FBI wants records kept of Websites Visited

This got me:

"Federal regulations in place since at least 1986 require phone companies that offer toll service to "retain for a period of 18 months" records including "the name, address, and telephone number of the caller, telephone number called, date, time and length of the call."

This guy has no idea where to start questioning, he's working off 100% hearsay.

While what he stated in that is partially true, the fact he couldn't cite the law it was piggy backed on, the real scope of it, or even the 3 letters the system goes by (or went by rather) suggests enough, or even the real reasoning behind the system...well...lame.

As someone who was actively engaged in the phracking scene of the time, oh, it's burned into my memory fierce.

I think, too, more important is that he completely missed the CDA- the Communications Decency Act. Louis Freeh was besides himself in joy when that passed.

Now, if you can actively remember the CDA, and can cite the immediate effects of it, then you'll know where I come from. Most of you can't. It's not a slam on you, but rather that many of you, like the guy writing the article, simple have zero idea about the history of such legislation, yet act as if you do, and as if every thing that gets passed into law means we're all doomed.

A brief refresher: Remember Gays in the Military during Clinton's time in office? ya. That was the smoke screen. Everyone was "GAYS IN THE MILITARY!! ONOES!" Meanwhile at a 'midnight' session of the house the CDA was passed into effect (literally), but more importantly a list of requirements for electronic devices were tacked onto the CDA for the FBI.

Louis Freeh, as it later came out in the Time magazine article, and 2600 (take that source as you will), was pressing, personally, for the inclusion of a law which forced manufacturers to build electronic items (TV's, computers, radios, phones, etc) with a lock-and-key system. Basically the FBI would have all the 'keys', and be able to unlock the desired item and collect data, legally, whenever they wanted.

It all passed. Glorious.

Fortunately Time and 2600 broke the stories, then other news agencies woke up. The CDA is so swiss cheesed as to be null/void at this point.

What it is immediately: We were reminded every time we logged onto the net via browser or telenet or BBS (even if you were off the net, but on a BBS you had to obey the CDA) that we could be fined $100,000, and face jail time, and the owners of the service/ISPs could be fined the same amount if we even said "#" "#" or anything deemed offensive.

Ayup. How many of you remember actively being censored for nearly a year and a half? I do.

See, the internet wasn't really opened up till 96 when AT&T got the hair brained idea to offer it to the masses. And thus you people came along.

The point is this: These laws aren't new. The government wanting to do this isn't new. You should always presume the government is watching- always. Don't like it? Don't log on. I've lived this way since I was a child with a 16bps modem- it was made very clear to me the what, the why, the how.

How you fight these desires from the government? By not writing sensational tripe as is usually done here on ATS, but rather reporting facts to the masses outside of ATS.

Enjoy

reply to post by GorehoundLarry

If you have nothing to hide, then why worry about it?

Sir, (unless you are joking) you have just indicated that you have no idea why the right to privacy was amended to the Constitution of the U.S. of A. Especially the 4th amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

As things continue on this trend you will see the masters create something like Stasi.

You may hope that they get others before they get you. How can you be sure?

I do think it's an invasion of privacy but really...privacy was removed a long time ago..

So then it's OK, just give up and we'll go down that historic road to tyranny.
Very, very weak.


[edit on 6-2-2010 by 1SawSomeThings]

So what do you guys reckon then... The FBI is watching over us?

reply to post by GorehoundLarry


The issue is not about having something to hide. The issue is how to prove that you were not doing something that was something that should be hidden, right?

If the goverment comes in with a log of web activity that includes criminal activity and it is not activity you engaged in, how do you suppose you are going to prove it's not your activity? The entire internet is subject to things beyond your control and frankly the control of the government. How, for example are they supposed to validate the methodology used by an ISP to ensure that the data is accurately attributed to the IP address in question? Should the tools and methodology used today be sound, but the infrastructure, logical or physical or both was altered/upgraded in any way and a activity occured to the current infrastructure being in place, how is that data validated? With internet infrastructure changing on a daily basis, even if you were to attempt to back trace the activity, the source of the site in question could be gone. I have little doubt that activity that is highly illegal is conducted on server infrastructure that is highly fluid.

It is also a fools errand. Criminals will always figure out ways to outsmart any policing body. By definition, the folks the feds are most interested in catching will not be caught.

Finally, this is going to cost you money. The infrastructure to capture this data, the redundancy required, the tools, the people to administer the environment and the folks who are going to be running any quereys cost money. You'll be paying for this through higher ISP charges.

reply to post by Meesterjojo


Most people in the US don't have a clue about what's going on in the country. They either have lots of money and don't care or poor and simply just don't know. Then there's the group in the middle, us. The ones who are aware of what's happening, but small in number, afraid of ridicule and afraid to speak out.

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings


Glad you missed the point.

Cheers.

reply to post by Awolscout


I think they should worry about their house first.

Workers' Porn Surfing Rampant at Federal Agency

Do not get me wrong I just think hypocrisy is stupid.

reply to post by GorehoundLarry


I don't know how I missed your point, care to clarify?

The point is?