34 ISPs Subpoenaed By U.S. Government 391
seanonymous writes "The Justice Department, in their continued effort to revive questionable legislation, has subpoenaed dozens of ISPs for files. Considering that ISPs generally host their users' mail, this seems like it could be a larger issue than their fight with Google over search queries. Some, like Verizon, even resisted the call for information." From the article: "Representatives for McAfee and Symantec confirmed that the companies had received and complied with the subpoenas. A spokeswoman at LookSmart did not immediately return a phone call. Many of the subpoenas asked for information related to products that can be used to filter out adult content for underage Internet users. Symantec's subpoena, dated June 29, asked for a wide range of information about the price and popularity of the Internet filtering products it sells and how the products are used by customers. " Information Week has a number of the documents involved, including the letter of objection from Verizon.
Re:Thin end of the wedge? (Score:2, Informative)
This is not about "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY". It is (supposedly) about a law that is designed to prevent children from LOOKING AT pornography. It's also a load of BS, but at least get their lame-assed excuse right.
Re:Thank goodness I'm not in the US.. (Score:5, Informative)
Religious people don't just want to remove [insert_immoral_action_here] from their own life. They beleive it is their sacred duty to prevent everyone else from doing it as well. Regardless of the law everyone's agreed to live under.
Remember, this is the president who actually beleives god instructs him personally
Cripe (Score:5, Informative)
Why on Earth is a humble ISP supposed to provide the DOJ with this information, and how are they supposed to do it? And why doesn't the DOJ just research this themselves if this is such a big deal for them?
Re:I love porn! (Score:3, Informative)
Not at all. Do you really think the spy agencies would publicly reveal one of their most valuable assets, just to get some stupid DoJ pet project finished?
This does nothing to confirm or deny the existence of echelon/carnivore/any other massive government snoop operations.
Re:I just don't get it. (Score:3, Informative)
Because there is no evidence that the information is relevant. A citizen can't just bring a case before the court and ask for information on the government just because they beleive it's crucial to the case.
"Your honor, I beleive the confession that will prove my innosense has been sealed in the concrete comprising the Washington Monument. If you wouldn't mind just knocking that ol' thing down so I can retrieve it..."
Already been done for DVD's... (Score:3, Informative)
The ClearPlay DVD player will take a file from ClearPlay to use to skip objectionable portions. Both the MPAA and the Directors Guild of America sued ClearPlay. The MPAA claimed it created a derivative work, the DGA claimed it harmed the brand name of its member directors.
I read a lot of posts about confusion... (Score:2, Informative)
To clarify the confusion; this step is being pushed through to give the government key information that will help them undertand the psychology of the average internet user in effort to make moves towards influencing & controlling the information (like is done in every other popular media form). Unfortuantely, Google alone cannot stop this.
Where we fail is that we think it will be obvious like:
Gov. body: "American people, can we take control of the internet to further our own greed?"
Of course the American people would reply:
American people: "Hell no!"
But don't think for a minute, for a nano-second, that these manuevers will be overtly public & obvious and without spin. No, it will likely take the standard "scare you with something to fear, then offer a vague solution that favors Gov." form that we fall for again and again.
What makes me say this? How do i know?
Because it works and is exactly what i (and any clear thinking person) would do if they had such desire and the resources (our tax dollars at work); which i don't in either case... i tend to more lean towards those crazy "sharing is better than hoarding" & "truth reigns supreme" ideas... But we all know what bullshit those ideas are, right? right?
Re:I just don't get it. (Score:3, Informative)
Your honor, I beleive the confession that will prove my innosense has been sealed in the concrete comprising the Washington Monument.
Son, the Washington Monument is made of marble.
Re:Its a consequence of open government... (Score:2, Informative)
In the case of private companies they are unrestricted in gathering amazingly detailed information on innocent people. In fact currently the market only encourages these things both to the benefit of their customers and to themselves.
The problem is that the government can [and does] use these data sources when needed. It is a giant loophole in personal privacy from the government. They cannot directly collect info on me unless they suspect me of a crime. If they want to buy access to my data from a private business [without suspecting me of a crime] they can do so. Major loophole.
The larger danger is that there is no legal or monetary motivation for accurate data. If a data collection company has data that I have bad credit due to identity theft they have no motivation to really fix it, even if it ruins my financial future.
There needs to be regulations about what is allowed to be capture, shared, and sold similar to medical privacy laws. Certain other information is just as important to keep private. Though lobbyists will deter any action Congress might consider.
Re:I just don't get it. (Score:2, Informative)
p.s. The ACLU files suit aginst the person of the AG in his professinal capacity on an almost weekly basis, if not more often. There are even more "ACLU v Ashcroft" than Gonzales has the honor of being named in. They "really" liked Mr Ashcroft.