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.
Says it all, really (Score:5, Insightful)
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
So now "not helping the government" is a crime in and of itself?
Re:Scary..? (Score:2, Insightful)
Thin end of the wedge? (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if the Government does not currently read everyone's mail the fact that ISPs store the email for a long time (forever?) means that eventually once all ISPs comply they will.
So don't send anything that you wouldn't be happy for the Government to read unless you use a web based account from a cybercafe terminal (where you can't be tied to an IP), and wear a disguise so you can't be ID'd from CCTV. Oh the paranoia.
News flash (Score:5, Insightful)
Data collection (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously even if this online child protection act fails they still have all the information they are requesting, what is to stop this information being cross indexed with the phone tap information, and credit information and anything else they may be gathering end result a rather worrying profile of a large cross section of the US population.
I am usually not a paranoid person I don't subscribe to most conspiracy theories but this is a rather worrying invasion of personal privacy, at this rate bring in a few psychiatrists to review the files they are building on you and build a profile next thing you know you get a knock on the door from the feds arresting you because your physiological profile indicates a possible threat to the internal security of the US in the future, because of your worrying desire to take a vacation in Eygpt and since Eygpt is a mostly islamic nation you must be a terrorist.
And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is this, do we continue with this network as it is now, let the man direct the traffic and install his regulations, or do we the geeks of the world build a new Internet in the hopes of even one more day of geekish freedom?
Re:Scary..? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I look at that and wonder.. reminds me of MS, they can't solve a problem themselves so beat it out of someone else who might have the solution. Except this is the government, I'm afraid to see how far they'll go to do what they want... I'm not just being paranoid am I?
What they're doing is trying to set up a case to argue that Congress needs to legislate more censorship and regulations to protect Americans from our own freedoms. What they should do is get their goddamn hand out of the pot and let the market decide what it needs. Do people want web filtering to protect their children? Let them pay for filters, or even better, take a hands-on approach with their children online. Either way, this is between consumers and producers. I don't see how the government belongs in this picture.
One of the most irritating things I find about television is the censorship. Even on shows that are above average as far as the brainpower of their target audience (e.g. Mythbusters), I find that I have to listen to goddamn beeps and blips all the time. I say let them swear, and don't censor it. If people don't like it, they won't watch, and will hopefully tell the producers why. Even better, implement some sort of on-demand filtering so my cable box censors it if I choose. Conservative Christian? Turn it on. Everyone else? Turn it off, enjoy the language. The same it true of the Internet. I don't want the FCC or Congress telling me what I can and cannot see or do online. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on. If I choose not to expose myself or my children to certain content, I will either not go to those sites, or I will allow the free market to provide content filtering software to me.
By the way, I don't usually watch much TV. Partly because of the mind-numbing dullness and idiocy, partly because I cannot stand censorship. I want my swear words!
Re:Scary..? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're not, especially with a DoJ run by someone who has openly endorsed torture (in terrorism cases, not obscenity, granted -- but just wait to see how long it is before we start hearing "Al-Qaeda is funded by porn sites!") Microsoft is big and bad and scary, but the government is a great deal scarier.
Think selective enforcement. Realistically, everyone knows they're never going to get rid of internet porn, and they're never going to keep kids from seeing the stuff. That's not really the point. What is the point is that this law, if upheld, will give them a club to hold over the head of every single person in the US who posts anything on the web, ever, as well as the service providers which provide the hosting space, if even one of those postings contains a dirty word or risque picture. It doesn't mean they'll break down your door in the middle of the night -- but it means they can, if you piss them off enough. And you'll never know what constitutes "enough" until you're in handcuffs.
Easy Answer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy, "if you're not for us, you're against us"
Parents (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thin end of the wedge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Careful -- you've already fallen for their manipulation of the language. They're hoping that by using the words "children" and "pornography" in close conjunction, you'll automatically think, "Oh, child porn, we've got to get rid of that!" But COPA has nothing to do with child porn; it has to do (allegedly) with children seeing porn on the web -- the vast bulk of which is not child porn; it's regular old-fashioned adult porn. Conflating the (very mild, and entirely within the parents' domain) issue of little Johnny looking at dirty pictures with the (very serious, and entirely criminal already) problem of child porn is a cynical and dangerous political ploy.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:News flash (Score:3, Insightful)
Private information can be subpeonaed for good and just reasons for a criminal investigation under guidelines of the constitution. The war on terror didn't change that.
Or well... wasn't supposed to. The problem is that we are making crimes out of things that shouldn't be crimes and making a legal system so convoluted that all one has to do is look at a long list of secret laws and pick one that you have happened to have violated (unbeknownst to you) and send you off to jail without much due process.
Standard reply to subpoena like that of Comcast (Score:4, Insightful)
Due to the complex nature of the requested data and the security requried to gaurd such data, we must clear this information throught the board of directors and shareholders of this company. Also, due to the volume of data, we will take at least three years to collect such information. Please be advised that we intend to comply with the subpeona but your data will not be available until March 6, 2010.
We will keep you informed of the progress.
Sincerly,
Corpoerate Red Tape Caused By Government Beauracracy
I guess you need to be picky about your ISP (Score:1, Insightful)
"rsync.net does not store access logs or examine filesystem contents. No data or meta-data concerning the behavior of our customers or content of filesystems will be divulged to any law enforcement agency without order served directly by a US court having jurisdiction."
Of course I take it with a grain of salt, but then again I am running a remote encrypted filesystem on their storage, so they couldn't give the data up even _with_ a search warrant.
Go with clueful ISPs, or at least ones that are trying, and encrypt your data - otherwise you deserve whatever you get.
Re:Scary..? (Score:5, Insightful)
I of course agree, but this is NOT about "the children".
Its disguised that way, its completely, as well put by the parent to:
to set up a case to argue that Congress needs to legislate more censorship and regulations to protect Americans from our own freedoms.
and I'll expand, by adding to limit our freedoms.
In talking with a friend last night, he believes that we are heading towards being a 3rd world country. And this guy is juiced into the government, bigtime. Former DOE and NSF guy, and still sucks grant money all the time. He said that the discrepancy between the "haves" and the "have nots" is going to keep expanding. Housing prices are through the roof. The banking, oil, and insurance companies pretty much rule this country, etc.
It won't affect me in my lifetime, nor probably my children, but after that, I have no predictions that are positive with the direction things are going.
What's the motivation for content filters? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a parent of a 6-year old girl. She's been using the Web since she was old enough to use a computer (3 years old? perhaps, 2+). Her mom has often asked me to install a content filter.
I have long since learned that to come up with a solution, you have to understand the problem first. So, I just watched my kid's online behavior trying to see what she can get to that I don't want her to see. The result? I still don't have any content filters installed to this day. Why? Porn is of no interest to her whatsoever. She goes to various kids' sites. If she wants to search for something, I taught her to use google instead of typing random words into the URL bar. As a result, it is very rarely (as in, once a year) that she gets to see an image of a nude person on the Web. Her reaction so far was to navigate away from such a web site. And if she shows any interest, I feel I would be able to explain to her what was going on. I mean, she doesn't believe in tooth fairies, and she figured that Mickey Mouse was a costume when she was 3, so why wouldn't she be able to figure out the rest of the real world?
Of course, I might be missing something, but then I'm wondering what that is?
Re:Little Brother (Score:5, Insightful)
To be clear: the current Republican government (controlling the White House for 5 years, both houses of Congress for as long as 12 years) lies when it tells you that it stands for small, limited, noninvasive government. These Republicans lie when they say they stand for personal freedom. And they're lying about corporate independence, too. They want corporate dependence on government, for government to do their competing for them, to prop them up with corporate welfare whenever possible, whether they need it or not. They are fascists, who merge corporate and government power.
These Republicans will search your email, surveil you from unmanned drones over your hometown or Spring Break, tap your phones, kidnap you and send you to Guantanamo to be tortured. They'll steal your taxes as collateral on unsupportable debt you'll have to pay for generations, and give the money to their corporate cronies. Who will not only fail to protect you when your home is destroyed by years of paying contractors for useless infrastructure, but will actively prevent individuals from helping you survive with gun-enforced useless bureaucracy.
But maybe I'm just not seeing the Republican vision at the end of the long, hard slog. Maybe that "small, limited, noninvasive government" really is coming. The personal freedom and corporate independence of humanity's natural state: anarchy and warlordism. Just how Marx predicted capitalism would eventually burn itself out. Then the only hypocrisy in the Republican plan is naming themselves after Plato's description of a representative government.
Re:I just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Its borderline legal. These are _civil_ subpoenas. They are not criminal ones. There is no crime involved. Porn is legal. Anybody, including the government can sue anybody in the US, but I don't understand why judges are granting these subpoenas being that nothing can come from the data collected. I don't understand why they forgot about the 1st and 4th amendments.
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Fight against this authoritarian bullshit sure, but we badly need to prepare for the preservation of freedom in a 'soft' police state, because that's where we're heading right now.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the great thing about being the government. In order to pursue your own agenda, you get to strong-arm people. I'm sure for many kinds of investigations, the government can compel your assistance.
However, compelling your assistance to gather information to fight a supreme court ruling that a law you enacted was illegal -- I don't think should be one of them. It puts too high of a burden on everyone else to allow them to support their case, which has already been found illegal by SCOTUS.
To me, it sounds like it could be a scary precedent whereby government could harass anyone who was a winner in a supreme court case which went against them. It could become "we lost, but we'll compel you to participate at your own expense until we win".
Scary thoughts indeed.
Re:Damn... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe that should be the Democratic platform for 2008: "Yes, we'll try to intimidate and oppress you too, but unlike Bush's friends, we'll just give up if it doesn't work the first time!"
I'm voting Democrat. All the Bushies who aren't just idiotic fanatics always say "Oh, but they're spineless snivelers", but maybe that's the best that can be hoped for, since at least they'll back down.
Re:Thin end of the wedge? (Score:3, Insightful)
That is exactly how "elected" officials think of us.
Apparently the War on Terra is over! (Score:3, Insightful)
I, for one, welcome our aimless overlords.
Re:What's the motivation for content filters? (Score:2, Insightful)
My Story (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood the need for filters. Sure, there's "bad stuff" out there on the internet. And I have a teenager in the house. I *know* he goes to porn sites, and I don't care. I care when he gets viruses on his machine from those sites, that's about it. (Of course, he is a bit older).
Parents (and political types), here's the formula. Send your kid's machines' through a proxy. You can control where they go from there. You can see whatever site they go to, etc. Don't want them online when you're not around? Setup special policies. (Aka, on a router). Internet time is 6-10pm, etc. You can enforce this in the router. I'm not saying every parent has to be an admin, but I am saying every parent should know more about the Internet than their kids. Don't allow the federal government to enable you to be lazy.
This works! It works wonders! It's called
Why are we wasting our time finding difficult solutions to easy problems? Is our government really that dumb, beuracratic and full of red tape? Since when did the government become the parents of every kid in America? Is that what you're trying to accomplish here?
Sublte (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me this is a redherring, if there were a
But let's let the government waste money and time to get whatever information they are seeking under the guise of "it's for the children".
I'm a parent myself, I have an 8 year old. My child has their own computer in their room, and it has net access. I also have a proxy server which limits the places that pc can do on the net and where it can go. It is currently setup to goto child related websites that I have browsed myself and verified the content. Why did I do this?
Because it is [b]MY[/b] responsability to raise my child and know what content they are seeing.
Big brother will be moving in soon enough, I want him to enjoy some sense of personal freedom before they are all stripped away.
Re:It's never been easier to be a parent (Score:1, Insightful)
Stop whining, and grow up. You want something in this world, you have to work for it.
Re:Scary..? (Score:2, Insightful)
you mention this and it got me thinking, Isn't China doing this EXACT same thing? they are telling their people what they can see and what they can do online...Didn't the government wag it's finger at Google, Yahoo & MSN for giving into China's demands for censorship?
Did the US government suddenly have a change of heart and decided that censorship is the way to go? That they to should get in on some of that action all in the name of "protecting the children"?
how long before they take care of that pesky first amendment bullshit law the forefathers put in (they didn't know what they were thinking when they wrote that), leave us with the right to bare arms so we can continue to protect ourselves from the threat of british invasion (It's coming, their poised to strike!) and to hunt for our own food (those supermarket things are on their way out you know) it just sucks this administration can't run again, if they just had one or two more chances they could take away so many more freedoms from us, To bad they haven't slipped an amendment under the radar to let them stay in power for a few more years.
The FTC is going to be in a world of hurt if they manage to pass any form of censorship law on the internet in the US, they can say "it's all in the name of children" all they want but when you piss off that many people from looking up anything they want (you'd be suprised how many people would snap if they couldn't get to their porn, not to mention how many "Amature" porn stars would suddenly have to get REAL JOBS!).
Re:Little Brother (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I just don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
You ever notice how gov't acts named things like "Protection of Families" or "Protection of Marriage" or "Protection of Children" or "Protection from Terrorists" mainly serve to limit or take away legal protections and rights from the people?
I'm scared of my gov't trying to "Protect" me anymore than they already do. I think I have the right to make my own choices and live with the consequences as long as no one else gets hurt and I feel that my fellow Americans deserve the same rights.
Re:Two Reasons: Intent and Structure (Score:3, Insightful)
NO. the government has just cause to investigate a crime. Do you think its harmful to not wash your hands after you take a crap? Better get the government on that. We better legislate that.
In this case, the government is attempting to get broad sweeping, but detailed information about what EVERYONE is doing on the internet in an attempt to uphold its own unconstitutional law. What will they do with this information? throw it away when they're done with it? nope.
Would you want them to pass legislation without investigating the issue?
But that's exactly what they did! They passed legislation and then waited for the courts to settle it out. So now they're trying to cover their asses by getting as much info as possible in hopes of finding something to support their actions. its all rubbish. they're reaching and YOU will pay for it one day when they come arrest you because you accidently surfed to a porn site. or worse, you didn't delete your spam and they found porn sites advertised in it. Or how about when they click track everything you do and they discover that you clicked on one of those pron-emails and went to the site cause you weren't thinking? Gee too bad. go to jail. [/rant]
Re:Religion and Protecting Others (Score:3, Insightful)
Speak all you want. But when I ask you to shut up and stop bothering me, because I do not share your sense of what is sin and what isn't, have the decency to shut up. In the US, I used to think that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution gave me the right to not believe I had an everlasting soul I was endangering by looking at pictures of naked women.
This has nothing to do with porn (Score:2, Insightful)
Look at Bush's approval rating. What if the voters decide to take it out on congress? Leave the president stranded in Iraq?? We haven't even invaded Iran yet for fucks sake!
So all of a sudden our precious innocent children are ingesting copious amounts of that terrible porn. And who better than Washington to take care of that problem for us? It's really a pity they have to trample over privacy to do it, but in a post 9-11 world, you just have to make some sacrifices.
Expect to hear more about this in the months to come.
Re:Your post epitomizes why the problem exists (Score:3, Insightful)
1) i agree: fewer workers = more demand for labor. it also means a smaller workforce, which leads to lower production. lower production means higher costs. you make more, but pay more (inflation anyone?). that, of course, leads to higher interest rates. which leads to
2) problem: americans have high credit card debt. solution: lower their income so that one spouse can stay at home watching tv all day. please explain?
3) nice point. you should continue to pay property tax for your local public schools, but should educate the kids yourself. teachers have a higher degree in teaching. you? are you qualified to teach? what would you teach? are you going to teach your b&p beliefs as 'social studies'? hey, if you feel you're qualified to teach and that you can do it better than licensed teachers, perhaps you should approach your local school board and give them a few pointers. good luck with that.
4) uh-oh. i guess you aren't qualified to teach. you can't even read! where did i mention single-parent situations? perhaps it was this one: "do you have a suggestion as to how one parent can stay-at-home when 2 full-time incomes are needed..."? 1 stay at home + 1 working = 2. had i said "do you have a suggestion as to how an only parent can stay-at-home when 2 full-time incomes are needed", then your point would be valid.
B E A utiful... (Score:3, Insightful)
At least there is "balance" in the world.
Re:It's never been easier to be a parent (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. Um.
You certainly are holier-than-thou and more than a little uptight. I think you are making a fairly gross assumption - that it is better for kids (how, exactly?) to have one parent at home than two parents working. I'm not sure I buy that. I'm sure we can throw togeter all kinds of anecdotal evidence about bad things that have happened in working-parent households, but I'm sure I can come up with an equal number of anecdotes about how two parents working meant better schools, affording college, better food,...
So, put up or shut up. You cast dispersions on families where both parents work. Why is it better for one parent to be at home? Seriously. Concrete reasons. Then back it up with some science, not some Focus on the Family pap.
Personally, I think that circumstances vary widely. I know, for example, that my kid can't handle some things that other kids his age can, but in other things he is light years ahead. I tailor my parenting to my child, because I know him best, and what he can handle. I would never presume to tell someone else that they are parenting poorly, because I *don't* know their kids, and what they can handle. I believe that the vast majority of parents love their children, and try to do what is best for them. Therefore, I have to trust that they know what they are doing, and give them the benefit of the doubt. This is because I realize that there are more special situations out there than stars in the sky, and if I try to paint everyone with the same brush, I end up looking like - well, a fucktard.
Your misogynistic tendencies aside, I believe that you are speaking from the heart, and you are concerned about other people's kids. You just don't have any problem marginalizing anyone who disagrees with you. This is really the heart of the difference between liberal and conservative - conservatives are always right, and liberals believe there is more than one way to look at it.
My only consolation is that in the end, conservatives always lose. If they didn't, we'd still be living in caves.
Re:Wipe your Ass with the Bill of Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
The country is failing. The ride is over. All great nations fall, and when they do, they fall fast, and hard.
Its over.
Our people do not think like the Americans of old. There is no tolerance or American idealism. It's now about control and the people are too complacent and out matched.
They've been brainwashed by corperate media for the past 10 years. Conservative radio has bread intolerance and arrogance in the name of "good" But had nothing to do with "American ideals"
People have gotten so twisted, that the American idealology of old, is lost. We're widdling away at our country because we can. Our people like to tinker and blaim, so they keep chopping away at the country, for it is to blaim for all our problems.
Freedom is our problem. We can not handle it. We are not tolerant of it anymore. We want it our way, or no way at all.
You're christian or you are not. You're straight, or you are going to hell. You're on Rush Limbaughs side or you're the enemy. The republicans are always right, truth be damned. We're going to go down with the ship because despite the obvious sinking motion of the boat, we're told that its all ok because its someone else's fault.
Its over.
We're at a real turning point in our existance.
We actually LIKE slave labor now. We actually want to legalize slave labor. We have no problem with exploiting illegal aliens as long as they clean up our shit. We'll pay them less, we dont even give a shit if they're American citizens... Just as long as they show up and weed wack our lawns.
This is not America. This is our country as it is now. We welcomed immigrants, and wanted them to be apart of our country... but now we dont care if they're legal, or if we know who they even are... because WE LOVE SLAVE LABOR.
We are in a decline. We no longer beleive that people are equal, or working men and women deserve a quality life experience.
We beleive in the ultra rich, and we say the economy is doing great... while the country is in decline. The numbers say everything is great! But the truth is... the rich are simply making more money because they're not employing people. They're spreading around the world, thats why their value goes up, thats why our country looks to be economically fine... But corperations are not beholden to any country anymore. Our country is not doing fine, the corperations are.
Our people are consistantly getting the short end of the stick in our booming economy.
The law is out of countrol. Our president is a criminal. Our entire government is currupt. They spend more time fund raising than setting foot in a commitee hearing. They get handed a peice of paper on how to vote by think tanks and outside people who are not elected officials.
Policy is created by companies, buisness interests. The same people bribing our government elected officials. The same people they're getting funds from when they go and fund raise, when they should instead be representing the people in the house/senate.
The party holds the line... BOTH OF THEM.
It's over. They have this thing wrapped up in a nice little messy game of "gotcha"
And it wont end. Think about it. If you're lucky, you will be alive for 100 years at most. You only have hopefully 100 years on the planet. Truthfully, probably 65 years...
Do you think the rich power hungry people give a shit about what happens after they're dead?
Do you think senators and congressmen do? They raise funds to stay in office, so they can be elected and raise more funds to stay in office... It keeps them living a nice life, and then they die. Their children are set for life.
Do you really care about your neighbor? Do you value your family more than other people?
I'm betting on "yes". So why in the hell would you think the government gives a dam about you?
They're taking care of themselves, and th
Re:What's the motivation for content filters? (Score:2, Insightful)
What? No shocked covering of your daughter's eyes? No phoning your ISP and demanding that they take the offensive sites off their "Interweb"? No empty threats to sue "the Internet" for allowing your child to spend hours alone surfing porn? No wailing cries of "Won't sombody please think of the children!"?
Turn in your apple pie! You can't be a true, patriotic, red-blooded American!
...at least, not one of the relatively small number who give the rest such a bad name. Seriously, kudos to you for taking responsibility rather than abdicating it.
Ayn Rand would say... (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not just you. From outside the U.S., your country appears to be steadily heading towards totalitarianism.
What do you think Nazi Germany was like to live in, in 1938 (at least if you were a German)?
What do you think the United States of 2008 will be like to live in?
I can say, I am very glad I don't live in your country. Your citizens have forgotten how to stand up for the great ideas your country was founded on. You are letting corporations and corrupt governments trample you down and take away the freedom your ancestors fought and died for.
Get your facts straight. (Score:3, Insightful)
Get your facts straight. This is not a "case" in front of a "court". This is a fishing expedition whose data will be spun six ways from Sunday in some study to "prove" that a new law to "protect the children" is in fact needed.
In Google's case, they want to prove that an innocuous search can pull up a significant percentage of links to porn sites which, if accidentally clicked on, will suddenly and irreversably warp the precious child's mind forever.
In actuallity, their agenda is in fact to eliminate all porn and, failing that, to prevent any adult from having any access whatsoever, all under the guise of "saving the children".
After all, "Father" knows what's best for the poor citizens of our country, who're obviously unable to choose such a wise course of action for themselves.