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
Mike Spindell: 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”.”
You’re worried about privacy and anonymity, yet at the same time you have a problem with my anonymity. You really do talk out of both sides of your mouth.
Tell me, Mike; where is the law that requires ISPs to destroy those records? Do you know that most ISPs already maintain those records for more than 90 days, simply because they are so easy to store? Do you know that those voluntarily maintained records are subject to subpoena?
Do you have a problem with people keeping old phone books? You do know that those phone books can be used to track down your old address and phone number, don’t you?
Do you know that most medium to large size businesses have a static ip address (meaning that their ip address remains the same)?
Do you know that this blog records your name, email address, and IP address every time you post a comment? Do you know that JT has maintained those records for years?
Look here: http://jonathanturley.org/2008/11/15/al-sharptons-love-offerings-irs-demands-roughly-500000-in-fines-for-illegal-contributions/#comment-28864
The email address and the ip address that you posted it from have been stored by JT.
You’re fighting against the boogey man. You’re just not familiar enough with technology to know it.
I take what I can get.
“A republican partisan would not make such a statement. You understand that don’t you?”
Of course they would and then go on to sidetrack the direct discussion of the bill as you have done here and on every other thread where you’ve made comments. That is one of their most prominent strategies. As for your claim of favoring neither party but disdaining leftists, that is merely more obfuscation. Your commentary is awash, to the point of drowning, in Grover Norquist talking points. Face it Kenny you have the unforgivable stultification of an imprisoned mind. Silly me! Suffering it, you lack the capacity to even recognize it.
“Mike Spindell, you’ve attracted a groupie.”
Envious Kenny since that’s a real person and yours are only sycophantic sock puppets. I guess that doesn’t matter to you because you need anything to bolster your fragile ego.
“Re my identity, I am using my real last name. It is not my fault you two are too lazy and/or incompetent to use Google to do basic research or to look on other threads where some of what you seek has been revealed.”
Well De Rosa alone on google yields a baseball player, a bicycle manufacturer, a band and a telemarketer on the first page, not helpful unless you are the Mark De Rosa who plays for the SF Giants.
Now “K De Rosa” yields Catherine K. De Rosa, Dr. Julie K. Derosa, MD., Terrance K. DeRosa, K DeRosa (AA at Cornell), Kara K Derosa Attorney,
Julie K Derosa MD, Lynn K DeRosa, Agent, on the first two pages.
Now Mike Spindell on google shows me all over the first page. Gene Howington also has immediate hits on the first page. Where are you Kenny. I assume its’ Kenny from Bryn Mawr because I had to delve much further. I guess being “all over the internet since 1995” hasn’t rated with Google. now if you really had the courage of Gene or I, you would list yourself Kenny, but then courage can’t be everyone’s forte and certainly not yours.
“Also, according to both your misunderstanding of biased/credible sources, the credibility/bias of a source is absolutely fatal to any argument that source makes. Spindell did it recently with a Reason Study.”
Actually, when I cite sources I don’t present them as facts, only ideas to support my own premises. That’s the difference between you and I Kenny from Bryn Mawr, my ideas are my own and I take responsibility for them. yours are merely rehashed memes and talking points indicative of a boxed in mindset that can’t allow for your own mistakes since they would shatter your already fragile ego. I can’t help it that in the back of your mind you are fighting so hard to keep people from being aware of your own poor self image and stultified thought processes. You’re in your forties sonny, time to man up and accept yourself for who you are, even if it is distasteful.
Mike Spindell, you’ve attracted a groupie.
“Thanks for the good laugh.”
Interesting name you have Noway. Is that a first or last name. Perhaps its only one name, which is indeed unusual in the US. Now maybe it’s a contraction of names like Norbert Wayfinger, or some such. In any event it is interesting you get a good laugh from this statement:
“Mike Spindell “Gene Howington is a real person, using his own name, stating his own profession”.
Given that all we know of you is that you’re a sockpuppet, who can only write a few sentences at a time.
From ESPN:
Mike S: 357 million. kderosa: 0.
Source: http://needakleenex?.com
Noway, I also own a chain of steakhouses with Little Joe, maybe you heard of them?
@OS
“Gene’s family has been close to our family for forty years and one of my son’s closest friends is one of the Howington boys. ”
How is that relevant to Howington’s posting as Buddha? It is a non-denial denial.Something you’d give in a deposition to avoid answering the question fully.
Since you know Geneh Howington so well, why not just unequivocally state that you know that Gene Howington has never posted as Buddha is Laughing on this forum? that he has never used the Buddha is Laughing identity in any way? And that you know that Gene Howington has never posted as any other identity in this forum? And that you know that Gene Howington has neer posted before GeneH’s first post on this forum on July 7, 2011?
And the small lake on kderosa’s property was featured on television for many years.
What? Never heard of the “Pond Derosa”?
That last comment was direct to Mike Spindell not OS.
@OS
“I did single them out Kderosa and no doubt Gene agrees with me but was making other points.”
You might have, but Howington did not and I was speaking to him. You’re not Howington are you? So why would you think I am addressing you when I specifically directed my commentto “GeneH”?
“Since you have arrived on the scene you have been completely a partisan, both attacking Democrats, Liberals and Progressives. Making accusations of calumny against them. your writings are loaded with partisan attacks on what you dimly perceive as “The Left”, with no commensurable vitriol upon those on the Right.”
Clearly you aren’t reading my comments closely enough.
Charges of partisanship require a political party affiliation. I do not identify with either Democrats or Republicans.Though I do believe that the Republicans are the slightly lesser of two evils since these two parties are the only electable parties. If anything I am anti-Left, which is why I have found this forum such a rich source of bad political thought and hypocrisy. And, being anti-Left does not make you Right.
“That is ipso facto partisan, yet you dare wrongly accuse others of partisanship. Even when you make attempts to appear reasonable in discussion, your partisanship slips through since your thought processes and response mechanisms are so rigid, you can’t control them enough to maintain the identity you are portraying here.”
It isn’t. All my charges of partisanship have been accurate.If you disagree prove your point instead of just stating a conclusion. AS to your charges of partisanship, if you read my somments above, you’ll see where I didn’t favor this bill, based on Howington’s initial characterization. A republican partisan would not make such a statement. You understand that don’t you?
“The final proofs of your partisan nature is the whining you exhibit when people attack your questionable sources. Unfair you declaim as if any document from any source favored by you evinces reliable proof.”
I don’t claim unfairness becasue there is nothing unfair about it. I merely point out that such questioning of sources is an ad hominem logical fallacy, which it is. And, as such, is not a rebuttal in any way. That you continue to think it is, despite the evidence I have shown you showingthat it isn’t, merely speaks to the illogical thought processes you are afflicted with. If anything, I feel pity for you.
“It is not your point of view that rankles, because even I could do a far better and more logical job of representing your viewpoint, it is simply your lack of honesty.”
I honestly disagree with your opinions.It is unfortunate that you equate such disagreeing is an indication of dishonesty. Your opinions are not fact no matter how much you wish and believe them to be. This is yet another reason why I pity you. Your political beliefs are like religious beliefs. You take your political beliefs are a matter of faith.You don’t need facts; your beliefs are sufficient to prove any opposing point. And, I know how much you despise relgion.
“The reality is that those you oppose are decent, courageous people, representing true American patriotism toward our Constitution.”
No doubt they do. They are unfortunately mistaken.their beliefs undermine the Constitution and their religion-like political convictions prevent them from seeing this.
Gene’s family has been close to our family for forty years and one of my son’s closest friends is one of the Howington boys. Next question?
Mike Spindell “Gene Howington is a real person, using his own name, stating his own profession”.
Thanks for the good laugh.
@MS and OS,
You two are pathetic.
Re my identity, I am using my real last name. It is not my fault you two are too lazy and/or incompetent to use Google to do basic research or to look on other threads where some of what you seek has been revealed.
And, tell me if Howington’s previous use of the Buddha avatar and subsequent lying about it were so irrelevant, why has he not admitted to it despite all the evidence that has come to fore? When you can answer that question, you wll understand why the misuse of identities is not irrelevant.
Also, according to both your misunderstanding of biased/credible sources, the credibility/bias of a source is absolutely fatal to any argument that source makes. Spindell did it recently with a Reason Study.Otteray did it recenly with a Hot Air Article. Both have attempted the ploy numerous times in the past. I’m just looking to use your own illogic against you.Remember as you both claim, as well as Howington/Buddha, the truth of discreditation take the discreditation out of the realmof ad hominem logical fallacy.
Everything else in your post is merely your opinion, uninformed and biased.You are entitled to it.
By the way you are disrailing the discussion yet again.
Mike, you just put into words what I have been thinking for weeks. Thank you.
“You are putting your friends in an awkward position to maintain this web of lies”.
As I’ve stated before, which you conveniently ignored kderosa, even if Gene were Buddha, that is irrelevant. Gene Howington is a real person, using his own name, stating his own profession and presenting his honest point of view. You hide behind a hidden identity, give no hint of your profession, refuse to admit your political perspective, make up lies and purposely sidetrack discussions. You are a political coward and liar, with the hubris to criticize others of that you do yourself. A sad piece of work, as spiritually and emotionally ugly as the icon you’ve chosen to represent you.
“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?”
I did single them out Kderosa and no doubt Gene agrees with me but was making other points. The irony here is that you dare to call anyone here a partisan.
“SM, if geneh is not a partisan dem then why is he acting like one? This is an issue that should transcend partisanship. For every willie horton there is a corresponding dem dirty trick. That’s politics. If the dems don’t have the stomache for it, they should not have run.”
Since you have arrived on the scene you have been completely a partisan, both attacking Democrats, Liberals and Progressives. Making accusations of calumny against them. your writings are loaded with partisan attacks on what you dimly perceive as “The Left”, with no commensurable vitriol upon those on the Right. That is ipso facto partisan, yet you dare wrongly accuse others of partisanship. Even when you make attempts to appear reasonable in discussion, your partisanship slips through since your thought processes and response mechanisms are so rigid, you can’t control them enough to maintain the identity you are portraying here.
The final proofs of your partisan nature is the whining you exhibit when people attack your questionable sources. Unfair you declaim as if any document from any source favored by you evinces reliable proof. This is quite typical of the false “tough” attitude of the side you favor, merely bullies easily exposed. The reality is that those you oppose are decent, courageous people, representing true American patriotism toward our Constitution.
You on the other hand represent cowardice, duplicity and a distinct inability to reason with unshackled clarity. You are here to disrupt and not to discuss. It is not your point of view that rankles, because even I could do a far better and more logical job of representing your viewpoint, it is simply your lack of honesty. Now is this an attack upon you and your character, absolutely, but it is a non-partisan one. That all parts of the political spectrum can be represented by bottom feeding slime is a given, we all share human frailty, in this case though the slime is represented by you with your political perspective, limited as it is.
@GeneH, Actually what you mean by “myself” is even more s matter of debate now isn’t it? You are putting your friends in an awkward position to maintain this web of lies. Slip-ups are inevitable and now they are getting caught in lies trying to cover for you.