Coyote Blog

Orwell missed both the method and the decade, but not the idea.

This would certainly allow the government, or hackers for that matter, to blackmail the entire male population of the world. (Oh sure - you never click on those sites do you!)

Touche', Sam. But that was a completely different genre of stupidity.

Republicans are a big tent party. That is why I give "Republican" branding no credibility at all. Arlen Spector was labeled a Republican.

"This is no different than rules governing hotel guest records, or any other number of businesses that are required to keep records for several years on hand, and honestly any ISP ALREADY keeps this information for varying lengths of time (recall ISPs giving IP assignment information to the RIAA/MPAA, this information is already stored!)."

Not all, some specialized ones make sure they do not keep any record at all of you outside of the bill, and they are willing to take no name and untraceable cash cards. Even some of those promise to keep them only for a short specified period of time.

Not quite Chuck. Sure, the haystack will be too big for them to spot a terrorist or even catch a low profile money launderer. But, if they decide they want to get you for whatever reason, then all they have to do is root around long enough in the haystack and their ever expanding list of laws until they find a match. In other words, not so good for stopping crime, great for personal vendettas by beuracrats.

@Matt, that's nice to know but you do realize that your arguments at very best simply show that this law isn't needed. According to you they already keep the information and are already compelled to turn it over. So if the law isn't any different than how things already are, why did they pass it?

Once again EUrope leads, we follow. When will my people want to be free?

Matt - one question - why again should my ISP be storing my credit card information? The IP information is their information, my credit card and bank account numbers ARE NOT. Dismissing this as "well, they already do that stuff" is preposterous and ignores the push to make it go a bunch further (and subsequently entrench it) than necessary.

I don’t know enough about the bill in question to form an opinion as to its merits, but the blogger's implication that it is akin to “ObamaCare” appears to be off the mark because no one will be forced to use the internet under the former, but people are forced to buy insurance under the later.

From XBIZ Newswire: "But supporters, like Texas Republican Representative Lamar Smith, chairman of the committee, claim it's an aid to law enforcement.... “Investigators need the assistance of ISPs to identify users and distributors of online child pornography."

I keep reading about this epidemic of child pornography on the internet, but I cannot recall ever reading a story about the arrest of anyone in the USA who produced child pornography and distributed it over the internet. The few arrests of child pornography producers I've read about were of people who invited others to watch live performances or who distributed physical media within a select circle. Almost all arrests for child pornography possession (on computers) have been of people who obtained photos or videos from other countries or from FBI sting sites.

The largest collection of child pornography in the USA is on computers owned by our federal government. A few years ago the Dept. of Justice collected and digitally analyzed thousands of child porn images to facilitate pattern-matching of electronically transmitted image files. Has this effort shut down any child porn producers? Not a single one. It did provide some of the photos that the FBI used to set up its stings. I'm sure the victims in those photos are relieved that continued distribution is sanctioned by law.

Hmm. Let's see; We have no military opponents of note. Our defense outlays are double, in real terms, of that of just 10 years ago. We will spend $1 trillion a year on national defense, homeland security and the VA in the next 10 years. Mostly for coprolite, and patronage.

And now we are supposed to set aside even more money to record every e-mail and web search of every person in the USA? Or the world (if they search a US website)?

BTW, this is like making a copy of every letter, telegram and phone call made in the days of yore, before the web. The web is how we transact our lives these days.

How about this: We cut military outlays, homeland security outlays in half, and voucherize the VA. And blow to kingdom cum any idea of recording web searches by citizens.

And start paying down the debt.

Steve, then vote Ron Paul in your State's primary/caucus, you may have to change registration in order to do so, but you can change it back after the presidential election. Ron Paul is the only candidate with principles, the only candidate to consistently support an end to the federal war on drug(user)s (in votes as well as speeches), along with an end to all the wars in which we are currently engaged and no new wars unless we've be attacked by another country's military and even then only with congress declaring war. He also wants to end the fed and give us back a monetary system that is stable and sound, and he wants the federal government to obey the Constitution. What more could one want from a presidential candidate? If all libertarians and all drug war reformers would vote for him he'd win the nomination and the election, then we'd finally have a president who WILL end the drug war, half our battle on that front would be won, and he'd be good for us libertarians in many other ways as well, such as reducing the power and scope of the federal government's intrusion into our everyday lives, like the one discussed in this thread. Gary Johnson would make a good running mate for Dr. Paul (as would Judge Napolitano).

For a little clarity, this is the provision at issue:

(h) Retention of Certain Records- A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account, unless that address is transmitted by radio communication (as defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934).

So all it requires is that CableVision maintain for 18 months after I terminate service a record showing that the network address they assign to my internet connection is XXX.XXX.XX.XXX. I presume the purpose is to aid law enforcement in tracing the origin / distribution of files they already possess -- whether it's child porn, terrorism, hacking, or any other crime related. I have to admit that as much as I dislike over reaches of government power, this is pretty far down the list of things I get excited about.

Although if I were in Congress every time a law like this were introduced I'd introduce an amendment to take away some other government power -- there are plenty they could do without.

"THe government’s powers are defined by the constitution."

Which is a living document and means whatever 5 of 9 folks in robes thinks that year.

Mark - You have no absolute right to privacy. The minute you go on the internet you have entered a public domain.

This may be true, but why? Mail is private. The government doesn't make records of everyone I send to or receive it from. Why not? Too much work I expect.

"This may be true, but why? Mail is private"

It is "private", but it is not absolutely private. The Constitution addresses this. With the proper warrant, the government can snoop into any of your communications. What a "warrant" is the balancing act between an individual's "right to privacy" and the State's legitimate powers to pursue evidence of crime.

"Which is a living document and means whatever 5 of 9 folks in robes thinks that year."

And I agree with you, but I disagree with that constitutional philosophy. In my opinion, each element of the Constitution means something. It has a purpose. The ability of the judicial branch to decide later that it means something else is a little bit suspect. For example, consider the age requirements for holding federal office. These elements of the Constitution have a reason for being (nepotism being the primary reason). The Supreme Court clearly does not have the power to decide that, well, 34 is close enough in age to be President, and I doubt clearly they would ever assert that claim. So, by extension, if the Commerce Clause had a meaning in 1787 it still has that same meaning. If the meaning changed, then the People should ammend the document accordingly.

Well, now that H.R. 1981 is out there we know Matt is spouting ignorance. This bill goes far, far, beyond tracking a few basic things for billing purposes.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.01981:

Mark,

please ignore that snide comment about telling your children you did it for them. It was rude. I get carried away sometimes. I apologize. I take it back.
The rest stands.

By the reasoning of "what have you got to fear if your not commiting a crime?", then probable cause itself is unnecessary since they will find no crime.
Why would the founding fathers ever make a point about probable cause?

What am I afraid of? I am afraid that the government will set up surveilance of people with political views they don't like.

They will then inspect these peoples tax records, driving records, etc. for any flaw they can pin on them. With an ever growing list of laws this gets easier and easier. (ex. Ever deposit 9,000 in a bank? That now makes you suspicious for money laundering. Since you are avoiding the 10,000 reporting requirement.) The government doesn't even have to convict you of anything to ruin your life. Just charging you is often enough to seize all your assets (the innonence of which you have to prove, not them proving your assets guilty) and turn you into a pariah.

You may tell yourself it can't happen here or that the 1st ammendment will protect me. I consider that wishful thinking since the constitution is being steadily revoked piece by piece. This is just one more step, snooping before probable cause when it has always been probable cause then snooping in the past.

"just relax. Who cares what the government does."
LOL, who cares indeed. Apparently you do since you are passionately defending their actions.

Sure, my fears would take a while to come to fruition but I have kids, and I care what happens to them. After all, why do you care soo much that someone watching kiddie porn on the internet would have to be watched for a few weeks without prior records instead of arrested immediately with them. There must be some reason for your passion besides "most businesses do it that way anyway."

A final tip. Telling libertarians they are paranoid beyond belief at the potential for government abuse is not going to change any minds with them. Many libertarian websites consist of little more then reports on one government abuse of power after another. Including wiretapping without warrants, planting of evidence, police and prosecutors lying to get a conviction etc. Not saying your wrong (I hope you're right for my kids sake), just that you will have to adjust your arguments if you hope to convince anyone on those sites.

"Exactly. The prior records aid in reducing this crime. The more tools that law enforcement has in combatting these issues the better."

This is the very argument that will be used next to eliminate the requirement for probable cause before government starts searching these files. After that, some terror attack or something and the government is into searching political affiliations. Step by step, until all freedom is gone.

"This is the very argument that will be used next to eliminate the requirement for probable cause before government starts searching these files"

And, that is a completely different argument, made on completely different grounds, and one that I might not support. I personally believe that the "slippery slope" argument is a very weak one. It essentially admits that you cannot win the argument based on merits, but rather have to resort to looking at ALL POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS. Based on this argument, the second we created the Constitution, step by step, all of our freedom would eventually be gone (which was the extreme anti-federalist position, btw), and we should never have created the Constitution in the first place. Why, giving the President or a national legislature all of that power meant that one day you would just be a slave to the national government.

Do I think that the government is too big? You bet. Does it exercise too much power? No doubt. Is this specific legislation something that is too big and too powerful? No way. It is a legitimate requirement.

But again, slippery slopes are another argument, a different case. The 10th Amendment has not "slipped away" because of the very first issue, but over a sequence of steps.

This issue has nothing to do with any of your fears. Those would be subsequent, independent steps. In some cases I might even disagree with those steps. But to claim that STEP A happens, therefore STEP B will happen is just a poor argument against STEP A.

Again, when someone resorts to the "slippery slope" argument, it is very clear that I have won that argument because they cannot directly contradict my argument and need to resort to some other issue. Slippery slope is just "change the subject because I am losing".

Again, as I pointed out earlier, the anti-Federalist made basically the same slippery slope arguments you are making about this particular issue (and I am sure you make the same arguements over every government policy). Everything was well and good, the anti-Federalist claimed, but you know, the slippery slope. Eventually the federal government is going ot make us all slaves. Since we are not all slaves, I think that this argument is wrong, as is yours.

Can the government abuse power? Sure. But that can happen with or without this legislation. WIll it be possible for the government to add to their "power' in similar fashion? Sure.

But, what is obvious to me is that the government has found a gap in their ability to prosecute crimes that involve internet communications. When they try to prove cases involving child pornography, as an example, the ISPs are not required to maintain this information so very solid pieces of evidence vanish making it harder to convict child pornographers and the like. I think that this is a substantial rational why the government would create rules that govern the retention of informaiton regarding these internet transactions. This is no different than similar rules involving the retention of business records for a period of years. No more, and no less.

Yet, you prefer to see this as some sort of conspiracty because obviously people want to snoop into your business. That is just ridiculous.

THe very formation of government removes private liberty. Every action of government reduces private liberty. It is the tradeoff between the value the People get from these actions versus the sacrifice of personal liberties that define all government statutes. You may believe that the "sacrifice" is too big and ohhhhh sooooooo scarrry. Yet, for any law abiding citizen this has zero impact on their lives. So, the cost is extraordinary minimal. Yet, the value to the government in enhancing its ability to protect us is potentially significant.

Anyone who cannot see the almost infinite cost-benefits to this is, as I said earlier, overly paranoid.