post. It's honest, upfront, and real.
  
  You are correct. The bill appears to put demands on ISP to log data just as phone carriers are required by law to log calls. At some point, this data may be requested by law enforcement provided that they have a warrant to collect the information.
  
  A lot of commenters are very afraid of this, but I don't know if they realize that this data is already collected on every phone call made in the United States and most of Europe.
HalFTW, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1oops, ment to reply above, digg this down...
cornfednbred, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Please vote for Ron Paul so we don't have to put up with ***** like this for much longer.
cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Better yet.... Could someone please explain how these Democrats that are supposed to save us from the evil Republicans are supposed to fix this? Or, if they even care?

Vote Libertarian!
- cornfednbred, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5"Vote Libertarian"
  
  Vote Ron Paul, even though he's running as Republican...
mookieXL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4http://digg.onion or maybe http://digg.i2p
Think about it, Kevin
skyfire1, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2They just want to find out where I get all of my porn from so they can satisfy themselves. Cunning bastards.
jdavid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14ok, time to start a new internet based on mesh networks, we need to get rid of the middle man NOW!
jron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11personally, i'm all for this. would be nice to get EVERYONE using encryption ALL the time. this government can't stop finding new ways to screw themselves.
thelordofcheese, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Well this is blatantly unconstitutional. REQUIRING ISPs to do this? With today's computers why don't we all find a way to make Vidalia and Tor the mainstay ISP connectivity resources?
- jron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5the main reason tor can't catch on in the US is because there is no provider competition in the US which end up keeping our upstream capped at a blazing 20-50 kbps.
idiggmacs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10And I thought Minority Report was just a movie.
trer, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Ahh, the good ol' Constitution. Remember that it's a tattered piece of paper with some ink on it. That's ALL it is. I'm against the government interfering in the lives of the private citizen, but please don't be so naive to think that some piece of paper is really going to save you from an untimely fate. If they want to get you, they WILL get you, constitution be damned.

People talk about that thing like some deity wrote it or something...It was made by humans and like anything made by humans, it can be changed at will or at least circumvented, no matter the song and dance they play to make it look "official".

The United States has had its hands in changing the constitutions of other countries. Remember the Zapatistas?
davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9They strip our rights a little at a time until one day we say "where did my country go?" It doesn't matter if they claim it's protecting us from terrorists, or our children from preditors, the reality is they want to concentrate power and create an America of elites holding all power and wealth. We're almost there, a couple of more years, perhaps.
ChubbyBear, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Well, there are other things dangerous about them monitoring all your internet transactions.

With all your records being recorded it would allow them to fall into the wrong hands. Could you imagine these records falling into the wrong hands?

All your banking transactions, your bills, medical information etc.

Plus, do they realize how much work this would be? They would have to give every individual person their own static IP address along with information about that person. I dont think there are physically enough IP's to do this. They are already running into this problem now with the RIAA prosecuting people who have IP's of people that have downloaded before.

Again I say...The government just needs to keep out of everyones business. They remind me of a nosey parent, they want to know what all their kids are doing at all times. They just need to keep out of the worlds and its own peoples business.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Every hacker is going to want this database. And some ***** bureaucrat will take his laptop home and then it'll get hacked and fifty million people will get letters that their personal information was stolen and take precautions to protect you identity. Here it is, they track you, then when they screw up and your information gets stolen, they put the responsibility of correcting it on you.
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Do you know if your ISP ALREADY collects this data? It's quite possible that they've been collecting this data for years in anticipation that eventually law enforcement is going to want to request logs of Internet based communications.
aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Let's collect this information and make it fully public. That way everyones privacy is invaded, and this bill is quickly removed. Let's see how many politicians want their internet browsing history available to their constituents.
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7That's it right there. Will THEIR surfing habits be recorded? Congress has a nasty habit of passing laws they exempt themselves from.
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If the politician is using a commerical ISP, then yes, their traffic would be recorded as well.
Tmacman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11George Bush said "they hate us for our freedom."

If Bush and the congress have their way, I'd ask "what freedom?"
- davesbrain, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7You have the freedom to protest in the "designated free speach zones" they set up for you under the highway overpass three miles from theri convensions.
3n7r0py, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12We live under the control of a tyrannical dictator, who he himself is controlled by the PRIVATE bank - the Federal Reserve. We're not using our Constitution and/or Bill of Rights anymore... May 08 we're getting the "REAL ID Act" National ID cards with Radiofrequency chips - the time has come, GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH!
- jron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Or... just give me Ron Paul in 08. =)
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Paging Death. Please pick up the nearest white courtesy gun. You are needed in sector 7. We have a death request.
- k0vic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1no way, that's how it should be, people need to be monitor and watched like animals to ensure the survive of man kind. It is the only way. We just need a strong enough dictator to take charge and lay down the law, we have become things we tried to protect the world from. I say blow it up, start over.Let the apes take over. In the movie they did a hell of a lot better job than we did. At least Apes know Ape should never kill Ape....... Resistance is futile
GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1If anyone knows anything about this bill, please post the details here.

What is the bill number? Is it a House Resolution bill or a Senate Resolution bill?

It would really help if we could link to the Thomas version of the bill at thomas.loc.gov.
Elbart, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Welcome to the EU Data Retention Act.
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Thanks. I knew Europe had something similar to this. It appears that this is the general term for data retention in EU countries.
SandR0ck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Sounds like some kinda of Digital Wire Tap. Those were deemed illegal.
- GabrielS, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Please explain. What exactly was deemed illegal? When was it deemed illegal? Who deemed it illegal?
fatbyjhnsn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Our website is at a crawl right now. Thanks for all the traffic! Please take a few minutes to check out the rest of The Seminal, and bookmark it for future use. Below is a summery of what you can do if you want to get involved and help kill this bill. From the article:

"There are two ways to make members of Congress listen to your concerns.

1. Inundate them with phone calls and emails.
2. Get negative media coverage of what they are trying to accomplish.

Please contact any or all of the people and organizations listed below. Let them know that the SAFETY ACT, as it is written, is not acceptable.

Sponsor:
Rep. Lamar Smith, http://lamarsmith.house.gov/FormCheck.asp - 202-225-4236

Cosponsors:
Rep. Steve Chabot, (202) 225-2216
Rep. Tom Feeney, (202) 225-2706
Rep. J. Randy Forbes, (202) 225-6365
Rep. Trent Franks, (202) 225-4576
Rep. Elton Gallegly, (202) 225-5811
Rep. Dan Lungren, (202) 225-5716
Rep. Mike Pence, (202) 225-3021

House Judiciary Committee Chair:
Rep. John Conyers, (202) 225-5126

ACLU:
http://aclu.org/contact/general/index.html

A few media contacts:

2020@abc.com, 360@cnn.com, 48hours@cbsnews.com, 60m@cbsnews.com, aaron.zitner@latimes.com, abc.news.magazines@abc.com, abenfer@salon.com, abenitez@univision.net, abramowitz@washpost.com, abramsreport@msnbc.com, achenbachj@washpost.com, ahrensf@washpost.com, aizenmann@washpost.com, alan.miller@latimes.com, alan@alan.com, alevin@usatoday.com, allenh@washpost.com, am@cnn.com, amontgomery@salon.com, andrea.koppel@turner.com, aradelat@gns.gannett.com, aranam@washpost.com, areiter@salon.com, argetsinger@washpost.com, armstrongs@csps.com, arshad.mohammed@reuters.com, astone@usatoday.com, ataylor@npr.org, axtmank@csps.com, ayork@salon.com, bakerp@washpost.com, balzd@washpost.com, barbara.serrano@latimes.com, barrj@washpost.com, barrs@washpost.com, barry.siegel@latimes.com, bduffy@usnews.com, beckerj@washpost.com, bennettp@washpost.com, benningv@washpost.com, betsy.fischer@nbc.com, beyersd@washpost.com, bill.rempel@latimes.com, bill.schneider@turner.com, billy.house@arizonarepublic.com, bjapsen@tribune.com, bnaylor@npr.org, bnichols@usatoday.com, bob.drogin@latimes.com, bobherb@nytimes.com, bonesteelm@washpost.com, boustanyn@washpost.com, bpc@cbsnews.com, brelis@globe.com, brennanp@washpost.com, brian_hill@metronetworks.com, brinkerbob@aol.com, browar57@aol.com, brownw@washpost.com, bslavin@usatoday.com, bsteigerwald@tribweb.com, burns@nytimes.com, buzzflash@buzzflash.com, bwelch@usatoday.com, bwilson@npr.org, bwyman@salon.com, candy.crowley@turner.com, carlsonp@washpost.com, carol.lin@turner.com, castanedar@washpost.com, cchocano@salon.com, ccolin@salon.com, cflintoff@npr.org, cgarrett@tribune.com, charlierose@pbs.org, cherylnyt@nytimes.com, chinnid@csps.com, chod@washpost.com, chuck.neubauer@latimes.com, CJ@MSNBC.com, clarkp@washpost.com, clavin@phillynews.com, cohensh@washpost.com, colmes@foxnews.com, contact@pacifica.org, contactus@wrn.org, cookd@csps.com, coopermana@washpost.com, copelandl@washpost.com, corrections@npr.org, countdown@msnbc.com, cushman@nytimes.com, cwindham@npr.org, cynthia@ajc.com, dabrahms@gns.gannett.com, dabrooks@nytimes.com, dakirk@nytimes.com, dardalan@npr.org, daryl@salon.com, dasang@nytimes.com, dastor@editorandpublisher.com, dateline@nbc.com, davan.maharaj@latimes.com, davenportc@washpost.com, david.kelly@latimes.com, david.savage@latimes.com, david.willman@latimes.com, david.zucchino@latimes.com, davisp@washpost.com, dawn@salon.com, dawsone@washpost.com, dayk@washpost.com, dcorn@thenation.com, dcruickshank@salon.com, ddmarko@wdtn.com, deaned@washpost.com, deinerj@washpost.com, deirdre.walsh@turner.com, deyoungk@washpost.com, dgonyea@npr.org, dij@cbsnews.com, dillinj@csps.com, dkeil@bloomberg.net, dmedrano@telemundo.com, dobbsm@washpost.com, don.frederick@latimes.com, don.woutat@latimes.com, donovanc@washpost.com, doyle.mcmanus@latimes.com, drezenr@washpost.com, drobinson@wdtn.com, drshow@wamu.org, dschorr@npr.org, dshuster@msnbc.com, duttj@washpost.com, dvorakp@washpost.com, Dwycliff@tribune.com, econrad@pressherald.com, editor@reuters.com, editor@usatoday.com, editorial@nytimes.com, editorial@progressive.org, Editors@newsweek.com, efm@cbsnews.com, eggend@washpost.com, ekelly@gns.gannett.com, elizabeth.mehren@latimes.com, ellen.barry@latimes.com, ellengoodman@globe.com, email@wrn.org, emcdonnell@npr.org, erschm@nytimes.com, evaldez@univision.net, evening@cbsnews.com, executive-editor@nytimes.com, fair@fair.org, faye.fiore@latimes.com, fbremner@gns.gannett.com, febarr@nytimes.com, feedback@ap.org, feedback@msnbc.com, feedback@necn.com, fjames@tribune.com, fmorgan@salon.com, foreign@guardian.co.uk, foreign@nytimes.com, foreigneditor@independent.co.uk, freshair@whyy.org, ftn@cbsnews.com, galbraith@mail.utexas.edu, gborger@usnews.com, gdelama@tribune.com, geoff@radioleft.com, georgewill@washpost.com, gflanders@usatoday.com, ghager@usatoday.com, glenn.bunting@latimes.com, gpierce@washingtontimes.com, grain@cbsnews.com, grays@csps.com, greg.hitt@wsj.com, greg.miller@latimes.com, grierp@csps.com, gsealey@salon.com, GWashburn@tribune.com, hardball@msnbc.com, howie@wnir.com, hprzybyla@bloomberg.net, icemandc@msn.com, imus@msnbc.com, imusshow@yahoo.com, info@ap.org, info@cnbc.com, info@jimhightower.com, info@michaelmoore.com, info@thenation.com, ingwersonm@csps.com, investigations_desk@upi.com, James.Rainey@latimes.com, jane_mayer@newyorker.com, janet.hook@latimes.com, jbiskupic@usatoday.com, jcarroll@gns.gannett.com, jcochran@npr.org, jcohen@bloomberg.net, jconason@observer.com, jcrewdson@tribune.com, jeanne.cummings@wsj.com, jeanne.meserve@turner.com, jeff.greenfield@cnn.com, jim.walton@turner.com, jimhoagland@washpost.com, jkeen@usatoday.com, jlawrence@usatoday.com, jloven@ap.org, jlyden@npr.org, jmccaslin@washingtontimes.com, jmillman@salon.com, jmulligan@belo-dc.com, jnorman@dmreg.com, joan.springhetti@latimes.com, joe@msnbc.com, joel.havemann@latimes.com, johanna.neuman@latimes.com, john.glionna@latimes.com, john.stewart@latimes.com, john.whitesides@reuters.com, johncorby@clearchannel.com, johnson@globe.com, jonathan.peterson@latimes.com, jonathan.wald@nbc.com, jonesc@csps.com, josh.getlin@latimes.com, josh.meyer@latimes.com, journal@c-span.org, JPeres@tribune.com, jridgeway@villagevoice.com, jsweeney@salon.com, jtapper@salon.com, JTrippi@MSNBC.com, judy.pasternak@latimes.com, jules_siegel@cafecancun.com, julie.bowles@latimes.com, justice@nytimes.com, justicetalking@asc.upenn.edu, jwalcott@krwashington.com, jwilliams@npr.org, jzuckman@tribune.com, kamiya@salon.com, kberger@salon.com, kcooper@globe.com, kevin.sack@latimes.com, kieferf@csps.com, kjohnson@usatoday.com, kkiely@usatoday.com, klauerman@salon.com, KOlbermann@msnbc.com, krudin@npr.org, krugman@nytimes.com, kscott@gns.gannett.com, kurtzh@washpost.com, kwalsh@usnews.com, kyra.phillips@turner.com, lauram@salon.com, lbivins@gns.gannett.com, leslie.hoffecker@latimes.com, letter@globe.com, letters.editor@ft.com, letters@economist.com, letters@guardian.co.uk, letters@iht.com, Letters@newsweek.com, letters@nytimes.com, letters@slate.com, letters@time.com, letters@usnews.com, letters@washingtontimes.com, letters@washpost.com, lettersbwol@businessweek.com, lewin@nytimes.com, lhansen@npr.org, liberties@nytimes.com, liberties@smtp-store.nytimes.com, ligree@nytimes.com, linda.finestone@latimes.com, Lionel@LionelOnline.com, liptaka@nytimes.com, lisa.hsia@nbc.com, livefrom@cnn.com, livetoday@cnn.com, lmargasak@ap.org, lseals@timesdispatch.com, lou.dobbs@turner.com, loudobbs@cnn.com, lusa@npr.org, maggie.farley@latimes.com, mail@democracynow.org, maillist@michaelmoore.com, maria.laganga@latimes.com, marjorie.miller@latimes.com, mark.barabak@latimes.com, mark.porubcansky@latimes.com, markoff@nytimes.com, marksa@csps.com, mary.braswell@latimes.com, maryann.meek@latimes.com, matea.gold@latimes.com, maura.reynolds@latimes.com, mblock@npr.org, mclaughlina@csps.com, mcurtis@njn.org, mdorning@tribune.com, me@glennbeck.com, media@michaelmoore.com, mfollman@salon.com, mgroppe@gns.gannett.com, mhall@usatoday.com, michael.finnegan@latimes.com, michael.muskal@latimes.com, michelle@salon.com, mike@mikemalloy.com, miles.obrien@turner.com, millie.quan@latimes.com, mimi.gurbst@abc.com, mitch@albom.com, miwein@nytimes.com, mjacoby@salon.com, mkeeley@salon.com, mkx@cbsnews.com, mliasson@npr.org, mmadden@gns.gannett.com, MMFlint@aol.com, mnaymik@plaind.com, modonnell@salon.com, mossm@nytimes.com, MPossley@tribune.com, msilverman@ap.org, msnbcinvestigates@msnbc.com, msnbcreports@msnbc.com, muriel.pearson@abc.com, mzuckerman@usnews.com, national@nytimes.com, nconan@npr.org, nealznunze@cox.com, NETAUDR@abc.com, news@capitolhillbureau.org, news@michaelmoore.com, NewsAlert@letters.washingtonpost.com, newseditor@independent.co.uk, newshour@pbs.org, newsonline@bbc.co.uk, news-tips@nytimes.com, newstips@wdtn.com, nightline@abcnews.com, nightly@nbc.com, nightwatch@washpost.com, niteline@abc.com, norville@msnbc.com, now@thirteen.org, npickler@ap.org, npronsirius@npr.org, ntotenberg@npr.org, nytnews@nytimes.com, offer@centralmaine.com, oliphant@globe.com, omblade@aol.com, ombudsman@globe.com, ombudsman@npr.org, ombudsman@washpost.com, online@tnr.com, onthemedia@wnyc.org, oped@csps.com, oped@thestar.ca, patrick.mcdonnell@latimes.com, patt.morrison@latimes.com, paul.feldman@latimes.com, paula.zahn@turner.com, Paula.Zahn2@cnn.com, pbreslow@npr.org, pbrogan@gns.gannett.com, pekilb@nytimes.com, peter.wallsten@latimes.com, pfessler@npr.org, phardin@mediageneral.com, phart@fair.org, phil.boyce@abc.com, philip.stephens@ft.com, pjh@cbsnews.com, plorris@univision.net, pls@cbsnews.com, pma@cbsnews.com, politics.editor@guardianunlimited.co.uk, politics@guardian.co.uk, politics_desk@upi.com, powellm@washpost.com, pressreleases@upi.com, public@nytimes.com, publiceditor@baltsun.com, rajiv@washpost.com, randall.mikkelsen@reuters.com, rbc@cbsnews.com, rchebium@gns.gannett.com, readerrep@chron.com, reissc@nytimes.com, religion@washpost.com, rfournier@ap.org, richard.cooper@latimes.com, richard.simon@latimes.com, richeyw@csps.com, rkemper@tribune.com, rob@opednews.com, robin.abcarian@latimes.com, rod.prince@nbc.com, roger.ainsley@latimes.com, ron@csmonitor.com, ropear@nytimes.com, rotone@nytimes.com, rreagan@msnbc.com, rrhodes@airamericaradio.com, rsiegel@npr.org, ruth@salon.com, rvizcon@telemundo.com, rwolf@usatoday.com, safire@nytimes.com, scott.gold@latimes.com, scott.kraft@latimes.com, scottr@salon.com, sheberer@pbs.org, shohauser@fair.org, sjohnson@ap.org, slabaton@nytimes.com, spage@usatoday.com, sstamberg@npr.org, stark@salon.com, stella.dawson@reuters.com, stephanie.simon@latimes.com, stephanie@stephaniemiller.com, sternshow@howardstern.com, steve.braun@latimes.com, steve.holland@reuters.com, steve.majors@nbc.com, stolberg@nytimes.com, stu.schutzman@abc.com, sullivanc@csps.com, sundays@cbsnews.com, support@abcnews.go.com, susan.dutcher@nbc.com, szacharek@salon.com, talbotd@salon.com, tawalker@airamericaradio.com, tgrieve@salon.com, theforum@usatoday.com, themail@newyorker.com, theworld@pri.org, thfrie@nytimes.com, thisweek@abc.com, thunt@ap.org, tips@upi.com, todd.eastham@reuters.com, tom.furlong@latimes.com, tom.hamburger@latimes.com, tom.lea@nbc.com, tom.mccarthy@latimes.com, topurd@nytimes.com, traum@ap.org, vannatta@nytimes.com, vanslambrouckp@csps.com, viewerservices@msnbc.com, wam@cnn.com, washington@nytimes.com, watc@npr.org, WebEditors@newsweek.com, webnews@washingtonpost.com, webnews@wpni.com, WestT@thirteen.org, wesun@npr.org, whispers@usnews.com, wnn@abcnews.com, worldwide@npr.org, wroberts@bloomberg.net, wsj.ltrs@wsj.com, wsjcontact@dowjones.com

*I have taken the time to compile this information. If what you have read here disturbs you, please take action on this or do more research on your own.*"
- NetJoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Lamar Smith is perhaps the most harebrained, narrow-minded, corrupt DeLay henchman of the batch. He worked wonders as head of the house ethics committee. I'm having a hard time believing he got re-elected even in Texas. This guy needs to get out of office.
protogenxl, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1great, so now I have to start using one time pad encryption on my emails.
- prh99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4OTP isn't effective unless you have a source of true random data for a key, and you only use it once. So you're going to have to start collecting the noise made by cosmic radiation or radio active decay. It's not very practical for larger data sets cause the key has be just as big as whatever you encrypt.
prh99, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Actually the bill leave it wide open for the Attorney General to decide what kept and for how long, with real limit imposed on what he can decide. At one point I would have voted for John McCain, but sense he has been courting the likes of Jerry Falwell he has become unelectable IMO.

If you ever wondered what good PGP or GPG and TOR were, consider this bill your answer.

"Let's get this straight: because there's, say, a .00001% chance of me
being killed or otherwise abused by the mob, the corner dope pusher,
kiddie porn freaks, or religious-nut bombers, I'm supposed to sacrifice my
privacy, freedom of speech, security, and other civil liberties? I think
not."
- Stanton McCandlish
- prh99, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3oops typo, "with real limit imposed" should be "without any real limit imposed"
fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Can anyone explain how this is feasible?
mliving, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Install and use Tor! Problem solved.
ISP's will fight this kind of legislation tooth and nail because it would cost them TOO MUCH MONEY!
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

New Bill Requires ISPs to Monitor All Email Traffic and Surfing Activity

Login or register to add a comment