+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: The latest Big Brother scheme (/thread-214420.html)
- georgia_tech_swagger - 06-18-2005 02:09 PM
<a href='http://news.com.com/Your+ISP+as+Net+watchdog/2100-1028_3-5748649.html?tag=nefd.lede' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/Your+ISP+as+Net+watchd...l?tag=nefd.lede</a>
Quote: The U.S. Department of Justice is quietly shopping around the explosive idea of requiring Internet service providers to retain records of their customers' online activities.
Data retention rules could permit police to obtain records of e-mail chatter, Web browsing or chat-room activity months after Internet providers ordinarily would have deleted the logs--that is, if logs were ever kept in the first place. No U.S. law currently mandates that such logs be kept.
In theory, at least, data retention could permit successful criminal and terrorism prosecutions that otherwise would have failed because of insufficient evidence. But privacy worries and questions about the practicality of assembling massive databases of customer behavior have caused a similar proposal to stall in Europe and could engender stiff opposition domestically.
- flyingswoosh - 06-18-2005 02:54 PM
what's the problem? are you purchasing illegal weapons?
- GDawgs88 - 06-18-2005 03:18 PM
flyingswoosh Wrote:what's the problem? are you purchasing illegal weapons?The problem is it's unconstitutional and violates our civil liberties.
We have enough rules in place to stop terrorism.
- MichiganTiger - 06-18-2005 04:12 PM
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" - Benjamin Franklin.
- RandyMc - 06-18-2005 11:45 PM
GDawgs88 Wrote:The problem is it's unconstitutional and violates our civil liberties.For my edification..............not that I am for or against any such provision (so much of the criticism of the Patriot Act has been mistaken or downright lies, I reserve judgment on this), but, as opposed to the illegal infringement of the right to bear arms enumerated in the Second Amendment, do you cite the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures as the basis of your assertion?
If so, do you think that the requirement of keeping "logs" for posterity sake is "an unreasonable search and siezure"? Again, if so, where is the search? Where is the seizure?
The reason that I think this is important is because similar attempts by such acts as the Brady Bill made weapon sales subject to similar record keeping. It was determined that this provision (in its limited sense) WAS constitutional.
If the requirement of logs of internet providers is found unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, then that would logically extend to such other provisions as those referencing firearms and other weapons.
Secondly, just as in other Patriot Act provisions that have been misreported, a judge would still have to enter a warrent for release of such logs. Would that change your opinion?
- flyingswoosh - 06-19-2005 12:02 AM
just like everything else in the patriot act, this means nothing to the average guy like me, who leads a legal life. if you aren't a criminal you have nothing to worry about.
- RandyMc - 06-19-2005 12:05 AM
flyingswoosh Wrote:just like everything else in the patriot act, this means nothing to the average guy like me, who leads a legal life. if you aren't a criminal you have nothing to worry about.Maybe for 99% of the legal guys out there..............but if you are one of the 1% that gets caught in a trap based upon misinformation...................whew!
Again, I have not yet made up my mind..........
- GDawgs88 - 06-19-2005 12:06 AM
Quote:For my edification..............not that I am for or against any such provision (so much of the criticism of the Patriot Act has been mistaken or downright lies, I reserve judgment on this), but, as opposed to the illegal infringement of the right to bear arms enumerated in the Second Amendment, do you cite the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures as the basis of your assertion?Yes.
Quote:If so, do you think that the requirement of keeping "logs" for posterity sake is "an unreasonable search and siezure"? Again, if so, where is the search? Where is the seizure?I don't necessarily think it's unreasonable, but I think if you allow something like this you're going down a slippery slope of violating the Constitution. I have nothing to hide, but the fact that the government can spy on me if they want to definitely sounds like a violation of the Fourth Ammendment, at least to me. The Constitution is a great document, and I just worry that if we allow one Constitutional right to be taken away, more of them, such as the right to bear arms, will follow.
- GDawgs88 - 06-19-2005 12:08 AM
flyingswoosh Wrote:just like everything else in the patriot act, this means nothing to the average guy like me, who leads a legal life. if you aren't a criminal you have nothing to worry about.I agree with you, but the Constitution should be upheld at all costs.
- moloch_322 - 06-19-2005 07:36 AM
I don't know how you guys who support this think its good. I live a perfectly legal life and I cherish my privacy, I will fight to keep it private! To me this is completely invasive and Orwellian. This is another sign of the federal government continuing its slippery slide into totalitarianism. Hopefully the lawmakers will acknowledge this complete erosion of freedom and liberty and refuse to renew the Patriot Act.
- Rebel - 06-19-2005 11:23 PM
You know, being a conservative, this probably won't effect me at all so long as a conservative is in office and I remain conservative. HowEVER, I know how this **** works. It's incremental like the tax situation. ANYONE who supports this is a damn fool and by no means, a True American.
- georgia_tech_swagger - 06-20-2005 12:28 AM
flyingswoosh Wrote:just like everything else in the patriot act, this means nothing to the average guy like me, who leads a legal life. if you aren't a criminal you have nothing to worry about.That is an *extremely dangerous* and frankly sheepish mindset.
- georgia_tech_swagger - 06-20-2005 12:30 AM
BTW... if you're going to use an analogy, use a relevant one. Comparing the logging of buying weapons to logging the use of the internet is not a valid analogy. A valid analogy is the logging of all cellphone/telephone use for 2 years. Not just who you called... but the actual conversations as well.
You consider that an invasion of privacy? God I hope so.
- lauramac - 06-20-2005 08:40 AM
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:A valid analogy is the logging of all cellphone/telephone use for 2 years. Not just who you called... but the actual conversations as well.That's what I was thinking. (I initially thought it was like putting surveillance cameras in everyone's house "just in case", but that comparison is clearly over the top.)
- JTiger - 06-20-2005 09:22 AM
RebelKev Wrote:You know, being a conservative, this probably won't effect me at all so long as a conservative is in office and I remain conservative. HowEVER, I know how this **** works. It's incremental like the tax situation. ANYONE who supports this is a damn fool and by no means, a True American.Exactly, it quietly erodes away our civil liberties. We say to ourselves that it's okay, they can look at what books we check out of the library then it escalates into totalitarianism.
- DrTorch - 06-21-2005 08:24 AM
RebelKev Wrote:You know, being a conservative, this probably won't effect me at all so long as a conservative is in office and I remain conservative. HowEVER, I know how this **** works. It's incremental like the tax situation. ANYONE who supports this is a damn fool and by no means, a True American.Agreed.
One of my interestes is photocatalysis. So, I did research on chemical and biological weapons as part of my grant proposals, to use photocatalysts to remediate them and protect against them. But, anyone who has a grudge against me could make a strong case against me for where I go on the internet.
Consider they started using RICO laws against abortion protestors. That is, despite a constitutional provision to legally assemble.
Finally, who is going to pay for keeping such databases? Sounds expensive.
- umbluegray - 06-24-2005 01:31 PM
I agree that having that information could possibly increase the number of terrorism convictions, but it infringes on our rights.
The government will have to find another way to combat terrorism. Like blowing them off the face of the earth.
- I45owl - 06-24-2005 02:08 PM
GTS - one of the notions in information security is that "email is part of the permanent corporate record". In general, anything that ever gets stored on a hard disk should be considered part of the permanent corporate record. Likewise, anything that is electronically transmitted (not stored/archived) is protected under electronic eavesdropping law.
If your log settings are such that every web page that every employee accesses, then you have an obligation to produce the log in legal action. If you don't log that information ... no legal obligation. In principle, the same rules apply for ISPs as for Employers.
I believe the article/law that you cite is just articulating the rules, not putting new rules in play.
In spite of various attempts to put quasi-legal disclaimers at the bottom of emails, everyone should realize that something they put in an email is just as permanent as a formal document (and harder to shred since there are generally at least three locations where a given email is stored).