US Legislation Approved Means ISPs Must Retain 1 Year Of Customer Data

[engine]

US Legislation Approved Means ISPs Must Retain One Year Of Customer Data [zdnet.co.uk]

US internet providers would be forced to keep logs of their customers' online activities for one year in case police want to review them in the future, under legislation approved by a House of Representatives committee on Thursday.

The 19-to-10 vote represents a victory for conservative Republicans, who made data retention their first major technology initiative after last autumn's elections, and the Justice Department officials who have quietly lobbied for the sweeping new requirements...

A last-minute rewrite of the bill expands the information that commercial internet providers are required to store to include customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers and temporarily-assigned IP addresses. By a 7-16 vote, the panel rejected an amendment that would have clarified that only IP addresses must be stored.

[JAB Creations]

Conservative Republicans? No, any "conservatives" that voted for increasing government control are called neo-cons (in Layman's terms: not real conservatives); that alone shows the author is either biased or lacking the proper knowledge to write the article correctly therefore they have forfeited their credibility on the topic. That being said this is yet another move to monitor civilians by the government which is in turn controlled by corporations which is in turn...etc etc.

- John

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Yet 'another' move to monitor civilians JAB? You mean you noticed the RFID devices in your underwear, cameras at every intersection and that pesky satellite that keeps catching your Sunday morning swim? Boy, just wait until you find out about your secret 'every-move' profile, occasional live datataps and the medical experiments being performed on you, assuming you have the right 'history' or live in the right 'demographic subset'. Heck, they irradiated entire towns at night just to test the long term effects back in the 60's, at least our handlers are more secretive now.

Back on topic - they want our data for a longer period but why? Was this little post I've just written part of that data? I'm just not that important, really.

[michvhf]

We have to be CISP compliant to store credit card numbers. How can they requires us to become compliant? There's a discussion on storing CC info here: [webmasterworld.com...]

[J_RaD]

US internet providers would be forced to keep logs of their customers' online activities for one year in case police want to review them in the future, under legislation approved by a House of Representatives committee on Thursday.

bad bad bad baddddd, make the police seize computers to figure that out, or subpoena a SE.

The 19-to-10 vote represents a victory for conservative Republicans, who made data retention their first major technology initiative after last autumn's elections, and the Justice Department officials who have quietly lobbied for the sweeping new requirements...

first major technology initiative? those meat heads have got plenty of better things on their plates then to be kicking this can around. I also don't like idiots that don't understand tech are creating laws for it.

[Lorel]

Since when does a vote via a legislative committee become law? The house and then the senate have to vote on it and the pres has to sign it.

[phranque]

it's a poorly (or perhaps ignorantly) written article.
the meaning of "approved" is never defined.
as far as i know the house committee can only vote to approve moving the proposed legislation to the floor for a vote among the general membership.
moving a vote "out of committee" is a key step in the process but it can also signal the dead end of the process.
in order to become law it would also require a majority vote in the senate and a presidential signature.

[koan]

Conservative Republicans? No, any "conservatives" that voted for increasing government control are called neo-cons

We see a lot of "No true Scotsman" logical fallacies these days, whenever a conservative do something some people don't like, they can't be called "conservative" anymore. Just like O'Reilly saying the christian extremist that killed all those people in Norway can't be a real "christian", since a christian wouldn't do that. It's pretty convenient, but you don't get to decide who is what. Conservatives have a big authoritarian streak regarding matter of security and morality, and that fits right into their usual politics.

[JAB Creations]

It's pretty convenient, but you don't get to decide who is what.

Straw-man arguments from both Koan and Axe. First let's define the straw man false argument...

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

- Wiki

So in Layman's terms straw man is where person A tries to suggest person B supports something they do not and then argues against person B in order to divert attention away from what person B is talking about, usually to also divert attention from what person A is covering up.

Really, this is the most common and easy to see through tactic in existence.

You want to bring up Norway? Okay: Norway was attacked for removing it's financial assets from Israel and declaring support for the Palestinians whose children sleep in bullet riddled houses. The controlled media have been outright racist in detailing the "single" attacker as being a white blue eyed blond haired far right extremist. The straw man diverts from what? The shooter had no significant training with fire arms, with his limited ammo he was able to shoot so accurately that he killed that many people? No, reports have come in that there were multiple shooters, do I trust those reports or the racist media? Hm, I'm going to go with those reports since I also find it impossible that the same guy also apparently blew up half of downtown entirely on his own.

Koan's straw man tactic negated, I will address Sgt's post...

Sgt's "retort" is another stereotypical tactic: straw man mockery. Funny, he forgot to mention the Patriot Act which allows the government anti-constitutional access to things for which they should require a warrant for. The "conservatives" that voted to uphold it can say they are one thing though the ones who voted to keep it are clearly neo-cons. A person is what they do, not necessarily what they say.

Say one thing, do another...straw man arguments, etc. Agendas stand out like the sun at midnight.

- John

[aleksl]

JAB, give em a jab.

Strangely, I (also a Senior Member) was almost banned here a few months back for saying "oy, vei" in my mention of jewish bank Goldman Sachs /who, incidentally, has 2 latest secretaries of US Treasury, i.e. fox is guarding the hen house with the ok of a rooster (O-bummer)/.

Come on brother, let's get these people heads out of their arses, or this country will collapse on the ignorance.

[frontpage]

Yep, its those 'evil' neo-cons, right?

Where did this legislative act come from? Oh, yeah... a Democrat.

Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat.

Guess, Obama is a neo-con too as he supported the bill as well.

Representing the Obama administration at tomorrow's hearing will be Jason Weinstein, deputy assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's criminal division.

What is the name of this bill so onerous to some?

Protecting Children From Internet #*$!ographers Act of 2011

[thomas.loc.gov...]

[aleksl]

frontpage, anything that is called "protecting the children" in last 20 years is a fraud full of political pork that needs to have a completely opposite title.

Point two:
Democrats, republicans - fraud too. Stop believing in this crap. There's only one party in US of A - it is cleptocracy, the party is Rockfeller and bankster-controlled Council on Foreign Relations, with its offshoot Trilateral Commission. In the last 30-40 years not only all final presidential candidates, but even most preliminary (in the last elections something like 19 out of 20) where members of Council on Foreign Relations. Everywhere else in the world it is called a single party dictatorship. The red-blue and blue-red teams ARE ONE AND THE SAME (that's why they increasingly call for "bipartisanship" i.e. DICTATORSHIP again).

Point three:
Everywhere else in the world congressmen who pledged allegiance to another state (dual citizenship) would be at least immediately fired, and in time of war should be jailed for life for TREASON. I guess not in US.

Open your eyes, people, and get your head out of TV arses.

Yes, and you can ban me if you can't handle the truth.

[phranque]

<moderator>ok now that y'all got that political stuff out of the way, let's get back to the subject of this thread, which is the status of US legislation requiring data retention by ISPs.</moderator>

[J_RaD]

back to the subject? haha this thread took a hard left right out of the gate.

[tangor]

Tad astonished that any would think ISPs would throw away any data accumulated... Google doesn't (and we all complain about that!).

What's at question is the REQUIREMENT ala Law Enforcement that should addressed. And that this bill sneaked in under the radar while the Debt Ceiling Crisis was in full swing. Aside to phranque, not meant to be a political statement, but that's how sausage is made in Washington these days: when no one is looking.

[cabbie]

I think this is the better link to the story.
[news.cnet.com ]

It has more information and explains 2 sides to the story.

[Future]

"something big behind the scenes"

[thecoalman]

bad bad bad baddddd, make the police seize computers to figure that out, or subpoena a SE.

They would still have to do that, my understanding is it merely sets a time limit on how long they have to retain that data. The ISP's are already doing it, perhaps not a year but nonetheless still doing it.

I'd be concerned about what the ISP is doing with that data, they should of made the law keep it for a year and then it has to be deleted. :)

[graeme_p]

They should be required to delete it straight away.

Of course, the people who have something to hide will use VPNs, proxies and other people's connections. It will end up like the British "anti-terrorist" powers that end up being used to snoop on people suspected of failing to clear up their dogs excreta, or lying about where they live to get their kids into better schools.

[J_RaD]

They would still have to do that, my understanding is it merely sets a time limit on how long they have to retain that data. The ISP's are already doing it, perhaps not a year but nonetheless still doing it.

to me this just means they are saying "keep it cause we are coming for it"

They should be required to delete it straight away.

yep

Of course, the people who have something to hide will use VPNs, proxies and other people's connections

its not really a matter of something to hide or not, same goes for I wouldn't want someone looking over my shoulder as I type this post.

If you knew someone was listing to your phone calls no matter what you were talking about you wouldn't really wanna talk on the phone anymore.

I feel like if this falls into place im going to have to do 75% of my surfing on an encrypted VPN.

[swirl]

>I feel like if this falls into place im going to have to do 75% of my surfing on an encrypted VPN.

From a technical standpoint, what exactly does an ISP "record" with regard to one's online activities?

I'm envisioning a system that is akin to an ongoing "screen capture video" of everything that's taking place on your computer screen while your web browser is open.

Is this what's being talked about? If not, then what exactly (in layman's terms) is being collected and stored for 12 months? Is it more like a "keystroke logger" that records everything you type on the keyboard while the web browser is open?

I'd be appreciative of any links or information that could shed some light as to the exact nature of what's being recorded and/or saved.

Thanks!