Bill would require ISPs to keep user data

[Terri]

By UPI Staff
United Press International
February 14, 2007

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Legislation introduced in the U.S. Congress would require Internet service providers to keep user data.

U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, says that the bill, part of the SAFETY Act, is aimed at predators who seek out children or child pornography on line, The Washington Post reported. The measure gives the U.S. attorney general the power to write regulations on what data would need to be preserved and how long it would have to be kept.

More

[slickwilly]

And how long until someone on the Hill realizes that all of the information they need is available to tax the users of the Internet?

Always in a good cause, always 'for the children,' and always used for evil in the end...

I will have to give Mr Smith (my Rep!) a piece of my mind!

[javajoy]

What about my privacy? What about my freedom of speech? This man is crazy.

[RW]

JJ,

there has NEVER been nor is there now, privacy on the Internet.

ISP's tend to have nosey geeks with no life administrating the systems. Especially in places other than big cities.

In Iowa, our small town had one ISP for a long time, guy ran it out of his house. My husband would drop in and visit with the guy. The guy would print out e-mails he had intercepted and show them to my husband, who would bring them home to me. My husband had him intercept MY e-mails and tell him where I went on the Internet!

There is NO law anywhere preventing this from happening to YOU or anyone else.

[azwhitewolf]

Take an honest look at how the Recording Industry Associaion of America has forced ISPs to release YOUR name to them - based on, in many instances, mere fabrication at best, and outright lie at worst.

People being served demand letters for $35,000, and they don't own a computer. 9 year old kids who share a Brittney song with their friends over P2P instead of burning the whole CD offline are subject to $7500. per song "because they're pirates"

If ISPs are forced to keep MORE information, it gives every industry a reason to follow suit.

Lamar Smith's Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2006 would be worse than the DMCA if it was passed. Hello, pay-per-listen music!

Lamar Smith is one of the RIAA's darlings. He was bought by the Cable, Internet, Music and Movie Industries to the tune of roughly $146,000. Two of his top three contributors.

A lawyer in bed with the RIAA Lawyers.

In bed again!

He wants to get rid of "Fair Use", including making copies of your own CDs.

Here's a good read about serving "settlement letters" to John Doe "violaters". Straight from the RIAA website. Nice to be accused of something, with full support of the courts, over something you didn't even do, with your information illegally obtained from your internet ISP in an attempt to extort you without ANY PROOF WHATSOEVER that you did the crime!!

And these guys want to make it WORSE by making the ISPs keep a record of what IP addresses you connect to... Seems the industry has "their man, Lamar Smith" helping them out.

"For the children", my foot!
Nice try, SELLOUT LAWYER!

The same goes for Orrin Hatch the hypocrite and computer exploder king, Patrick Leahy, John Conyers and Howard Berman.

[Billary2004]

Real solutions could be offered at the state level by voter mandates. Administering harsher sentences (life without parole) may be one viable solution. It really depends on what the voters believe is strong enough punishment.

As many have stated, the government policing of the internet is 1) not a good use of taxpayer money 2) an avenue that will allow for more oversight outside of tracking potential molesters. ISPs have every right to monitor on their own, but the fed gov't has no legal/constitutional authority to demand that information. While I feel that it would be a waste of money, the fed gov't can already police the internet by just surfing/logging on.

[javajoy]

I agree 100% with AZWW's post. Better watch out folks! Just another Government interference in your life. "Just you wait".

I know the internet isn't private BTW. Guess I am going to have to start adding something like [sarc/] to my posts since you can't hear it in my voice

[Speedway]

You guys are right. It sounds good at first, but the problem with the government is where does it end? I just think about how airport officials abuse their authority (I was searched for an hour and a half) and how the IRS does anything it wants without impunity (they froze my bank accounts for more than a week even though my social security number did not match who they wanted) and I think that they could harrass people who have done nothing wrong on the internet.

The thought police will be a dangerous thing indeed!

I can imagine them confiscating my computer for a month and then no apology when they realize they had an innocent party.

I'm surprised they haven't started keeping track of the books we read.

[Terri]

I read another story that analyzed this bill and found it too loosely written. I'd post it but I can't find it again.

So, given that this bill is bad how should we address the problem of Internet sexual predators without compromising everyone else? That was the real purpose of this, not protecting intellectual property.

[Speedway]

I think the sting operations where they pretend to be an adolescent and then get the predators to meet them. They have evidence then. And the government knows they got someone who was willing to actually harm a child.

The problem with tracking the internet is that you can get someone who has a fleeting thought, looks at some kid porn, gets disgusted with him/herself and never acts on it.

What people read and look at should never be an offense for which one can be arrested. As disgusting as I think kid porn is, this is not the way to combat it.

However, the makers of kid porn are a whole different animal. I would think tracking the ones who provide it to begin with is already fair game under current laws. If not, that should be addressed.

If it is from outside the U.S., I'd be all for blocking access to such sites.

The government with the current bill is obviously just looking for a door into our internet surfing and pretending to have good motives.

For a recent example of the government going hogwild affecting us all, look at HIPAA, implemented in 2003. HIPAA originally started for a good cause and that was to standardize medical claims. It was to help providers and patients. What the government ended up with was a horrendous amount of new paperwork with standardization put on the back burner.

It started good, but pretty much just created a heap of paperwork and no one go any benefit from the changes.

I foresee a similar mess with government interference with internet surfing.