Comments on: Congressional Hearing About Data Retention Laws For Internet Companies

Congressional Hearing About Data Retention Laws For Internet Companies

ericb — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:53:34 -0800

"The House Republicans' first major technology initiative is about to be unveiled: a push to force Internet companies to keep track of what their users are doing."

"A House panel [Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee] ... is scheduled to hold a hearing tomorrow morning to discuss forcing Internet providers, and perhaps Web companies as well, to store records of their users' activities for later review by police. One focus will be on reviving a dormant proposal for data retention that would require companies to store Internet Protocol (IP) addresses for two years. ... For now, the scope of any mandatory data retention law remains hazy. It could mean forcing companies to store data for two years about what Internet addresses are assigned to which customers (Comcast said in 2006 that it would be retaining those records for six months). Or it could be far more intrusive, sweeping in online service providers, and involve keeping track of e-mail and instant-messaging correspondence and what Web pages users visit. Some Democratic politicians have previously called for data retention laws to extend to domain name registries and Web hosting companies and even social-networking sites."

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:56:25 -0800

Across 'the pond':

"When adopting its data retention rules, the European Parliament required that communications providers in its 25 member countries--several of which had enacted their own data retention laws already--retain customer data for a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years. The Europe-wide requirement applies to a wide variety of 'traffic' and 'location' data, including the identities of the customers' correspondents; the date, time, and duration of phone calls, voice over Internet Protocol calls or e-mail messages; and the location of the device used for the communications. The 'content' of the communications is not supposed to be retained. But last March, a German court declared the national data retention law to be unconstitutional."

By: Capt. Renault

Capt. Renault — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 16:57:14 -0800

No-one needs to know how much porn I'm looking at. Really. No-one needs to know that in the slightest.

By: brundlefly

brundlefly — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:00:13 -0800

Thank God the party of small government is in power.

By: Mister Fabulous

Mister Fabulous — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:03:21 -0800

Thank God the party of small government is in power. It is. They are requiring the companies to do the legwork, which means the consumer gets to pay for it through increased fees. The government does nothing, and therefore no extra taxes! Better yet, it helps police with their investigations. THIS WILL STOP TERRORISTS! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

By: stbalbach

stbalbach — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:11:29 -0800

If the USA does this, it will create a big business opportunity for commercial proxy services (like Ipredator) in countries that don't have these laws (like Sweden). Of course the next step would be to outlaw foreign proxies.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:12:12 -0800

Just when I was ready to abandon the Democratic Party in disgust....

By: 0xFCAF

0xFCAF — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:17:21 -0800

Congresscritters told us they'd be focusing on jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs if they got elected. I guess now we know what kind of "jobs" they were talking about.

By: bicyclefish

bicyclefish — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:21:13 -0800

Not to be overly reductionist, but their commitment to making things worse really is something to behold.

By: jnnla

jnnla — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:22:49 -0800

Isn't this sort of "government interference in business" the type of thing that Republicans would typically avoid?

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:24:36 -0800

Morbid Curiosity Leading Many Voters To Support Palin

By: Benny Andajetz

Benny Andajetz — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:27:00 -0800

I can't wait until there's only one source of information. Hopefully it'll be Comcast or AT&T so they can just hand over all our private info without the need for pesky laws or procedures. Fuck these guys. Really. They are scared little pussies who see danger and misdeeds behind every bush. A freethinking public is just one more dangerous security concern. (And yet they are the first to proclaim how America is the beacon of freedom for the rest of the world.)

By: kafziel

kafziel — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:27:45 -0800

Does a foreign proxy really help you if your ISP is keeping copies of the packets you send there?

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:28:03 -0800

Thank God the party of small government is in power. Isn't this sort of "government interference in business" the type of thing that Republicans would typically avoid?

"Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the free-market Cato Institute, says the push for legislation is an example of pro-regulatory Republicans. 'Republicans were put in power to limit the size and scope of the federal government,' Harper said. 'And they're working to grow the federal government, increase its intrusiveness, and I fail to see where the Fourth Amendment permits the government to require dragnet surveillance of Internet users.'"*

By: cobra_high_tigers

cobra_high_tigers — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:29:27 -0800

Recall that one of the GOP talking points against Net Neutrality was that it was "a government takeover". That's right: - Forcing ISPs not to discriminate against traffic based on its source = government takeover - "[K]eeping track of e-mail and instant-messaging correspondence and what Web pages users visit" without a warrant or even reasonable suspicion, for later use by police = 9/11 nevar forget these colors don't run don't be a commie

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:31:07 -0800

James Sensenbrenner

Isn't Sensenbrenner the guy who proposed manditory reporting of marijuana use with jailtime for those who failed to report, along with decade long sentences for casual consumption? Oh, Yes he was. Good times. Also he was a supporter of Net Neutrality the last time the republicans had a majority.

By: jnnla

jnnla — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:32:27 -0800

@ericb -Then in this case I actually agree with someone from the Cato Institute. It is a strange day.

By: SNWidget

SNWidget — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:37:50 -0800

Fuck these guys, seriously. I'm so tired these fuckheads wrapping themselves in the banner of "Government Go Home," and then turning around to do shit like this. Go away. Seriously, go away. "If you have nothing to hide, don't be worried." Bullshit. God, this makes me so angry, all I can do is grit my teeth and pound at my keyboard.

By: SNWidget

SNWidget — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:38:58 -0800

Then in this case I actually agree with someone from the Cato Institute. It is a strange day. It's like a planetary alignment - it happens once every hundred years and is usually predicted by ancient, apocalyptic calendars.

By: jetsetsc

jetsetsc — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:51:02 -0800

Right. Also: - Forcing health insurers not to drop you when you get sick, or decline coverage for pre-existing conditions = government takeover - Forcing ISP's to track your every move = freedom

By: sebastienbailard

sebastienbailard — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:58:08 -0800

Thank God the party of small government is in power. They hate us for our freedoms.

By: notreally

notreally — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:59:54 -0800

So would there be a record of it when one goes to the library to learn about making bombs? I mean what is good for the net should be good for the library. Right? (notice the care taken in using 'one' rather than 'I')

By: immlass

immlass — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:01:41 -0800

The one saving grace of the extension of CALEA to web traffic--a shitty law and a shitty extension--was that nobody retained the data. Oh well.

By: MikeMc

MikeMc — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:03:32 -0800

Oh fuck Jim Sensenbrenner with a big rubber fist and post it on the internet so Larry Craig can fap to it. I'm so tired of him (I live in his district).

By: Postroad

Postroad — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:06:07 -0800

For me, no problem. I am old and so I don't give a rat's ass what they see, keep, hold, view...if they would rather look at what I have done then look at their own shit on their puters, so be it.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:17:24 -0800

MMm perhaps they should start by automatically disclosing all material congressional computers are used to access, and automatically releasing all congressional emails.

By: wabbittwax

wabbittwax — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:17:54 -0800

I'd like to show them where they can stick their series of tubes.

By: His thoughts were red thoughts

His thoughts were red thoughts — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:21:33 -0800

So, the Republican are like...openly evil? And people vote for them? American politics is confusing.

By: His thoughts were red thoughts

His thoughts were red thoughts — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:21:58 -0800

Republicans. Sorry about that.

By: His thoughts were red thoughts

His thoughts were red thoughts — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:25:53 -0800

Although, as it happens, the current Australian Government (Labour) are supposed to be the 'left' party (although they are very centerist and, in some areas, conservative), and they have recently been considering a similar policy. They are keeping development very quiet, since everyone (i.e., the public) hates it.

By: tustinrick

tustinrick — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:25:57 -0800

i have no problem with govt. following where I go to on the internet, only about 6 web-sites every day for over 4 hours, Metafilter,Free Slots, Facebook, E Bay, GMX my email and ESPN sports, that's about all, for a 66 old disabled, retired wheel-chair user in California. Maybe not all readers of this post feel the same way, LOL to them!

By: sonic meat machine

sonic meat machine — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:49:29 -0800

These people don't understand the value of data. Data is only useful if it can be analyzed, and the sheer volume of this means that it can't. Furthermore, many web sites (and other Internet services) are encrypted. Terabytes upon terabytes of what is essentially line noise? Fantastic! It's as if the governing party were made up of paranoid grandmas.

By: lupus_yonderboy

lupus_yonderboy — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:52:14 -0800

So I'm curious. Are there still actually any Republican supporters here? Is there one person reading this who can explain to me how the Republicans do this sort of thing over and over again and get away with it without a murmur from their "base"? It really makes me think that the only thing the R's want is to piss off rational people - that they just use these buzzwords and then do much as they please.

By: Mitheral

Mitheral — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:01:17 -0800

stbalbach writes "If the USA does this, it will create a big business opportunity for commercial proxy services (like Ipredator) in countries that don't have these laws (like Sweden). Of course the next step would be to outlaw foreign proxies." No need to go to Sweden, Canada is right next door. kafziel writes "Does a foreign proxy really help you if your ISP is keeping copies of the packets you send there?" An encrypted tunnel is still vulnerable to traffic analysis but the problem is much harder. And certain kinds of fishing becomes very difficult.

By: lupus_yonderboy

lupus_yonderboy — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 19:49:16 -0800

> Data is only useful if it can be analyzed, and the sheer volume of this means that it can't. Not so! Let's overestimate consistently to get an upper bound. Suppose everything is monitored by Big Uncle Sam. Suppose there are a billion internet users, each visiting a thousand web pages a day and each URL is 100 bytes. That's 100 terabytes of data a day raw data (very uncompressed indeed) or about 40 petabytes of data a year. Let's suppose we want 25-year data retention, that's a cool exabyte of data, uncompressed... which is a million one terabyte drives, or about $50 million in raw data storage ("just disk drives, no chassis"). Now, you need to replicate your drives quite heavily, but this is more than compensated for by the fact that even the most moronic compression scheme would save you an order of magnitude of this data storage with only a marginal computational overhead. So you need $50 million in hard drives, another $200 million in computers to hold those drives. Now multiply this all by 10 to get these computers sitting in a hard drive in a data center somewhere hooked to a network. So we're talking $2.5 billion dollars. Now this is still all dumb hardware unless you get some smarts. The real problem you'll have is that many talented engineers are either quite socialist or even more likely libertarian and would refuse to work on your evil project, but on the other hand, this is actually not rocket science. This is 2011 and people know how to write search engines - and even before you had a search engine, you could get fascinating reports out of this fairly quickly just using a Map/Reduce and a few thousand machines. So double it to pay for these people. Then double it again because I missed most of the problem, no doubt, and then again. $20 billion. And that's complete data, on one billion obsessive internet users, for 25 years. Could this really be done? An awful lot of people (like me) have "graduated" from Google, Yahoo and other such places, and more or less know how to do this - and you'd have the advantage of a captive audience that's satisfied with much slower response times, Google's looking to always get response times less than 100ms (a tenth of a second) but if you could get simple queries back in 10 seconds every time, or if you could answer most complex report-sized queries in hours, I think it'd be a roaring success The data set is large, but most certainly not unprecedented. Large physics projects like the Large Hadron Collider collect comparable data sizes, with the additional wrinkle that you need to have great domain-specific knowledge to simply understand the data itself - whereas the data you'd be collecting in this "human internome" project is people visiting web pages, which is something that all programmers understand. Programmers are very good at this sort of thing. If it were somehow set up as a competition like the Netflix prize, supposing for example that you gave the data I propose above to competing groups of engineers and said, "Somewhere there's a terrorist planning to make an anthrax attack, identify the ten most likely individuals to have done this," I'll bet that if there really were an anthrax maker in the sample data he'd appear on most of the lists. There are various reasons that the government wouldn't structurally be able to pull this off, thank Goodness...but I think we'll leave it at that, don't want to give people ideas!

By: formless

formless — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:19:14 -0800

Now multiply this all by 10 to get these computers sitting in a hard drive in a data center somewhere hooked to a network. So we're talking $2.5 billion dollars. NSA To Build $1.5 Billion Cybersecurity Data Center. Estimated like a pro, within an order of magnitude. Maybe this should be a new interview question at Google. Sensenbrenner was a major architect of the Patriot Act. I believe he is the one taking a photo of the signing of the Patriot Act. Saving that one for the scrapbook.

By: eriko

eriko — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:41:17 -0800

Let's overestimate consistently to get an upper bound. Dude, you nailed it. This isn't hard. In a year, it'll be easier. In three years, it'll be trivial.

By: nTeleKy

nTeleKy — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:02:43 -0800

Isn't Sensenbrenner the guy who... If it was terrible, yes it was probably him. Almost every time I read about a new bill that's been introduced and think "Holy Lord, what hath ye wrought?"/"WTF is this terrible shit?", his name is on it. It's always a nice reminder of why "fuck politics". When I turned 18, I was in his district. I was an idealistic, politically-interested debater that thought things like rationality and reasoned argument were the basis of governance, so he did a good job of shitting on that idea. I wrote him at least 4-5 times, and he or an assistant of his always "respectfully disagreed" and re-iterated their position as the complete opposite of mine without offering any real reasoning. Fuck Politics. I frequently feel like tracking him down and throwing jujubes at him while taunting him with "Hey. Hey Jimmy. YOU SUCK." I don't expect it to achieve anything except the satisfaction of knowing that perhaps, if only for a day, I've inconvenienced him as much as he's inconvenienced, if not downright fucked-over, millions of people in this country.

By: kuatto

kuatto — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:27:37 -0800

That NSA cyber-security installation is fucking insane. What a waste of money in a time when there are families that are going without food and transportation. It's fucking bitterly cold outside and the US government is burning money.

By: spitefulcrow

spitefulcrow — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 08:45:14 -0800

By: rollbiz

rollbiz — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:26:51 -0800

Judging by his previous posts (and his relationship to User #1), I'm going with real.

By: edgeways

edgeways — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:44:31 -0800

And hey... I'd be interested to see what part of the Constitution is referenced as justification for the bill. or have the republicans already dropped and ignored that little grandstanding wanking headstand act?

By: joannemerriam

joannemerriam — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:02:12 -0800

Is there one person reading this who can explain to me how the Republicans do this sort of thing over and over again and get away with it without a murmur from their "base"? posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:52 PM on January 24 I don't know - my Republican friends are pretty annoyed by this sort of thing. But they do say it's for fighting internet child pornography. So if you're against the government having access to a log of everything you've looked at and done online, then you must like to diddle children.

By: nTeleKy

nTeleKy — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:15:03 -0800

Does a foreign proxy really help you if your ISP is keeping copies of the packets you send there? It's hard to give a full answer to this without knowing what the panel's recommendations are, but let's assume that they mandate preservation of the origin and destination information (which is mentioned a couple times and pretty simple to collect). In this case, presuming all of your traffic is properly forwarded through an encrypted VPN tunnel to a foreign proxy server, the information collected about you by your ISP would be your IP address and the IP address of the foreign proxy. Additionally, if you were connecting to a USA server, their ISP would record the proxy's IP address and the IP address of the server it was connecting to. In this case, using the proxy would make it difficult to associate your outgoing connection with the incoming connection to the server. As Mithrael mentioned, if someone was actively capturing your network traffic, they may be able to determine some information about the type of content being transferred over the VPN tunnel, even if they could not view that content directly. It is my understanding that this sort of eavesdropping requires a court order of some sort or a corrupt government that does not mind violating our constitution...*cough*

By: IanMorr

IanMorr — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:15:48 -0800

https://www.torproject.org/donate

By: ericb

ericb — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 15:04:13 -0800

House Seeks Details On Net Tracking Plan -- "Republicans and Democrats push Justice Department for more on what it wants from mandatory data retention, with committee chairman describing Internet as 'virtual playground for sex predators.'"