Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
While everyone was distracted with the hullabaloo surround the artificial “debt ceiling crisis”, Congress did manage to get some work done. Unfortunately that work was in furtherance of eroding your right to privacy. Thursday, July 28, the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee submitted a bill (H.R. 1981) under the politically motivated and misleading name Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011, which was quietly lobbied for by conservative Republicans and the Department of Justice, voted in committee to advance regulations requiring Internet service providers to retain your account information. This information preserved would include not just your IP address, but customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers and bank account numbers as well. The Judiciary Committee approved this bill in a 19-0 vote, rejecting a last minute amendment that would have required the retention of IP addresses only by 7-16.
It is helpful to note there is a distinction between “data retention” and “data preservation”. ISPs regularly destroy log records no longer required for business purposed. However, under the existing Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act, ISP’s can be required to retain log files or any record in their possession for up to 90 days at the request of a governmental entity. This data preservation policy would require ISPs to keep all log files and records related to commercial Internet accounts for 18 months. As this requirement would not apply to non-commercial accounts such as public access provided in Internet cafes and public libraries, any intelligent criminal could simply avoid logging by going to a public access point or by hacking into an improperly secured wireless network while the Internet traffic of individual law-abiding account holders across America would be recorded. As Rep. John Conyers (D – MI) succinctly put it, “The bill is mislabeled. This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It’s creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes.” Criticism of the bill came from both sides of the aisle with Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R – WI), the previous chairman of the House Judiciary committee, noting “I oppose this bill. It can be amended, but I don’t think it can be fixed… It poses numerous risks that well outweigh any benefits, and I’m not convinced it will contribute in a significant way to protecting children.”
Given that the Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act already provides for data retention upon request and the Protect Our Children Act of 2008, requires any ISP that “obtains actual knowledge” of possible child pornography transmissions to “make a report of such facts or circumstances” and backs that requirement with a $150,000 fine for the first offense and up to $300,000 for each subsequent offense, does H.R. 1981 do anything to further protect children or is it simply an invasion of your privacy and erosion of your rights that serves no legitimate governmental interest not already met by existing law? What do you think?
Source: CNETNews
~Submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
kderosa,
I speak for myself. Who you speak for is a matter of debate.
Noway,
Well obviously you don’t have the courage to list the Republicans because you support them. Cleverly, you thought, you’d try to trap me by denouncing my own party. You are a fool as well and besides that, you lack the capacity of self-awareness. I state that because you are a partisan who views all of this just as he/she would root for their favorite team. You just follow the party line and the party you represent is one lacking empathy and scruples, winning is the only thing, the wreckage left in you team’s wake is irrelevant. As I stated yet again restated since you refused to respond to it:
“What you guys don’t get is that there are few, if any politicians I trust to put the public good over their own issues. Some voted for the bill because of its’ title, not wanting it used against them at election time, others were directly responding to the lobbyists behind their campaign contributions and some were just too stupid to understand its implications.”
Do you get that fully? I’m not for either party per se, I regard all politicians with suspicion, and I’ve personally known quite a few. The major difference between you and I. however, is I have the courage you so obviously lack. I’m out there, my name isn’t hidden by pseudonyms, I don’t disguise my political thoughts and I have the courage of my convictions. I’m not the political sycophant that your writings indicate you are, lacking the courage to be open in your partisanship and hiding like a scared rabbit in its burrow.
Now as for your other question: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011. The title of the bill gives it away. When a piece of legislation is named with this type of title, political experience has shown that it is rarely as intended. Why you might say, lacking the insight of experience and the wisdom of unbiased thought, is the title a giveaway? Because it is too easily to attack politically anyone, who opposes the bill, because of its hidden faults, with the simple meme of “Legislator So and So” voted for “Child Pornographers”. This has been a tactic well used over the years and effectively used by your favorite political team.
To be more specific: Sec. 4 calls for a retention of 18 months of temporarily assigned internet addresses. Presumably, the purpose is so that “Child Pornographers” can be tracked down; however, the door is left wide open for “tracking” of other persons deemed worthy of investigation and thus strikes at the heart of internet privacy. Someone
like yourself for instance would have your anonymous comments here tracked and who knows what might be discovered were your identity revealed. Why for all is known of you it is possible you’re a paid agent of ALEC. This information might well be an invasion of your privacy. Not a good thing.
Sec(s). 5. & 6 allows for no cause of action against these providers for disclosure of these records. This is a blanket protection severely limiting and/or erasing any liability for disclosure. Using “Good Faith” absolves them further. Conversely removing the ISP’s from being able to defend against orders to release the records. As for protection of these records the requirement that they should be secure is only specified as the “sense of congress”, with no specified penalties for any lack of “security” on the ISP’s part, such as their being sold into the wrong hands “inadvertently”.
I certainly hope that answers your questions and I regret making the mistake of responding to you with the civility you obviously don’t deserve.
Yet that is the difference between someone of courage and someone who is merely a craven soul lost in their senseless cheer-leading.
It’s the thrill of the chase, I think… (…here to harass and disrupt… with a bully mentality…)
Kderosa, why do you insist on picking fights you have no intention of winning?
@GeneH, who else would you be speaking for?
Nevermind.
kderosa,
Again, I’ll speak for myself. As to you thinking I’m a partisan? I’m not a member of any political party nor do I endorse anyone or anything along party lines unless it’s by happy coincidence. I’ve also made it abundantly clear I am unconcerned about what you think about anything substantive much less me.
Conyers is no dummy….
@GeneH
“The fact of the matter is that when one party or the other does something worthy of criticism, they’ll get criticized for it. I’m equal opportunity.”
You weren’t this time that’s for sure. Just admit your mistake and let’s move on.
“The political parties in this country all suck. ”
But, apparently, some suck more than others in your view.
“They are all driven by corporate lobbyists and big money campaign contributors interests instead of minding the business of the people.”
We agree here. Now how did the government acquire all this unenumerated power to be driven by these special interests?
“In the instant story, the GOP was the one pushing for this bill over bi-partisan concerns about civil rights infringement.”
And what about all those Democrat co-sponsors and all those Democrat votes in the judiciary committee. Were they just useful idiots? Why istheir sponsorship and favorable voting not also being singled out for your approbation?
“If you have a problem with that, take it up with the GOP. I’m the messenger.”
No, you are not just a mesenger. Notwithstanding your protests to the contrary, you are a partisan spinning the facts.
@rafflaw — “voting for a bill to get out of committee has nothing to do with being in favor of the bill. The dems may have merely wanted the whole House the opportunity to vote for or against this misleading bill.”
I believe the republicans are a majority of the judiciary committee. All the Democrats ion the committee could have voted against it and it still would have made it out of committee.
“If you have read all of Gene’s postings over the years, you would realize your claim that he is a partisan Dem is all wet.”
Ooooops. Howington why don’t you just put an end to this embarrassing charade of yours?
“So” is the problem.
Lottakatz,
I understand your concern, but you have not identified a problem with the law (except that maybe you would like the records to be maintained for other purposes too; which would be an inadequacy of other laws as much as would be a problem with the proposed law), all you have identified is an allegation that they could be used for other purposes. To that I say “So?”. The records maintained by your physician could be used for some other purpose, but there exists a valid reason for keeping them nonetheless.
NoWay, here’s the problem with your question: “If somebody illegally accessed your retirement account, and you didn’t notice it for 3 months because you were enjoying your retirement by traveling or visiting relatives, would you like to be told that you’re SOL because the ISP only maintains the records for 90 days?”
The law deals specifically and narrowly with one small range of criminal activity. If those records are in fact fair game, by the use of other legal instruments, for law enforcement to use over a broad range of allegedly suspect activities then there is a problem. The law states specifically what the records are maintained for. If this is a way to back-door the maintenance of such records for other purposes then the law is a sham, a beard as it were.
Mike Spindell,
Did you bother to take the time to read the Bill itself? I really hope you did. Then you won’t mind quoting the provision(s) that you have a problem with.
The records are already maintained. The Bill is just mandating that they be retained for a longer period of time in order to be available when needed by subpoena.
If somebody illegally accessed your retirement account, and you didn’t notice it for 3 months because you were enjoying your retirement by traveling or visiting relatives, would you like to be told that you’re SOL because the ISP only maintains the records for 90 days?
This is a good law. The records are maintained for a longer period because not doing so has resulted in an inability to prosecute the bad guys. The retained records are still subject to the same privacy concerns that already exist.
The statement made by Conyers does not comport with what it says in the text of the Bill. (So who is a fool or paid off? The guy who can’t read and comprehend the text, or the people who recognized it to be a good Bill?)
DOJ,here’s something that you are being asked to take a look at:
FRIDAY, JUL 29, 2011 14:30 ET
WAR ROOM
The new Jim Crow?
http://www.salon.com/news/department_of_justice/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/07/29/democrats_decry_voter_id_laws
So, are all the trolls here tied to DImbart?
In case it is not obvious the reason klownderosa says someone is partisan is because they are not totally obsequious to his master so, by default, partisan.
I’m not sure if I would be more comfortable knowing these glib irritants are paid to annoy rather than just that stupid. They can occasionally make rational sounding arguments so its hard to believe the stupidity is voluntary.
They really would be happier at place like redstate or WingNutDaily but keep coming back here spouting the same easily disproven sludge, whining about ‘partisanship’ and pretending to ‘win’. Obviously they have no self respect I hope the money is good,
NoWay,
Every last one of the Democrats mentioned is either a fool or paid off and that goes the same for the Republicans. What you guys don’t get is that there are few, if any politicians I trust to put the public good over their own issues. Some voted for the bill because of its’ title, not wanting it used against them at election time, others were directly responding to the lobbyists behind their campaign contributions and some were just too stupid to understand its implications. Now I’ve got the balls to say that, how about you giving me a list of the Republicans and agreeing with me?
Now perhaps you like the Bill, but if that is so why do you use a pseudonym. If the Bill passes everyone with power will know who you are anyway? You see politics to me is not like rooting for my favorite team, I see it as trying to actually meet the needs of the people. I’ve experienced the pain and suffering of regular people unable to pay medical bills, or put food on the table for their kids. I take their pain personally. By the way that’s not because I’m some bleeding heart altruist, far from it, but I have empathy for my fellow humans. Do you? That’s why I couldn’t be elected to anything, I’m far too honest and passionate with what I truly believe.
Cc: Breitbart
Mike Spindell “whoever voted for the bill is either a fool, or paid off.”
Which of the following Democrat Members of the House Judiciary Committee are fools and which ones are paid off? I think the campaign ad featuring the former New York Social Services Executive, Mike Spindell, making the claim will be of interest to the voters. I think declaring that the Chair of the DNC is either “a fool or paid off” should suffice.
Conyers Jr. -(D) Michigan, 14th
Berman -(D) California, 28th
Nadler -(D) New York, 8th
Scott -(D) Virginia, 3rd
Watt -(D) North Carolina, 12th
Lofgren -(D) California, 16th
Jackson Lee -(D) Texas, 18th -Cosponsor
Waters -(D) California, 35th
Cohen -(D) Tennessee, 9th
Johnson -(D) Georgia, 4th
Pierluisi -(D) Puerto Rico, Resident Commissioner -Cosponsor
Quigley -(D) Illinois, 5th -Cosponsor
Chu -(D) California, 32nd
Deutch -(D) Florida, 19th -Cosponsor
Sánchez -(D) California, 39th
Wasserman Schultz -(D) Florida, 20th -Cosponsor
Roco,
Of course I believe it.
Mike Spindell:
“It is therefore an invasion of privacy and whoever voted for the bill is either a fool, or paid off.”
Do you really believe that or is that just rhetorical?
“SM, if geneh is not a partisan dem then why is he acting like one?”
Kderosa,
Gene is not a partisan Dem, but even if he was, surely you would have your own opinion on the Bill. Is your purpose here to derail any issue that gets brought up into a partisan one? How about dealing directly with the issue, as Roco did, instead of trying to divert the discussion of a serious issue? What are your thoughts on the Bill itself Kderosa?
Mine are it is a terrible Bill, passed under the guise of protecting children, but whose real purpose is to create databases for corporate use. It is therefore an invasion of privacy and whoever voted for the bill is either a fool, or paid off.