A new bills are entering the senate now that follow along the same lines as SOPA and PIPA, the first is H.R. 1981 which allows forces internet providers to let the government monitor your entire internet history constantly with no form of legal justification for their actions. It's receiving no media attention and is currently being called within the house the "protecting children from internet pornographers act" as a strong arming tactic. Spread the word:
The 'Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act' (I shit you not, that is the name) was formulated nearly the minute that SOPA lost all of its support on January 19th. I've heard a bit of it, read some news articles here and there over the past month about it.
It's a worse idea than SOPA, but the supposed point of the whole bill wants to guilt you into supporting it with the whole 'think of the children' BS.
As far as I can tell, all the controversy is about a previous version of the bill. I strongly encourage anyone concerned about this to read the thing yourself; it isn't long. You can find the full text here. However, only Section 4 is relevant to your concern. (Emphasis mine.)
SEC. 4. RETENTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS BY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.
(a) In General- Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
'(h) Retention of Certain Records-
'(1) A commercial provider of an electronic communication service shall retain for a period of at least one year a log of the temporarily assigned network addresses the provider assigns to a subscriber to or customer of such service that enables the identification of the corresponding customer or subscriber information under subsection (c)(2) of this section.
'(2) Access to a record or information required to be retained under this subsection may not be compelled by any person or other entity that is not a governmental entity.
'(3) The Attorney General shall make a study to determine the costs associated with compliance by providers with the requirement of paragraph (1). Such study shall include an assessment of all the types of costs, including for hardware, software, and personnel that are involved. Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Attorney General shall report to Congress the results of that study.
'(4) In this subsection--
'(A) the term 'commercial provider' means a provider of electronic communication service that offers Internet access capability for a fee to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, regardless of the facilities used; and
'(B) the term 'Internet' has the same meaning given that term in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934.'.
(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress--
(1) to encourage electronic communication service providers to give prompt notice to their customers in the event of a breach of the data retained pursuant to section 2703(h) of title 18 of the United States Code, in order that those effected can take the necessary steps to protect themselves from potential misuse of private information; and
(2) that records retained pursuant to section 2703(h) of title 18, United States Code, should be stored securely to protect customer privacy and prevent against breaches of the records.
(c) Transition Rule- The amendment made by this section shall not apply until 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act to a provider of an electronic communications service that does not, on that date of enactment, have in effect a system of retention of records that complies with the requirements of that amendment.
(d) Study-
(1) The Attorney General, not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, shall complete a study of providers affected by section 2703(h) of title 18, United States Code.
(2) Such study shall include--
(A) the privacy standards and considerations implemented by those providers as they comply with the requirements of section 2703(h); and
(B) the frequency of any reported breaches of data retained pursuant to section 2703(h).
(3) The Attorney General shall, upon the completion of the study, report the results of the study to Congress.
So, far from being forced "to let the government monitor your entire internet history constantly with no form of legal justification for their actions" , the ISPs just need to keep track of what each person's IP address is. This information would be protected exactly the same as any other customer data, requiring a court order to access.
Frankly, I'm a little tired of this fear-mongering. It only serves to de-legitimize our response to actual threats.
Given how rare child pornography is compared to the rest of the traffic on the Internet (abhorrent as it is), this is quite an extreme measure to take. It'd be like installing cameras in EVERYONE'S house just to make sure they weren't raping and/or killing anyone.
So this is what we're going back to: J. Edgar Hoover-era Wire-taps, only instead of phones it's the Internet.
Given the depth of information they're requesting, it's only a matter of time before that information goes from "used strictly for law enforcement" to "social blackmail", even if the person in question hasn't actually done anything illegal.
As far as I can tell however, the person would not have to be under suspicion of possessing or accessing child pornography; the court order can be obtained while the person is under investigation for anything.
I think that is where a good deal of the concern lies.
As far as I can tell however, the person would not have to be under suspicion of possessing or accessing child pornography; the court order can be obtained while the person is under investigation for anything.
I think that is where a good deal of the concern lies.
Limiting the info just to child pornography investigations would be a bit silly, don't you think? I'm perfectly ok with people being investigated for other crimes. Your ISP already has a lot more sensitive info on you than an IP address, and all of it is already subject to court order. This really isn't a big deal.
As far as I can tell however, the person would not have to be under suspicion of possessing or accessing child pornography; the court order can be obtained while the person is under investigation for anything.
I think that is where a good deal of the concern lies.
Limiting the info just to child pornography investigations would be a bit silly, don't you think? I'm perfectly ok with people being investigated for other crimes. Your ISP already has a lot more sensitive info on you than an IP address, and all of it is already subject to court order. This really isn't a big deal.
You leave this forum right now and never return. I am never more entertained then when the internet starts hyperbolizing about turning into an Orwellian police state, and I will not have somebody take that away from me by actually reading the bill.
As far as I can tell, all the controversy is about a previous version of the bill. I strongly encourage anyone concerned about this to read the thing yourself; it isn't long. You can find the full text here. However, only Section 4 is relevant to your concern. (Emphasis mine.)
SEC. 4. RETENTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS BY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.
(a) In General- Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
'(h) Retention of Certain Records-
'(1) A commercial provider of an electronic communication service shall retain for a period of at least one year a log of the temporarily assigned network addresses the provider assigns to a subscriber to or customer of such service that enables the identification of the corresponding customer or subscriber information under subsection (c)(2) of this section.
'(2) Access to a record or information required to be retained under this subsection may not be compelled by any person or other entity that is not a governmental entity.
'(3) The Attorney General shall make a study to determine the costs associated with compliance by providers with the requirement of paragraph (1). Such study shall include an assessment of all the types of costs, including for hardware, software, and personnel that are involved. Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Attorney General shall report to Congress the results of that study.
'(4) In this subsection--
'(A) the term 'commercial provider' means a provider of electronic communication service that offers Internet access capability for a fee to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, regardless of the facilities used; and
'(B) the term 'Internet' has the same meaning given that term in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934.'.
(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress--
(1) to encourage electronic communication service providers to give prompt notice to their customers in the event of a breach of the data retained pursuant to section 2703(h) of title 18 of the United States Code, in order that those effected can take the necessary steps to protect themselves from potential misuse of private information; and
(2) that records retained pursuant to section 2703(h) of title 18, United States Code, should be stored securely to protect customer privacy and prevent against breaches of the records.
(c) Transition Rule- The amendment made by this section shall not apply until 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act to a provider of an electronic communications service that does not, on that date of enactment, have in effect a system of retention of records that complies with the requirements of that amendment.
(d) Study-
(1) The Attorney General, not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, shall complete a study of providers affected by section 2703(h) of title 18, United States Code.
(2) Such study shall include--
(A) the privacy standards and considerations implemented by those providers as they comply with the requirements of section 2703(h); and
(B) the frequency of any reported breaches of data retained pursuant to section 2703(h).
(3) The Attorney General shall, upon the completion of the study, report the results of the study to Congress.
So, far from being forced "to let the government monitor your entire internet history constantly with no form of legal justification for their actions" , the ISPs just need to keep track of what each person's IP address is. This information would be protected exactly the same as any other customer data, requiring a court order to access.
Frankly, I'm a little tired of this fear-mongering. It only serves to de-legitimize our response to actual threats.
As far as I can tell, all the controversy is about a previous version of the bill. I strongly encourage anyone concerned about this to read the thing yourself; it isn't long. You can find the full text here. However, only Section 4 is relevant to your concern. (Emphasis mine.)
SEC. 4. RETENTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS BY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.
(a) In General- Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
'(h) Retention of Certain Records-
'(1) A commercial provider of an electronic communication service shall retain for a period of at least one year a log of the temporarily assigned network addresses the provider assigns to a subscriber to or customer of such service that enables the identification of the corresponding customer or subscriber information under subsection (c)(2) of this section.
'(2) Access to a record or information required to be retained under this subsection may not be compelled by any person or other entity that is not a governmental entity.
'(3) The Attorney General shall make a study to determine the costs associated with compliance by providers with the requirement of paragraph (1). Such study shall include an assessment of all the types of costs, including for hardware, software, and personnel that are involved. Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this paragraph, the Attorney General shall report to Congress the results of that study.
'(4) In this subsection--
'(A) the term 'commercial provider' means a provider of electronic communication service that offers Internet access capability for a fee to the public or to such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, regardless of the facilities used; and
'(B) the term 'Internet' has the same meaning given that term in section 230(f) of the Communications Act of 1934.'.
(b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress--
(1) to encourage electronic communication service providers to give prompt notice to their customers in the event of a breach of the data retained pursuant to section 2703(h) of title 18 of the United States Code, in order that those effected can take the necessary steps to protect themselves from potential misuse of private information; and
(2) that records retained pursuant to section 2703(h) of title 18, United States Code, should be stored securely to protect customer privacy and prevent against breaches of the records.
(c) Transition Rule- The amendment made by this section shall not apply until 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act to a provider of an electronic communications service that does not, on that date of enactment, have in effect a system of retention of records that complies with the requirements of that amendment.
(d) Study-
(1) The Attorney General, not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, shall complete a study of providers affected by section 2703(h) of title 18, United States Code.
(2) Such study shall include--
(A) the privacy standards and considerations implemented by those providers as they comply with the requirements of section 2703(h); and
(B) the frequency of any reported breaches of data retained pursuant to section 2703(h).
(3) The Attorney General shall, upon the completion of the study, report the results of the study to Congress.
So, far from being forced "to let the government monitor your entire internet history constantly with no form of legal justification for their actions" , the ISPs just need to keep track of what each person's IP address is. This information would be protected exactly the same as any other customer data, requiring a court order to access.
Frankly, I'm a little tired of this fear-mongering. It only serves to de-legitimize our response to actual threats.
The problem here is that this isn't where it stops; if they push this through, they're going to keep pushing other individual bills that are deemed as "not nearly as bad" until it adds up to the same threat SOPA posed, if not worse. The government only cares so much about child pornography; the "think of the children" angle is a grab at favorable publicity, almost every damn time. So all that remains is what their real motive is, and I'm less than confident it's the welfare of children; if they've proven anything in these last few years, it's that humanitarians are among the last things the government can claim to be.
Regardless, I'm getting fed up with being treated like a criminal indefinitely, with increasingly ambiguous reasoning and justification, and that's ultimately what this smells like: packaging for another attempt to just punish everyone equally rather than focus on the people who are actually posing as an issue. I've had enough of this garbage, and I'm going to oppose every single attempt made to monitor and mandate honest people with no good cause other than "just in case".
However we won't be getting much help from websites or the general public. They see children and pornography in the same sentence and automatically think its a good thing.
when is he going to get tit through his thick skull that the internet doesn't want to be regulated?
Yes it might mean we end up with some unsavory things but regulating the internet also gives us great things.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
