Thanks to Whenifhow for the link.
Posted on 05/12/2011 5:58:49 AM PDT by ShadowAce
As a new Senate privacy panel considers the data collected by iPhones, Androids and BlackBerrys, the Department of Justice is reminding lawmakers that it needs Internet providers to store more data about their users to help with federal investigations.
Current law doesn't require those Internet service providers to "retain any data for any particular length of time," although some already do, said Jason Weinstein, deputy assistant attorney general at the DOJ's Criminal Division. And many wireless companies — which must collect some data — also "do not retain records that would enable law enforcement to identify a suspect's smartphone based on the IP address collected by websites the suspect visited," he noted in prepared testimony.
That's why Weinstein urged the Senate Judiciary’s Privacy, Technology and the Law subcommittee on Tuesday to consider data-retention legislation as it weighs new privacy efforts in the digital age. The top DOJ official said such a congressional fix would boost the agency's ability to investigate privacy breaches, prosecute other digital crimes and ferret out abuses in the offline world.
"Those records are an absolutely necessary link in the investigative chain," Weinstein told the panel.
Data retention has proven to be a particularly divisive issue in the privacy community. Some top tech stakeholders believe it would allow companies and law enforcement agencies too much access to consumers' personal information, such as the websites they visit. The resulting caches of information could further be subject to data breach, many argue.
But data-retention rules are particularly appealing to DOJ, which argued at a hearing earlier this year that such legislation would assist greatly with cyberstalking and other tough law enforcement investigations. Weinstein stressed Tuesday the department seeks a law that would require providers to keep records for a “reasonable period of time,” and seeks a “balance” between the needs of law enforcement, private industry and consumers.
Thanks to Whenifhow for the link.
Users to DOJ... Get bent.
Of interest.
So the government wants to force ISPs to keep track of user's data to protect user's privacy. What an Orwellian statement.
Absolutely!
Thanks.
There are a lot of the parts of net neutrality which are being built on the side, as if they really are separate issues. Which they are not.
They’re gonna have to do it that way in order to keep their net neutrality sales pitch intact until the very end. But by then, it will be too late.
Do you remember this?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2660422/posts
They can’t neutralize the net if they don’t even know who we are.
All data is collected and stored. Every last byte.
The beauty of the systemic data collection mechanism is the inability to discern the specific needle in the stack of needles.
The stack is higher than the sky, and the ability of the individual to sort through such is... limited, at best.
This administration must have quite an enemies list if they need to access everyones ISP.
this link which shows the presidential threats - most of the threats against Obama are in America.
http://president.globalincidentmap.com/map.php
Not to mention making them submit to random drug, alcohol screens and mental evaluations. Just to be sure, they should all have thorough background checks as well.
Like that's ever gonna happen.
It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Marlboro Smith surveyed his desk with satisfaction. The monthly reports were done and he'd responded to all recent requests under the Public Accountability Act. His workload was current once more.
Smith enjoyed being a public employee, even though he knew he should be ashamed of that fact.
He carefully assumed a pained expression and turned towards the omnipresent Public Oversight camera. It was mounted to look over his shoulder so that it could record exactly what Marlboro wrote, read, or filed away. The placard beneath the lens warned:
LITTLE SISTER IS WATCHING YOU.
Smith sensed someone standing just outside his office. There was no door; no government official had worked behind a closed door since the Government Scrutiny Amendment's ratification.
[...]
"I reviewed your present and prior performance. You were demoted after several warnings about a high intrusiveness rating, and one violation of the Limited Implementation law."
"I was just trying to help!" Smith responded emotionally. "There were conflicting rules and the state agencies kept contradicting each other. The disaster victims needed assistance and invoking federal jurisdiction was the only solution."
"So you concluded that a government official had the right to determine the future of American citizens?"
"Not exactly. I was trying to fulfill their requirements of the government."
[...]
"You feel justified then?"
"Yes." Smith froze, realizing that he'd just indicted himself.
O'Brien smiled. "Bureaucrat Smith, you have just admitted believing that official action can have positive results rather than being a necessary evil. I will therefore recommend your immediate suspension pending mandatory attitude adjustment therapy."
Frankly, I think the REAL dangers to Zero are in the Islamofascist Community.
The enemies list I was talking about is the Nixon type EL. Heard it mentioned yesterday in form of question. Why would Holder need this authority? does not want to be required to get a legal search warrant from a Judge? Now why would that be the case?
Well said.
Sure they want to track everyone. Makes it easier for the democrat party to identify who needs to be rounded up and sent to reeducation camps.
FUBO & FAD
If you bring up our legitimate needs, it makes this proposal for them to spy on us sound reasonable!
Ahhhh! [sighs with pleasure] There’s an entire book on that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.