Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Support for U.S. Mandatory Data Retention Laws 264

Posted by Zonk
from the mandatory-whatnow dept.
chill wrote to mention a C|Net article about an upswell in support for a mandatory data retention policy here in the U.S. From the article: "Top Bush administration officials have endorsed the concept, and some members of the U.S. Congress have said federal legislation is needed to aid law enforcement investigations into child pornography. A bill is already pending in the Colorado State Senate. Mandatory data retention requirements worry privacy advocates because they permit police to obtain records of e-mail chatter, Web browsing or chat-room activity that normally would have been discarded after a few months."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Support for U.S. Mandatory Data Retention Laws

Comments Filter:
  • by conner_bw (120497) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:30PM (#15131401) Homepage Journal
    USA Bans Running Your Own Email Server

    No wait... I meant CHINA!

  • by Megaweapon (25185) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:31PM (#15131417) Homepage
    Politician: "Hey, we gained access to mail server logs for suspect A, let's see what else other people are up to... Hey lookie here, my political rival's internet activities..."
    • by tylernt (581794) on Friday April 14, 2006 @03:09PM (#15131781)
      That's what PGP is for. The problem is, using encryption makes it looks like you have something to hide, even if you don't.
      • Having encryption will do nothing to save you from this sort of snooping. They can retain records for later, encrypted or not. The explicit goal of cryptography isn't to prevent people from reading your encrypted messages, its to stop them from doing it in a timely fashion. Any method of encryption short of say, a private cypher, can be eventually cracked.

        Now someone will probably make a point about a 4096 bit key to make the effort take years, but consider this: how long ago would a 64 bit key been cons
    • The constitution spells out pretty clearly that powers not specifically given to the federal government are reserved for the states. I'm pretty sure that there isn't anything in the US constitution about the power to compel people to not delete something. Even aside from the 5th amendment (right to not incrimate yourself), I think the founding fathers would agree that people have the right to throw away or destroy their personal correspondence (letters) if there isn't an active criminal investigation.

      I d

      • Yeah, but deleting files on your computer affects interstate commerce, and therefore the federal government has the authority (no, the duty!) to regulate it. I mean, how could you sale your files to someone living in another state if they've been deleted?
        • If I write an email to my wife asking her to invite the neighbors over for dinner, how does that qualify as interstate commerce?

          One could make the argument that if I buy a loaf of bread from a local bakery, that affects interstate commerce because the bakery might buy some of its ingredients from other states. However, if that logic was followed, the federal government would potentially be able to charge a sales tax on the purchase of my bread. Since they arn't allowed to do that, I thing the same prin

          • "If I write an email to my wife asking her to invite the neighbors over for dinner, how does that qualify as interstate commerce?"

            Oh but it is. Perhaps you haven't heard about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich [wikipedia.org]?
            • Wow.

              Thanks for the wikipedia link; it shows what is possible, even if it isn't right. If the court was truly unbiased, I don't see how it could have decided that the way it did. They essentially deleted the word "interstate" from the constitution and expanded "commerce" to mean "any type of activity one could potentially pay for"!

              This sucks. I hope as the membership of the court changes, it can start throwing out the bad (i.e. poorly argued/judged) cases.

          • If I write an email to my wife asking her to invite the neighbors over for dinner, how does that qualify as interstate commerce?

            Well, you must not be very familiar with the way that the (commercial) email system works. Even if the source and destination were within the same building, your email message could easily have crossed several state (and possibly national) boundaries.

            To start with, the DNS request to locate the destination quite likely involved an access to a root- or second-level server, and it w
  • by liquidpele (663430) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:31PM (#15131418) Journal
    But really, it's a very large problem. My hometown (pop 30,000) has caught something like 7 online preditors in the past 2 years. Without the logs as evidence, how else are they supposed to catch these scumbags?
    • But really, it's a very large problem. My hometown (pop 30,000) has caught something like 7 online preditors in the past 2 years

      I would say that the inability of many slashdotters to spell correctly is a much more serious problem to worry about. I won't even go into the issue of incorrectly extrapolating statistics based on your little slice of heaven on earth, or the morality of using said statistics to justify a police state in the name of saving the children.

      • I would say that the inability of many slashdotters to spell correctly is a much more serious problem to worry about. I won't even go into the issue of incorrectly extrapolating statistics based on your little slice of heaven on earth, or the morality of using said statistics to justify a police state in the name of saving the children.

        I know police who catch these bastards. Either you're so distant from reality that you think people don't really do evil things and it's all just "Big Brother"'s fault, or
        • by William_Lee (834197) on Friday April 14, 2006 @03:11PM (#15131794)

          I know police who catch these bastards. Either you're so distant from reality that you think people don't really do evil things and it's all just "Big Brother"'s fault, or you just don't want the police to find your underage porn collection.

          So... which is it?

          You're missing the point. I think people do evil things all the time. I also think the police should do their best to catch criminals within a legal system that balances the rights and freedoms of an individual against being given carte blanche. The authorities are perfectly capable of pursuing online sex offenders without mandatory data retention laws. The US government is already abusing the Patriot Act, and AT&T apparently has plugged a pipe directly into the NSA, so you'll have to excuse me for blaming "Big Brother" and being somewhat hesitant to hand over yet another power to the state. This law has nothing to do with catching child porn offenders and everything to do with the government finding another way to exert more control over the general populace. You must be "distant from reality" if you think otherwise.
          • Bravo! Bravo!!

            Best comment I have read in a long time.
          • From TFA:

            At a hearing last week, Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican who heads a House oversight and investigations subcommittee, suggested that data retention laws would be useful to police investigating crimes against children.

            Your point about blancing privacy rights against government protection is well stated, sir. If everyone would just wear a gps neck collar, we could track everyone's movements 24/7. Manditory fingerpinting and DNA collection would solve quite a number of crimes, and havin
        • I know police who catch these bastards. I think we should initiate a policy of constant video surveillance of all households with children, not to mention legally mandated implantation of RFID devices in all children under the age of 18 so we can monitor their whereabouts 24/7/365. I think we should have checkpoints at every entrance/exit on the highways, and require proper paperwork to allow transport of a child through those checkpoints. I think we should make illegal all photographic record of children other than officially approved school photos. In addition, we should require prospective parents to get a license to have children, with a mandatory background check for criminal tendencies and liberalism.

          If you don't support these policies, you must believe that nothing bad ever happens to children, or you must bugger children in your basement. Which is it?

          • actually, the requiring people to get licensed before they have kids part of all that sounds like a pretty good idea. There're a lot of stupid people having a lot of stupid kids out there. The kind of stupid people that would allow all of the rest of that to pass.
      • Agreed, I realize that it's a tragity that some people do bad things, but forgive me, how does that give government the right to punish me?

        Amendment IV

        The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    • Just because they caught a bunch of 'online' predators doesn't mean there were a bunch of children being predated upon. Sure the potential exists, but I wonder how prevalent is this type of crime (with an actual victim, not some cop posing as one).

      I have the sneaking suspicion that it is mostly a bunch of creepy old men talking dirty to a bunch of other creepy old men. I find it really hard to believe some teenage girl is seriously engaging in these sorts of activities (I can imagine them doing it and think

      • "I find it really hard to believe some teenage girl is seriously engaging in these sorts of activities (I can imagine them doing it and thinking it is funny to rattle peoples cages, but seriously being pulled in to this kind of relationship?)."

        You know..I was thinking along the same lines....I mean, did kids all of a sudden get stupid?

        Ok, I grew up as an only child in a house with parents that worked. I was at a home with a loaded gun alone, but, I never took it out to show my fri

    • Umm, let's see, how about ACTUAL POLICE INVESTIGATION. This is, plain and simple, a government regulated attempt at creating a permanent pond for a fishing expedition. I am sorry, you cannot sit back and welcome our country's parallel of the Chinese government (read China's policies on data retention in the other news today), and say that it's necessary to catch child molestors. There _are_ other methods.
    • by chill (34294) on Friday April 14, 2006 @03:09PM (#15131778) Journal
      The correct method is for the authorities to inform the ISP that an investigation is underway. At that point, they are required to start retaining logs for the eventual subpeona. Logs are not turned over without a court order.

      This has been effective in the past and there is no evidence to support the notion it is no longer a valid method.
    • Without the logs as evidence, how else are they supposed to catch these scumbags?

      Unlike other types of crimes (like say terrorist conspiracy or tax fraud) child predators/child porn users repeat their offenses. (After all, it's a sexual proclivity, and that implies multiple frequency. (I am given the impression however that your average child molester is a one time deal (usually unrelated to the internet anyway.)) If the individual is repeating the offense, then the logs currently retained are sufficient to
    • My hometown (pop 30,000) has caught something like 7 online preditors in the past 2 years. Without the logs as evidence, how else are they supposed to catch these scumbags?

      Don't you watch Dateline? [msn.com] When they show up at the sting location with alcohol and condoms meant for a 12 year old boy.

      LK
    • There are dozens of better ways. It is silly, expensive, and pointless to retain all data. Why are we retaining it unless someone plans to illegally search through it?

      If your trying to block child porn, why not have the isp retain logs for people looking at child porn.... Theres no reason for them to log my visits to Amazon.com.
    • But really, it's a very large problem. My hometown (pop 30,000) has caught something like 7 online preditors in the past 2 years. Without the logs as evidence, how else are they supposed to catch these scumbags?

      I don't see us passing laws to have the post office open our mail and make photocopies of all the letters I write for temporary storage. I feel that my email should be subject to the same general privacy (cacheing by relays and normal email process forgiven) that my post appears to be granted.

      If the
  • Quick easy solution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by totalbasscase (907682) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:32PM (#15131420)
    They want to prosecute child porn offenders? Fine. Put it in the text of the law. Retain the data, but make it unusable in court except for child porn cases.

    Then tell all the privacy watchdogs to go back and chew their bones.
    • by Tackhead (54550) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:35PM (#15131464)
      > They want to prosecute child porn offenders? Fine. Put it in the text of the law. Retain the data, but make it unusable in court except for child porn cases.

      Nice in theory. Government doesn't work that way in practice.

      Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.

      - http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=169254&cid =14107454 [slashdot.org]

      • This is exactly what happened with the legislation that Microsoft wrote for the state of Oklahoma. An interview in a detailed article revealed that those exercising spin control are making these same kind of comments..."Oh, it wasn't intended to be interpreted that way..." etc. When I hear comments like that, it tells me that though the legislation may not be interpreted a certain way, it most likely will. Once it becomes law, all bets are off.
  • by smooth wombat (796938) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:34PM (#15131442) Homepage Journal
    federal legislation is needed to aid law enforcement investigations into child pornography.

    Yeah, it's only about catching the child pornographers. It won't be used for wholesale fishing expeditions to see if anyone might be doing something else illegal or who might be saying things that don't sit well.

    Just like the government won't use the list of passengers who fly to trawl for people who might be doing something suspicious like buying a one-way ticket.

    No, it's always about the children.

  • Downward spiral (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gasmonso (929871) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:34PM (#15131453) Homepage

    How long till the US goverment mandates that all data, whether from phonelines, email, searches, etc, has to be maintained on government servers for safe storage. I'm being totally serious. First they use child porn and incidents on myspace to scare people... then once they get their foot in the door, its just a matter of time. It truly is scary. Wheneve I talk of stuff like this I am deemed a conspiracy nut or something similiar.

    http://religiousfreaks.com/ [religiousfreaks.com]
    • Re:Downward spiral (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ScrewMaster (602015)
      Well, you probably are a conspiracy nut, which means that you fit right in with the Slashdot crowd. Unforunately, that does not in any way mean that you're wrong.

      I find it highly unlikely that they will mandate transmission of such data to government servers: the bandwidth requirements alone would be staggering. They'll just do what East Germany^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H the European Union is doing: require ISPs to log everything and keep it forever and forget about that whole "judicial oversight" thing. What
  • by denissmith (31123) * on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:36PM (#15131474)
    We should insure that we make this data gathering absolutely as broad as possible, so that there will be so much data that none of us can function. This will make it obvious that total control over the flow of information and total access to petabytes of emails and phone taps of my pizza order - to a pizzaria run by an Arab with a second cousin on an Al-Quaida cell phone call history - DON"T aid law enforcement. At all. Then maybe when we come to our senses we can take back control of our government from the paranoids on both sides of the political spectrum and do something sensible.
    • well first of all, with the incredible advances in computing and storage over the last few decades.... if you can send it, they can store it. the NSA alone measures computing and storage power in acres. with what the government has at their disposal, you sending pizza requests to a pizzaria is nothing, zip, zilch, nada.

      secondly, lets just pretend your idea would work. you may disagree with the law, but is this the way to go about it? try fixing it from the inside, rather than directly opposing it. I do
    • The problem isn't just the government, per se. Once this kind of activity becomes entrenched it will never go away, and once that information is there, people will want access to it for any purpose they can think of. Insurance companies looking to exclude people from coverage, lawyers looking for something they can use against you in court, DEA types looking for opportunities to confiscate property, the list is absolutely endless. Sure, a few bad apples may or may not be nailed ... but the rest of us will n
    • This obviously does not work. Every mathematician will tell you that more data is better than less data. Especially with the near infinite computing power we have right now. This tactics might have worked when human labor was required to go through the data, but it is not the case anymore. Right now the only course we have is to give them less data, not more.
    • This is a very dangerous thing to suggest. Do you really think this is done to catch criminals?

      What will happen is not

          Wow, we have so much data. I don't even know where to begin looking for a criminal.

      but instead

          Now that we have so much data, let's see if we can find something that can get my political/corporate/private opponent into some trouble.

      Power corrupts. Always.
  • The real need is for a law to force corporations to retain evidence of their misdeeds. Right now, some corporations deliberately infringe laws and then have email retention policies that tell employees to destroy all email over 30 days old. In the rare cases where any attempt is made to bring these companies to book, it is very difficult to find the evidence to convict.
    • Right now, some corporations deliberately infringe laws and then have email retention policies that tell employees to destroy all email over 30 days old. In the rare cases where any attempt is made to bring these companies to book, it is very difficult to find the evidence to convict.

      Uhhh...no.

      I can't think of one corporation that would be able to function if e-mail was destroyed once it hit 31 days old. 90-days, maybe.

      Corporate fraud and misdeeds, at least the worst of them and the ones you proscecute for
  • by Ardeocalidus (947463) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:36PM (#15131479)
    Damn terrorists... We're being wire-tapped because of them!

    Damn child-pornography... Our records are being held because of them!

    See? These two concepts are examples of overarching legislation. Its an idiotic and rather insulting attempt from our government to lower our personal privacy in the name of nabbing niche crime markets.

  • by GiMP (10923) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:37PM (#15131489)
    One concern I immediately had -- and I happily saw noted in the article as well -- is the question of who will pay to support this? Data storage isn't free, or cheap.

    This could kill small and medium-sized web hosting providers.
    • One concern I immediately had -- and I happily saw noted in the article as well -- is the question of who will pay to support this? Data storage isn't free, or cheap.

      This could kill small and medium-sized web hosting providers.


      Especially companies that have a business model based on anonymity such as anonymizer.com.
      They advertise that they do not keep logs and all data that goes through there port 22 ssh is encrypted.
    • This could kill small and medium-sized web hosting providers.

      Like they care, the ability of killing off small and medium sized hosting providers is a fucking fringe benefit. They don't like the freedom of having these alternatives to the major infrastructure monopolies available anyway. Killing off these providers will allow the Internet to become as corporately dominated as any other type of media, and help make it so you cannot venture outside of the system.

    • One concern I immediately had -- and I happily saw noted in the article as well -- is the question of who will pay to support this? Data storage isn't free, or cheap.

      The concern I immediately had was... which companies do I need to buy stock in.

      Because, as you said, storage isn't free. (or cheap in quantity)
  • Harmonization (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TubeSteak (669689) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:37PM (#15131491) Journal
    But it was the European Parliament's vote in December for a data retention requirement that seems to have attracted broader interest inside the United States.
    I expect to see more of this in the future. It's the new end run around having a real debate in the U.S. or Europe. Push for a law (that would be unpopular) on the other side of the ocean and then 'harmonize' your laws with that.

    Whenever a controversial law is proposed, and its supporters, when confronted with an egregious abuse it would permit, use a phrase along the lines of 'Perhaps in theory, but the law would never be applied in that way' - they're lying. They intend to use the law that way as early and as often as possible.
    Nuff said. They claim this law is 'for the children', but it's going to be used for everything else possible.
  • by Opportunist (166417) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:39PM (#15131507)
    I wonder how long it's still legal to abuse children as the excuse for some law.
  • Phfft..

    And you joe citizen ( consumer ) fall for it every time. ..

    Grrr
  • by bluehalo (187789) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:41PM (#15131527)
    Whenever I see "let's push through this law to protect the children" I always assume it is bad legislation. You know that it's especially bad when "child porn" is used as the justification for taking away privacy rights. Basically, "we can't even make up a semi-clever story to hide our ulterior motives... time to play the Sicko Child Pornographer Card!"
  • Perhaps we need to change the last line....

    "O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
    O'er the land of the free or the home of the slave?"

  • Law Enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)

    by COMON$ (806135) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:45PM (#15131561) Journal
    Being a law enforcement IT employee we already do back up all e-mail and files. I just skimmed the article but is there any standard for the amount of time this has to be retained? Most of us can vouch that data retention is very very expensive. Not to mention tricky if you are looking at going longer than 7 years. magnetic data is good for about 30 years and high grade magneto optical is supposedly good for 100 years in ideal conditions. But data doesnt maintain it just gets bigger especially e-mail.

    other question is when can I delete e-mail or files? if I have a draft and delete it before the backup am i in violation of this policy or what?

    I think this is just a good case of lawmakers who have absolutely no clue on how to turn on their computer let alone regulate data retention or laws regarding any of this stuff.

    • I just skimmed the article but is there any standard for the amount of time this has to be retained?

      No, but there is a law that upon request, an ISP will retain the logs for 90 days for a specific investigation. That should work for most jobs. There's no need to add to it to give up everyones privacy.

    • Re:Law Enforcement (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Phrogman (80473)

      Data retention and maintaining of backups is very expensive. There is no real industry standard but in some cases - say in the health care industry - there are legal requirements for how long data must be retained. Usually, if you formulate a logical data retention policy and apply it consistently then you are safe if you get hauled into court. If you can show that you had good reasons for your policies and that you followed them strictly, then the fact that you got rid of data after a period of time is e

    • Questions, questions, questions... You are obviously not thinking of the children. Think of the children, and all questions are answered, all problems solved. Debate? Disadvantages? Costs? Drawbacks? Feh. What about the children, dude? Somehow, somewhere, a child could be in harm's way. If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about... unless you're hiding children. Snap to it, bub. Think of the kids.
  • by PMuse (320639) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:46PM (#15131563)
    Unknown to most people, their brains have an off switch. It is activated by the key phrase:
    But, think of the children.
  • Based on recent news events those guys seem to be experts on all things "pedo". ;P I'm sure they'd LOVE to "investigate" more kiddie porn.
  • by Shadowlore (10860) on Friday April 14, 2006 @02:50PM (#15131605) Journal
    After all, many such things if done by postal service are yet another crime.

    If this goes through I say quit fighting spam. Let it start clogging up the archive mechanisms. When the pain is large enough these privacy violations go away. I'd rather get spam I can filter than have my traffic/email/etc. mandated to be stored where it is rapidly available and providing a big-ass target for crackers and bureaucrats looking for a cause to raise their pay or get votes on.
  • Wow (Score:2, Informative)

    by Aqws (932918)
    Is there anyway that we can limit what the government knows about what we do online? I spend most of my time online, be it browsing the web, sending an essay back and forth over wires, or IMing friends, there is way more information the government is storing about us than there ever was before. There are plenty of things that I have done on the net that I don't want some ultra-right-wing creep looking through. It wouldn't be that hard to realy stop them in their tracks. Can't you just make some realy big
    • Wow (Score:1)
      by Aqws (932918) Alter Relationship on Friday April 14, @12:59PM (#15131675)

      (Posted anonymously, for obvious reasons. Though I've probably given enough information that they could narrow it down to about 10 people.)

      For future reference, the "Post Anonymously" box must be checked. Though it wouldn't surprise me if a government bureaucracy could still only narrow it down to about 10 people...

    • From another slashdotter:
      "In 1999, I worked as a contract engineer for a Linux consulting company. We delivered kernel enhancements for the Linux kernel on the Alpha processor to the NSA. The enhancements we to reduce TLB miss overhead when doing comparisons and searches on large amounts of data.


      This tweaked my BS-detector.

      The TLB is the Translation Lookaside Buffer - not too meaningful a name, but what it does is cache the mapping between virtual pages of memory to physical pages of memory. If you take a
  • "I absolutely think that that is an idea that is worth pursuing," an aide to Whitfield said in an interview on Thursday. "If those files were retained for a longer period of time, it would help in the uncovering and prosecution of these crimes."

    If we mandate microphones and cameras in every room in every house, it would help in the uncovering and prosecution of these crimes as well. Ends and means, anyone?

  • It is because people abuse the freedoms we have online that governments make laws to restrict our use of the Internet. The Wild West of the Internet is in the past. Europe has passed laws and now the USA is considering laws. It seems to be a part of human nature to abuse a good thing.
  • by UnrefinedLayman (185512) on Friday April 14, 2006 @03:06PM (#15131753)
    Encryption is the answer to this, and it continues to amaze me that otherwise intelligent software developers continue to create software that does not utilize encryption.

    95% of web traffic continues to be by HTTP, instead of the easily deployed HTTPS (and by easily I mean the entire infrastructure to support it already exists, both for clients and servers).

    SMTP continues to be plaintext and bounced around like a ping-pong ball. The reasons for using encryption with SMTP are the same reasons for using letters in envelopes and not postcards. Two thousand years ago the Romans used wax seals on their private documents to ensure no one intercepted the message en route, yet every email on the planet is still there to be read.

    Instant Messages continue not to be encrypted between recipients, and just like HTTPS the infrastructure is already there to support it. Why is it that it is off by default in a world where you can't buy a system with anything less than a 2+ GHz Celeron processor?

    VoIP continues to go unencrypted over the Internet, for reasons that I can't even begin to fathom. We expect to have digital wireless phone calls--on a system first deployed over ten years ago--encrypted, but the brand new digital wired calls not? Thank God there are people like Phil Zimmerman [philzimmermann.com] out there.

    Seriously, this is the most basic concept in an age where the people have every right to fear their government that most people distrust and believe is corrupt [signonsandiego.com], in an age where the government (allegedly) mandates that all Internet traffic is made available for illegal spying [slashdot.org], in an age where people have feared the NSA was already spying on citizens [wikipedia.org]... the list goes on.

    It is the responsibility and social responsibility of programmers and standards-makers to pursue wide encryption deployment, or the whole "Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of speech away from the Internet?" cliche will be answered with "With my shoulder to the wall helping the government take away everything else."
  • ...until it comes to questions of child workers...then it's all about the profit.
  • It always seems there's this finger pointing from Europe about how the crazy Americans have limited freedom again. Well this time Europe has struck first.

    This is a global problem with governments, not a single wacko government out of control. It really scares me that the western world is really moving more toward the restrictive policies of China than China is moving towards freedom.
  • It's time to start compiling lists of proxy servers. Folks seem to want to concentrate on the ones that are just lying about, open and available. Well, I don't mind paying for something reliable, but if I'm going to pay for it my choices need to be:

    • Physically and legally located in countries that will either tell U.S. law enforcement authorities to fuck off or just give them an endless run-around,
    • Will pass every type of protocol/content without prejudice,
    • Don't log anything for a minute longer than nec
    • Heh, I shipped my own server to a co-lo facility in Michigan a month ago. I've also compiled a list of countries and their various data retention/privacy restriction laws. The server is for secure, anonymous e-mail & proxy (no FTP/shell). It is also going to be a Tor & possibly Freenet node. Gonna accept cash/money orders only and keep NO logs at all other than those needed to troubleshoot connectivity and only as long as troubleshooting is necessary. The hardware crypto accelerator (Soekris 14
    • Even though your server may be out of the US jurisdiction, how are you going to communicate to it without using infrastructure that is located *in* the US?

      I would bet that just passing data through any US based server would negate any protection you think you have by locating you server outside of the US.
  • "But it was the European Parliament's vote in December for a data retention requirement that seems to have attracted broader interest inside the United States. At a hearing last week, Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican...suggested that data retention laws would be (fucking awesome). "

    Wait, was that "old Europe" or "new Europe"? (I thought the Red State Brigade held Europe in contempt. Especially France...er..."Freedom".)

  • Not a real law type law, but a "Godwin's Law" for Child Pornography. If the feds are looking to snoop around in my data for no reason besides the possibility of kiddie porn, they're lying to me. They're doing it because they think they can.

    If they were really concerned with the welfare of the children they'd do things like remove the statute of limitations on sexual abuse of children so that we can lock up criminals we know committed the crime they're sniffing my packets for.
  • We have a similar issue here. Technically, since I work for a state school, this post on Slashdot can be asked for under FOIA just because the packets went over thier network. This is a extreme lack of understanding on how things on a network works. It's not so simple. The college can't keep every bit that flys into the school via the internet....it would be impossible. I post on Slashdot from work because Slashdot covers IT and sometimes I get good info (ok probably 10 percent content 90 percent junk.
  • by BalanceOfJudgement (962905) on Friday April 14, 2006 @03:54PM (#15132176) Homepage
    An old man, once tall and proud, now tired and beaten, slumped in his chair, speaks one last time to his grandchildren. He hopes, in vain, that they will hear, and understand, and that maybe something will change.

    He knows, deep down, it never will.

    He speaks.

    "Once, we were free. We didn't really know it; we took it for granted. We assumed that people would always do the right thing, in the end. We thought that people loved freedom as much as we did, we just quibbled over the details.

    "If you ask me the day we lost our freedom, I won't be able to answer you. That's because it didn't happen on one day; we didn't lose a war, we didn't pass a Tyranny Act, we didn't plunge into economic chaos and come out of it a dictatorship. No, we lost our freedom in pieces, bit by bit, and with each piece we said, "We're doing it for our safety, and for our children's future. We're doing it for the children, we're doing it for ourselves and our posterity. We're doing it because we think it's right."

    I remember when we could buy a CD and listen to it wherever we wanted. You think I'm crazy, don't you kids? You've never even dreamt of such a thing. But it's true, and I got to live it. Oh for a few short years, I got to live it.

    "I remember when I could record my favorite TV shows on my computer and watch them over and over again. You can't do that anymore though; after the Content Rights Act of 2011, it became illegal to possess any content on your machine that you didn't pay for every time you watch it. Or if you preferred, you could accept RIAA-approved AdWare to display advertisements at predetermined intervals as you watched your recording.

    "I remember when I knew that my privacy was protected, that the government needed a reason to search my private data for wrongdoing - remember the 5th Amendment kids? You learned about that in history class right? Remember what year it was appealed? 2012, good, you've been studying.

    "I remember trusting my government and my elected officials. I remember not being afraid of everything I did, because I knew I lived in the land of the free. I remember being proud that my country upheld personal liberties above corporate power and the rule of politicians. But alas, I didn't realize I was free.

    "And so it is gone. Each time a freedom was taken away, I did nothing. I sat and accepted it, because I had my own things to worry about. I had to go to work, and clean the house, and pay the bills, and throw in some vacations. I didn't have time to consider revolt. I didn't have time to remember that our Founding Fathers revolted for far lesser grievances than have been visited upon the world these days.

    "Remember my words, kids, because it's illegal now to speak of them. You won't find them in books, or in emails, or on television or in music - those are all sanctioned now, only approved content can be delivered in them - I remember that too.. TV used to be so interesting.. until someone said "Think of the children." Even cable TV can't have cuss words now. You probably don't even know any, do you? Too bad. A good swear can really take the pressure off once in awhile.

    Only one thing will change the world, kids, and it ain't talk. Have the courage to stand up for your freedoms - your freedom of thought, your freedom of speech, your freedom of action, and your freedom to live without fear.

    Remember this:

    The worst they can do to you is take your life.

    The worst you can do to them is destroy their civilization.

    I think a few lives are worth it."

    And with that, he died.

    What happens next? It's up to you.
  • ...they stopped using terrorism as an excuse to create this privacy and liberty restricting laws. Now we are going after the child pornographers. Something both the dems and reps can agree on I guess.
  • WAPTOC - "Won't Anyone Please Think Of the Children?"

    Laws intended to protect children in any way are rarely intended to do so, and often fail to do so once passed for obvious reasons. If you see a law designed - supposedly - to protect children in any way, take it with an additional grain of salt - it's usually a cover for something that would otherwise become controversial or be shot down immediately. This also applies to laws concerning terrorism and the so-called war on drugs.

    WAPTOC hard at work, here.
  • So.... (Score:4, Funny)

    by XMilkProject (935232) on Friday April 14, 2006 @04:14PM (#15132334) Homepage
    So when I look at child porn I should fire up one of my free encrypted SSH proxies first?

    Oh wait, the government can't force the server i'm tunneling to, outside of the US, to retain any data... I suppose we better wrap a firewall around our country and not let those damn foreigners access to our internet.

    Why don't we just all move to china instead?
  • HURRY HURRY! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Yez70 (924200)
    Let's come up with another law no individual is going to want to follow if they don't want to. Drug Laws - if someone wants to do drugs, they do them - period. Wasted enforcement. Seat Belt laws - if someone doesn't wear their seatbelt - they don't. Wasted enforcement. Prostitution laws - if someone wants a hooker, they get one. Wasted enforcement. Remember the sodomy laws, it was illegal to be gay?! Now the government wants to come out with 'Privacy Laws' - if someone wants to be private, they will

"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence, it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines." -- Bertrand Russell

Working...