Digital Pack Rat by Mandate

Julian Sanchez | June 16, 2005

Declan McCullagh reports that the Department of Justice is pondering data retention rules that would require Internet service providers to retain users' e-mail, chat, and web browsing records just in case investigators ever want them.

Declan wrote about the benefits of living in a Database Nation back in our variable-cover issue from July 2004. This is presumably not what he was talking about.

Comments

|6.16.05 @ 12:23PM|#

The more data they get, the faster they get it, the less they'll be able to do with it. Trust me, I know; I'm about to integrate data from a HUGE acquisition.

Adam|6.16.05 @ 12:30PM|#

Grab your pitchforks and torches, we're going to D.C. Put that in your database, Alberrrrrrto.

gaius marius|6.16.05 @ 12:41PM|#

i have to stop surfing for porn, apparently.

|6.16.05 @ 12:50PM|#

Yeah, and hanging out at subversive sites like Hit&Run may be as damaging as the porn.

|6.16.05 @ 12:54PM|#

Actually, this was exactly what he was talking about.
Some privacy activists cite this cooperation as a reason to regulate private databases, which makes as much sense as preventing companies from manufacturing binoculars simply because police can use them for unlawful surveillance. The more sensible approach is to restrict the power of the police to snoop in the first place.

He just advocated a strategy that would promise failure. And guess what.

If on the other and, we would have prevented this gathering of data until there were laws in place protecting us from government snooping, then we would now be in a better position to negotiate. By refusing to allow the data gathering till then, the market would have kicked in, they wanted the data, and if they had really believed the only way to get it was to prevent government access, they would have done the foot work for libertarians.

Really, McCullagh just advocated selling out for a lower price than we needed to. Clearly we, the public, had something to sell, McCullagh and men like him just told us we shouldn't acknowledge the market advantages, and we should just offer ourselves up for the cheapest price.

This is exactly what he was talking about. He was just a tad bit anti-market in is strategy.

Common sense says we should have held out till the price was better.

|6.16.05 @ 12:58PM|#

addendum: I should have said "people like him", not "men"

And just a note, folks who play poker like McCullagh are always welcome at my table, I like easy money.

tomWright|6.16.05 @ 1:11PM|#

Other than the chilling effect this has on liberty, I wonder how admissible this would be in court.

After all, unless the ISP can be forced to require separate user id's and pass words for every user, even those that are guests of a customer, and guarantee that the user id's are not shared by 2 or more people, a practical impossibility short of some sort of universal biometric ID scheme, this is almost useless.

All the records would show is SOMEONE at a terminal connected at a certain address on their network went to certain sites, or that SOMEONE using an email account on their server sent or received certain emails.

They can not prove that a particular person used that terminal or email account, unless they have a camera positioned in a way to show both the person and what is on screen at the time any of this was done.

Anyone in a house at any given time, with or without the resident�s permission, could access a PC and use the ISP account to browse websites and send email.

Have room-mates? Parties? Lots of friends? A big family? Leave the PC at your desk unlocked?

The only people this MIGHT affect would be antisocial, friendless, loners like me. Man I'm scared. eek.

Of course, the fact that this would be nearly unusable, and a useless imposition on ISP's and subscribers, won't stop it. That hasn't stopped gun-control, drug-control, or whateverIsScaryAtTheMoment-control.

Tom

|6.16.05 @ 2:35PM|#

That variable cover thing was pretty cool. My house was actually within sight. I think you were within a couple hundred yards. Not too shabby.

|6.16.05 @ 2:53PM|#

Is Saddam actually in prison some place or is he really Alberto Gonzales? This is the kind of crap I expect Bush to justify invading Iraq with. So I must ask, why does Alberto hate our freedoms so much?

|6.16.05 @ 3:57PM|#

It seems to me an act of Congress would be required to make this happen involuntarily. It sounds like the Justice Dept. is just looking for volunteers.

Also, all logs are going to do is tell you that two IPs talked to each other. If they lack sufficient evidence, a log isn't going to give them much more.

It should be noted, relating to several previous threads, that the Feds tried a de facto ban on porn via interstate commerce rules. The sheer volume of material made it nearly impossible to enforce consistently.

Also, I should note that according to United States Code title 18 section 2257, it's actually illegal to take a picture of your girlfriend naked without putting your name and address on the picture, as well as any legal or nick name she ever had; her date of birth; and a bunch of other crap. Even if it's only for private viewing.

I guess the feds figure, if you successfully keep the pictures hidden, you won't have anything to worry about.

|6.16.05 @ 4:37PM|#

KMW

Have you ever checked out voyeurweb.com? I guess once the FBI gets the computer upgrade we have all paid for, they finally will catch on to those nasty (and quite attractive) terrorists over at voyerweb!

|6.16.05 @ 7:34PM|#

"Dave McClure, president of the U.S. Internet Industry Association, which represents small to midsize companies. "We were told, 'You're going to have to start thinking about data retention if you don't want people to think you're soft on child porn.'"

Think of the children!

"Other than the chilling effect this has on liberty, I wonder how admissible this would be in court."

Why do Hit and Run posters hate America?

|6.17.05 @ 4:47AM|#

Lewis and kmw,

I have located a terrorist for your viewing pleasure. Warning: not safe for work.