New bill from the creator of SOPA

[Wintermoot]

I don't mean to sound selfish here but will this affect anyone in other countries? Like the UK for example.

However, I do empathise with anyone who is affected by this nonsense. This guy needs to just fuck off.

it gives politicians the proof they can pull shit like this off.

 

[Keava]

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 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.

The thing is there is nothing about your activities in there. Just the IP adress assigned to Your connection so that courts/FBI/Police/whatever can cross reference it with the logs that websites already keep to track unique visitors.

In EU we already have similar systems in place, the Data Retention Directive was adapted in 2006, and while EU directives aren't as strict as US Bills and are more of guidelines than set laws, in many countries storing that type of information is happening based on voluntary agreements between ISPs/phone/mobile operators and governments.

The thing that makes me wonder is that US PATRIOT Act already allows FBI to pull that data from ISPs without any judicial review with NSLs, and well, a lot of users these days have static IP addresses (or on rotation every year or so) so i'm not sure how much of an effect it would really have on average users. There still also are things like VPNs and proxies as well as other tools to conceal/change your IP.

 

[Evil Smurf]

This...this is madness.

No, THIS IS SPARTA!

 

[scorptatious]

So this bill will make it so that the government themselves will know when I watched po...

I mean...

Fuck it. Porn.

If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go bash my head into the wall. This...this is madness.

Madness?

THIS. IS.

 

[Keava]

I don't mean to sound selfish here but will this affect anyone in other countries? Like the UK for example.

However, I do empathise with anyone who is affected by this nonsense. This guy needs to just fuck off.

From Wikipedia:

The United Kingdom has a system of voluntary data retention which derives from Part 11 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. Telephone operators and Internet Service Providers retain some data [see below] under a voluntary arrangement with the UK Home Office.
The Part 11 of the Act contains a number of sections which deal with the retention of communications data by fixed line and mobile telephone service providers and internet service providers [service providers]. Communications data includes data which identifies the users of services, data which identifies which services were used and when they were used, and data which identifies who the user contacted. It does not include the content of communications. For example, in the case of a call from a mobile telephone the data to be retained would include data identifying the owner of the phone, who was called, the duration of the call and the approximate locations of both parties. It would not include what was said during the call.
The Act requires the Secretary of State for the Home Office to issue a voluntary code of practice on data retention. This has been done. A code of practice has been issued and contains the requirements set out below. If the Secretary of State believes that the voluntary code of practice is not effective then he may make the code compulsory by issuing a statutory instrument which must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. This has not yet been done.
Other legislation affecting data retention includes the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003. These require service providers to destroy or anonymise data when it is not longer required for commercial purposes [e.g. billing]. The provisions of Part 11 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 override these requirements.
Any compulsory scheme of data retention would also be affected by Article 8 (the respect for the right of privacy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. This would require the destruction or anonymisation of communications data, but article 8(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights permits an interference with individual?s right to privacy if it is necessary in the interests of national security and the prevention and detection of certain types of crime. If the UK government was not to be challenged under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act it would need to demonstrate that any statutory requirement for data retention was proportionate.

 

[Erana]

I just wish people couldn't give bills names. I know having to refer to things by numbers would be annoying, but all these names have a blatant subconscious clout to them that should have nothing to do with our actual perception of them.

 

[CarlMin]

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.)

Spoiler

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.

I couldn't agree more. This Internet freedom hysteria is counterproductive and will not achieve anything. I'll take ACTA as an example. Most of the criticism regarding ACTA concerns an earlier and now irrelevant version of the bill but few people seem to know this. Now, I'm not defending ACTA, I'm just saying that nobody is going to take us seriously if we come with inaccurate protest arguments.

 

[Aidinthel]

Wasn't there a thread awhile back about the same thing? And yea, what Aid said. This bill is not nearly as destructive as SOPA.

Yes there was. I briefly considered quoting my own post from that thread, but I decided that rewriting it would actually be less effort.

 

[renegade7]

US Government: MOOOOOMMMYYYYY I WANT MY SOPA NOW!!

 

[ThatLankyBastard]

"Oh that crazy dude! What he gonna do next!!!"

Someone needs to slap this guy... Seriously...

 

[DioWallachia]

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.

Wasnt there ANOTHER "think of the children" law back in the 90's???? But anyway, why the fucking hurry in making the laws? is there a company on the verge of losing millions if it doesnt pass ASAP?? like a car company that is making cars so dangerous for any being that they said "oh shit, we need to make sure to sell as many as we can before they notice that we fucked up. We need to keep people of using any mass media to divulge the true"
How about the need to invade another country for resourses for whatever war they are in need to finance?? If all the social networks are from United States then all they need to do is keep any foreign from sending messages to the outside world. Hell, they could even shutdown cellphone services while they are at it. So all they need to do after that its just use the media to convince that the people of x country are committing terrorist acts and they are invading and controlling them "for their own good"

Whoila! isnt it nice to let the paranoia run loose in your mind on a law that may or may not be an innocent attempt to protect the children, gone wrong?

 

[Aidinthel]

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.)

Spoiler

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.

I am actually resorting to quoting my own post because no one is reading it.

*snip*

*snip*

*snip*

Seriously people, it's the fifth post on the page. There's really no excuse.

 

[MordinSolus]

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.

Oh God! John Henry Eden has taken over the government already! Where is the Lone Wanderer when we need him!?

 

[SenseOfTumour]

If this shit passes, who's for buying some big stacks of hardcore porn magazines and leaving them pinned to school gates in your local area, just to show how the act entirely failed to protect kids from porn?



Also, the very idea that the greatest minds in the universe could create software to get between a pubescent teen and porn is hilarious.

(I know it's not about kids or porn, just a tabloid friendly title to get it passed by people who like votes, but still, that's ridiculous too)

 

[ThatLankyBastard]

I am actually resorting to quoting my own post because no one is reading it.

*snip*

Seriously people, it's the fifth post on the page. There's really no excuse.

I'd say there's quite an excuse actually... I always post before I read comments so my opinion isn't altered by someone else's!

And really I just said someone needs to slap buddy...

...is anyone disagreeing with me on that?

 

[DioWallachia]

Seriously people, it's the fifth post on the page. There's really no excuse.

The excuse is: "There is no such thing as bad publicity" thank you very munch.

Spreading the word that way is faster because people are fucking lazy if you make it sound like homework. However, if you deliver it correctly you can let the spark of fear be the one that drives the person to seek the truth. In case that they are too dumb to seek the truth of the matter, then all i can say is that they deserve to have their right taken.

 

[Gardenia]

...And here I thought Republicans were supposed to be all about small government? Any Americans (perhaps even Republicans) care to explain this to a filthy, unwashed Norwegian?

 

[karloss01]

this maybe inappropiate given the name of the bill but...

fuck the children.

seriously, its something parents should be watching out for themselves. pretty sure ISPs and Browsers have parental controls. its not my country but it will probably still effect me when my government see happen and say "lets do it here."

laws like this should be global laws and even then they should have the public vote. though that would be pretty damn impossible to do but one can dream of a world that not bat shit paranoid.

 

[ElPatron]

allows forces internet providers to let the government monitor your entire internet history constantly with no form of legal justification for their actions

Might as well start the mandatory brainwashing and CCTV in every corner because denying someone the "guilty until proven otherwise" is a very serious breach on my privacy.

ISPs are run by humans. Humans are greedy, and I don't want people laying their hand on what I have been doing to blackmail me.

Anyone wanna team up with me and get some gear and weapons in case the government comes for us?

I won't deal with people with tinfoil hats, those make your brain waves even easier to read.