MattFancy Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10448060-38.html?tag=TOCmoreStories.0 The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years, a requirement that law enforcement believes could help it in investigations of child pornography and other serious crimes. FBI Director Robert Mueller supports storing Internet users' "origin and destination information," a bureau attorney said at a federal task force meeting on Thursday. 1984 anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Meet the new president, same as....well, y'know.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Not sure what the president has to do with it, but count me opposed to this. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Not sure what the president has to do with it, but count me opposed to this.~Bang He chose to keep Mueller, and can change this course if he chooses. It's the (same old ****) we can believe in!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Why don't they just track backwards from questionable sites? And, I agree with Bang - this is an FBI thing, not a President thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 bad stuff, not bad on Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HOF44 Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Just trot out the child porn and everyone will be ready to give away their privacy. No possibility for abuse here at all?? Why worry?? :paranoid: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Meet the new president, same as....well, y'know.... You really think the President signs off on everything anyone in the Federal Government suggests or does? I oppose this and will be interested to see how this plays out. If Obama's people support it, I will jump on him about it same as you. But we don't know yet. You might even be right that Obama will support this, because being labelled "soft on child porn" may be the single most devastating political tag you can ever get, and I have no doubt that Rush and Co. are just waiting to slap that one on Obama. But it would be a wuss move on his part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 I also dont believe for a moment that this is about child porn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 They want us to keep basic TCP logs of web traffic...originating IP, destination host, time stamp. They would still need a court order to have the ISP translate that into the actual user's information, just as they do now when they learn the IP through other means (honeypots, firewall logs, etc.). I don't have a problem with the idea in principal; methods exist already to get this information, just less convenient and its held for a lot less time. But from a logistical standpoint on the ISP side of things it is going to be a nightmare if they really push for it. I don't think that they realize volume of data we're talking about here. We did some data stats once on web traffic a few years ago..to keep the kind of data we're talking about here would mean needing almost 13 petabytes of storage monthly, in a revolving archive over 2 years. That's a staggering amount of capacity and expense involved to get that done between the hardware arrays, throughput, server room/warehouse space, etc. And thats just our network alone. Not to mention the performance and logic challenges to parse through that kind of data for anything useful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsTerps26 Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 its about regular porn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 So "W" was the one physically doing the wiretapping, huh? It's OK, I didn't expect any consistency. I've been here long enough to know better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stugein Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Why don't they just track backwards from questionable sites? Because they would have to subpoena the logs of the web host/domain owner of the site and while that goes through its' process the likelyhood of any useful data being retained to be given over should their application be successful is slim to none. And thats if it ever existed..most folk running those types of site are loathe to keep any sort of logs in the first place; most transaction records are bit-bucketed as soon as they happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 So "W" was the one physically doing the wiretapping, huh?It's OK, I didn't expect any consistency. I've been here long enough to know better. Or accuracy apparently,, as I recall it was an Executive Order by Bush that authorized the NSA to tap calls that could potentially lead to terrorism suspects. Now, if it turns out Obama has issued an order to the FBI to monitor web traffic, you've got a reason to ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeanCollins Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 not much difference between this and keeping track of who checks out certain books (bomb making) from the library, like has been done for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Is it really that hard to find the servers hosting these kiddie porn sites, find out who's running them, and lock them up instead? Why such an emphasis on the demand as opposed to the supply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 You really think the President signs off on everything anyone in the Federal Government suggests or does? I oppose this and will be interested to see how this plays out. If Obama's people support it, I will jump on him about it same as you. But we don't know yet. You might even be right that Obama will support this, because being labelled "soft on child porn" may be the single most devastating political tag you can ever get, and I have no doubt that Rush and Co. are just waiting to slap that one on Obama. But it would be a wuss move on his part. I believe that nobody within the Federal Government would make a statement like this unless it was approved by this Administration. This kind of thing goes across all sorts of citizens rights and, incidentally, would cost our Government untold amounts of money. In order to be able to do this, you must have massive resources and they are not free. Where would the money come from to do this? This is not negligable IMO. It's probably a test ballon to see what the American response will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Is it really that hard to find the servers hosting these kiddie porn sites, find out who's running them, and lock them up instead? Why such an emphasis on the demand as opposed to the supply? They might be out of the country, and probably are. That is what makes child porn hard to stop. Actually stop is a bad word,, because you'll never stop it short of killing everyone you catch using it. Depravity will continue to exist and the depraved will find a way to get it. One obvious answer is to set up sting sites and send out cookies to lead the authorities to computers housing it. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Or accuracy apparently,, as I recall it was an Executive Order by Bush that authorized the NSA to tap calls that could potentially lead to terrorism suspects.Now, if it turns out Obama has issued an order to the FBI to monitor web traffic, you've got a reason to ~Bang OK, well at this point I know about it. And if I know, Obama certainly knows about it. If he allows it to happen/continue, he is at an absolute minimum complicit in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 They want us to keep basic TCP logs of web traffic...originating IP, destination host, time stamp. They would still need a court order to have the ISP translate that into the actual user's information, just as they do now when they learn the IP through other means (honeypots, firewall logs, etc.). I don't have a problem with the idea in principal; methods exist already to get this information, just less convenient and its held for a lot less time. But from a logistical standpoint on the ISP side of things it is going to be a nightmare if they really push for it.I don't think that they realize volume of data we're talking about here. We did some data stats once on web traffic a few years ago..to keep the kind of data we're talking about here would mean needing almost 13 petabytes of storage monthly, in a revolving archive over 2 years. That's a staggering amount of capacity and expense involved to get that done between the hardware arrays, throughput, server room/warehouse space, etc. And thats just our network alone. Not to mention the performance and logic challenges to parse through that kind of data for anything useful. You would have to be able to access that data as well. That would mean huge and very sophisticated amounts of management software. The hosting environment would have to be something that currently does not exist anywhere in the world. You're talking about security at all levels which would also be astronomical in cost, support functions, encryption protocals, maintenance and a whole list of other things that would take way to long to even scratch surface on. I mean, you don't just make this statement as if it can be done. This would be an undertaking that has never been done. The amounts of traffic and data is unimagined. You also have to store this data and media to keep it safe. It's not something that you would be able to just erase because you would want to access this info and basically use datamining techniques to derive information and profiles. This is madness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 The phone company keeps records of everyone you call. Why would this be any worse? Actually, it's likely that many ISP's are already keeping records like this, and they're probably selling them to advertising agencies (hopefully without your name attached). Google probably has a giant server mapping different websites and search terms together that could be tied to particular users if you tried hard enough. This law would really just standardize practices across providers, and maybe if Congress is paying attention, it could put higher privacy protections on the information once it is stored. The more important place to have protections is in how law enforcement is allowed to access these records. The laws must require subpoenas and search warrants rather than Patriot Act-style secret wiretaps or investigations that occur without judicial approval. That will be the best way to secure this kind of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 They might be out of the country, and probably are. That is what makes child porn hard to stop. Actually stop is a bad word,, because you'll never stop it short of killing everyone you catch using it. Depravity will continue to exist and the depraved will find a way to get it. One obvious answer is to set up sting sites and send out cookies to lead the authorities to computers housing it. ~Bang Yep. One of the problems with the internet is that files are forever. Even if no one was making any new child porn anywhere in the world, people would still be sharing all the millions of old files that are already out there. Add in the problem that what we Americans think is immoral and make illegal is not the same as what people in other countries think. Many Europeans, especially Eastern Europeans, don't understand why Americans set the bar at 18 for sex, and they certainly see nothing wrong with soft core "nudist" shots at any age. So the problem will never be totally defeated as long as the internet crosses national boundaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 The more important place to have protections is in how law enforcement is allowed to access these records. The laws must require subpoenas and search warrants rather than Patriot Act-style secret wiretaps or investigations that occur without judicial approval. That will be the best way to secure this kind of information. That was always my problem with the Bush wiretaps. Lack of judicial oversight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 They can have my records, I don't give a ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ABQCOWBOY Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 The phone company keeps records of everyone you call. Why would this be any worse?Actually, it's likely that many ISP's are already keeping records like this, and they're probably selling them to advertising agencies (hopefully without your name attached). Google probably has a giant server mapping different websites and search terms together that could be tied to particular users if you tried hard enough. This law would really just standardize practices across providers, and maybe if Congress is paying attention, it could put higher privacy protections on the information once it is stored. The more important place to have protections is in how law enforcement is allowed to access these records. The laws must require subpoenas and search warrants rather than Patriot Act-style secret wiretaps or investigations that occur without judicial approval. That will be the best way to secure this kind of information. The difference is that commercial entities have no requirements for how long they would need to store the data and how much data they store. The Federal Government would be on the hook for what would essentially be the entire cost of storing all info from all ISP providers for much longer periods of time. I mean, from just a finanical aspect, this would be rediculously expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.