Thread: Forcing ISPs to log users’ web history

I actually think I am on the side of John Conyers and the ACLU on this one, so there may be something wrong with my position. From this article -

House panel approves bill forcing ISPs to log users’ web history | The Raw Story

The House Judiciary Committee approved legislation on Thursday that would require Internet service providers (ISPs) to collect and retain records about Internet users' activity.

CNET reported the bill would require ISPs to retain customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses for 12 months.

The bill passed by a vote of 19 to 10, and is aimed at helping law enforcement track down pedophiles.

"The bill is mislabeled," Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), a senior member of the panel told CNET. "This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It's creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes."

The reasoning from Lamar Smith, Republican from Texas, is incredibly lame -

“When investigators develop leads that might result in saving a child or apprehending a pedophile, their efforts should not be frustrated because vital records were destroyed simply because there was no requirement to retain them," Smith said Thursday

Their were destroyed "simply because there was no requirement to retain them"? Hey Lamar, that's a big deal. What other "vital records" is he interested in mandating the collection of? Let's just simply make a law about it!

Plus, this new requirement will certainly add cost to the service and result in higher internet fees. Adding cost to the economy is particularly bad idea in times like these. Why don't they just take a couple of years off from enacting unnecessary legislation?

They shouldn't enact it at all. Why should ISPs and their customers be forced to assist criminal investigations? Speaking in general, I wouldn't want to be forced by police to keep a record of every vehicle's license plate I see while driving just in case that information turns out to be important to them. I'd rather just "destroy" it from my memory by forgetting it. And I certainly would not enjoy being dragged into court to testify against my will when I committed no crime. How would you feel if you had to do those things just because you happen to engage in a certain activity, like driving?

As I understand it, it both can't be done and is being done already.

The US cannot enforce it's laws on foreign proxy servers. OTOH there is substantial evidence that the NSA has been archiving the net for years, but cannot use the information against pedophiles both because of legal issues (" so, counsel, your probable cause was that this guy put the name Emma Watson into a search engine?") and for fear of alerting the foreign intelligence services that are its prime target.

House panels pass all kinds of shit that will never get past the legal committee, let alone any court. In 1994 a survey of freshmen congressman delivered a resounding "NO" when asked if it would support what later turned out to be a paraphrase of the Bill of Rights.

I think we need a law that does just the opposite. They should require ISPs to scrub your credit card number from their database as soon as they recieve payment.

Conyers is right about one thing for sure: these tools are never used just for the purpose stated. Sooner rather than later, this power will be used as a general way to gather information about the public.

What's interesting about this has nothing to do with Lamar Smith -- who, I agree, is wrong about this -- but about the response to Lamar Smith. See, Lamar Smith is a Republican, but he's participating in classic liberal "good intentions." He wants to catch pedophiles and this is how he's going to go about it. That's good. But we all see that his methodology is not good. But it's interesting because there are LOTS of other areas where "good intentions" drive programs that are just as clearly invalid or blatantly unconstitutional and the same people are like "so? You mean you are FOR blah blah blah?" So I'm more amused by the people responding to Lamar Smith -- both Congressionally and publically -- than I am interested in what Lamar Smith actually is saying.

Notice though what else is happening here. They are missing the plot. Is the purpose of going after pedophiles to protect children, or is it to keep pedophiles from having fun? For example, websites that have pictures of female celebrities where the idea is that the pictures are supposed to be titillating(like if a breast gets flashed), are constantly scrubbed by moderators to remove pictures of any celebrity under 18. Which is absolutely find and good, websites should do that, and I wouldn't have problems with the government taking action against websites to shut them down if they have 15-year old Hannah Montana pictures where a booby falls out. Where it crosses the line into puritanism rather than protecting children is when you go after people on criminal charges who possess or look at these pictures. On the theory that someday they might graduate to actually harming children. When the reality is that rather than being pedophiles, they are just guys who look at titillating pictures and don't think about how old the person in it is. That's someone else's job.

Originally Posted by adaher

When the reality is that rather than being pedophiles, they are just guys who look at titillating pictures and don't think about how old the person in it is. That's someone else's job.

I don't know that it's someone else's job to make sure that the naked person you're looking at is the right age, lol.

Well, you can't ask a photo, or even a video, for ID.

Originally Posted by C-B-M

I don't know that it's someone else's job to make sure that the naked person you're looking at is the right age, lol.

Nudity alone is not grounds for child porn.