[cNet] ISP Tracking OK According to Gonzales

OK. I often get labeled a 'bushbot' by some on here. I don't agree with this but I understand why some may see it this way. I don't often post news that looks unfavorably on the administration. Here's a story on something I don't agree with. Bush isn't mentioned but he most likely OK'ed the program.

While I could see how a database of numbers dialed could be used to help fight terrorism (if used correctly) but the possible uses of this program escape me right now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6078229.html?part=rss&tag=6078229&subj=news

Terrorism invoked in ISP snooping proposal
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

In a radical departure from earlier statements, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said that requiring Internet service providers to save records of their customers' online activities is necessary in the fight against terrorism, CNET News.com has learned.

Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller privately met with representatives of AOL, Comcast, Google, Microsoft and Verizon last week and said that Internet providers--and perhaps search engines--must retain data for two years to aid in anti-terrorism prosecutions, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussion who spoke on condition of anonymity on Tuesday.

"We want this for terrorism," Gonzales said, according to one person familiar with the discussion.

Gonzales' earlier position had only emphasized how mandatory data retention would help thwart child exploitation.

In a speech last month at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Gonzales said that Internet providers must retain records to aid investigations of criminals "abusing kids and sending images of the abuse around the world through the Internet."

If data retention becomes viewed primarily as an anti-terrorism measure, recent legal and political spats could complicate the Justice Department's efforts to make it standard practice.

Especially after recent reports that AT&T has opened its databases to the National Security Agency, Internet and telecommunications executives have become skittish about appearing to be cooperating too closely with the federal government's surveillance efforts.

In addition, the positive publicity that Google received during its legal dispute with the Justice Department over search terms has demonstrated to Internet companies the benefits of objecting to government requests on privacy grounds.

"A monumental data trove is a crazy thing from a privacy perspective," said one person familiar with Friday's discussions. "It's crazy that the U.S. government is going to retain more data than the Chinese government does."

Comcast said in a statement that "we fully share the attorney general's concern with the need to combat illegal use of the Internet for child p*rnography, terrorism and other illegal activities. We applaud the attorney general's initiative in convening an internal task force on this issue and look forward to continuing to cooperate with him and the FBI."

"The reasons for skepticism are growing," said Jim Harper, an analyst at the free-market Cato Institute and member of the Department of Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee. He predicted the reaction among Internet and telecom companies will be "mildly unfavorable but people are not yet to the point where they'll say the emperor has no clothes."

Details of the Justice Department's proposal remain murky. One possibility is requiring Internet providers to record the Internet addresses that their customers are temporarily assigned. A more extensive mandate would require them to keep track of the identities of Americans' e-mail and instant messaging correspondents and save the logs of Internet phone calls.

A Justice Department representative said Tuesday that the proposal would not require Internet providers to retain records of the actual contents of conversations and other Internet traffic.

Until Gonzales' public remarks last month, the Bush administration had generally opposed laws requiring data retention, saying it had "serious reservations" (click for PDF) about them. But after the European Parliament last December approved such a requirement for Internet, telephone and voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, top administration officials began talking about it more favorably.

Two proposals to mandate data retention have surfaced in the U.S. Congress. One, backed by Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, says that any Internet service that "enables users to access content" must permanently retain records that would permit police to identify each user. The records could be discarded only at least one year after the user's account was closed.

The other was drafted by aides to Wisconsin Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a close ally of President Bush. Sensenbrenner said through a spokesman earlier this month, though, that his proposal is on hold because "our committee's agenda is tremendously overcrowded already."

'Preservation' vs. 'retention'
At the moment, Internet service providers typically discard any log file that's no longer required for business reasons such as network monitoring, fraud prevention or billing disputes. Companies do, however, alter that general rule when contacted by police agencies performing an investigation--a practice called data preservation.

A 1996 federal law called the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act regulates data preservation. It requires Internet providers to retain any "record" in their possession for 90 days "upon the request of a governmental entity."

Because Internet addresses remain a relatively scarce commodity, ISPs tend to allocate them to customers from a pool based on if a computer is in use at the time. (Two standard techniques used are the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol and Point-to-Point Protocol over Ethernet.)

In addition, Internet providers are required by another federal law to report child p*rnography sightings to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is in turn charged with forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency.

When adopting its data retention rules, the European Parliament approved U.K.-backed requirements saying that communications providers in its 25 member countries--several of which had enacted their own data retention laws already--must retain customer data for a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years.

The Europe-wide requirement applies to a wide variety of "traffic" and "location" data, including the identities of the customers' correspondents; the date, time, and duration of phone calls, VoIP calls, or e-mail messages; and the location of the device used for the communications. But the "content" of the communications is not supposed to be retained. The rules are expected to take effect in 2008.

 

In his defense, I don't think he's "El Diablo." I don't agree with a lot of what he does but he's not the devil.

 

Here's the thing. I've become disillusioned with the Republican Party as it currently is.

But I'm not to the point where I would consider voting Democrats for the sole reason that they aren't Republican. To me they're the exact same as the Republicans except they're more annoying. I can't stand the arrogance of the Democratic Party telling me what's good for me and what I should do. It's one of the reasons I've begun to loathe many of the Republicans; Democrats are just better at it.

There are plenty of Republicans running that I would consider voting for and some Democrats that I would. I don't think either party deserves my vote. I hate that the Republicans have taken a huge crap on the values of fiscal conservatism and are becoming a party of big government. I hate that they're catering to the religious right that doesn't really represent most of the religious people I know.

I REALLY hate the Democratic party though. More so than the Republicans because they don't even pretend to stand for anything I agree with. I don't like a party that loves to highlight what's wrong with the country and ignore what's right about it. It's great to talk about how to fix the country but not OK to ignore what is so right about this country.

I don't like a party that thinks because I'm a minority I need help to make it in life. I don't need their help to accomplish my goals. I take it as a personal insult.

So where does that leave me? I don't know. Seeing as I'm registered in Austin, Texas I'm in a unique position. My Republican vote is wasted in Austin and doesn't matter in statewide elections. I'm able to vote for a third party without risking getting the "lesser of two evils."

Nationally, in '08, I hope the Republicans can nominate someone I can get behind because I don't see ANYONE on the left I can get behind enough to vote. I tend to consider myself a moderate libertarian (as I'm willing to overlook some things, in an admittingly non-libertarian way).

It's frustrating, really.

I just know that I won't deliver my vote to the Democrats due to Republican ineptitude. The only other option is to vote third party. We'll see how things develop from now until November.

(This is probably way too long of an answer)

 

I don't give a party a free ride for 50 years because some of their members did something worthwhile.

Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Does that mean all those with slave ancestry should automatically be Republican?

 

It's not a dodge. It was a dumb question to begin with meant to distract from the real issue. The question isn't what they've done in the past to help gain equal footing. The question is what are they doing now to try and give minorities every advantage they can "because they need it."

I'm sorry if you buy into that but I don't. I'm fine doing things for myself and relying on myself. It's done well for me so far.

What Democrats are doing now (in my opinion) only serves to keep minorities as a permanent second class. It serves their purposes and allows them to continue to trumpet themselves as the "protectors of the minorities." Bull. If you look at Bush's cabinet compared to Clinton's, you'll see more diversity in Bush's. Does this mean Bush has done more to advance the cause of minorities? No. It means that the minorities in Bush's cabinet have advanced THEMSELVES to this point. Relying on others is sometimes necessary but is only acceptable for SMALL amounts of time. Ultimately, without a strong sense of self reliance (which the Democrats, in my opinion, don't stand for) you're doomed to a second class life.

 

What's so bad with the economy now? Are you buying into the belief that we're horribly in a recession now?

I'm not saying that Republicans don't attack Democrats. I know they do. What I'm saying is that Republicans at least acknowledge that there is some good in this country. Democrats seem focused on what's wrong (without a plan to fix it). I've found that being an optimist is always the best course of action. Neither party is right now but the Democrats less so than the Republicans which is why they've gotten the majority of my vote the past 2 elections (the only 2 I've been able to vote in).

You're right on Bush not being a Republican. He's much like a fiscal liberal when it comes to spending which bothers me. I've stated this before, as well.