CNET: Justice Dept. to ask Congress for ISP data retention law

CNET: Justice Dept. to ask Congress for ISP data retention law

Summary: The data retention debate - pitting privacy rights against policing efforts - is about to heat up again.CNET reported late Monday that the U.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Telcos, Browser
13

The data retention debate - pitting privacy rights against policing efforts - is about to heat up again.

CNET reported late Monday that the U.S. Justice Department will tell Congress at a hearing today that criminal investigations are being hampered without a law that forces Internet service providers to track and store data about their customers' online activity.

Currently, some providers have their own retention policies in place, setting time limits on how long it keeps customer data. But they're not uniform. And others keep incomplete records, if any at all, and likely would be unable to assist in any investigations.

There are laws in place already to address some of these immediate concerns, including a "preservation" act, which requires providers to retain any record for 90 days when a government agency makes such a request. But the Justice Department appears to be pushing for something broader, something that woulda by type of data file.

Details of the Justice Department's recommendation were unclear, though a CNET source did say that the department will not offer specifics at the House hearing today but instead will offer examples of how the lack of a law has hindered investigations.

Topics: Telcos, Browser

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

13 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Reasonable suspicion

    select * from CitizenSpyTable where url='wikileaks.ch'<br>select * from CitizenSpyTable where url='fox.com'<br><br>"But the Justice Department appears to be pushing for something broader, something that woulda (sic) by type of data file."<br><br>Yeh, we had that with Labour Jacqui Smith, she wanted to make every access to the internet indexed into as SQL database ready for searching. By defining it in an easy to search manner you make it easy to do frequent searches on criteria other than the user.<br><br>It does a nice end-run around the 'reasonable suspicion' clause of search laws.<br><br>We kicked Jacqui Smith out of power, but Labour are back with a whole new set of scaremongering nannys. So I expect we'll see it appear again in the UK if they get into power.
    guihombre
    • RE: CNET: Justice Dept. to ask Congress for ISP data retention law

      @guihombre

      Little problem with that 'reasonable suspicion' thing. In a world where people have Wireless routers and wired networks are easily 'tapped' for someone who you don't want using your connection to use it?

      These things do NOT give any 'reasonable suspicion' that someone is anything. Not a child pornographer, not a IP infringer, not ANYTHING!

      It's a nice try to try and skirt around the Fourth Amendment protections, but it doesn't work in real life.
      Lerianis10
      • You missed terrorist

        We had cameras installed everywhere to protect us from 'terrorists' now they're used for parking fines and making TV programs.
        guihombre
  • &quot;Hindering&quot; law enforcement.........

    I thought "hindering" law enforcement was the point of the 4th amendment?

    I mean, wouldn't it be so much more effective and efficient to let law enforcement do whatever it thinks necessary? Think how many lives would be saved! I mean, so individual liberty takes a minor ding - isn't that worth it to be "safe"? (yes I AM being sarcastic)

    Seriously, when will "safety" and "security" stop being an excuse for ever bigger and more intrusive government?
    Takalok
    • RIAA lawyer for Justice Dept

      Seems an RIAA lawyer will become the senior Justice Dept lawyer.<br><a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10133425-38.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10133425-38.html</a><br><br>Looks like they'll be trawling for IP infringements of this data.<br>Select * from MassSurveillanceTable where url contains('bieber')>0<br><br>And since if you phrase a query like that, it isn't person specific, thus you don't need to show reasonable suspicion before taking a gander at their internet history, and can then use the result of the query for the 'reasonable suspicion'.
      guihombre
      • RE: CNET: Justice Dept. to ask Congress for ISP data retention law

        @guihombre

        Judges would care to argue with you about that, not needing a reasonable suspicion to look at even that.
        Many judges have been harsh on this subject, and have said that seeing ANY RECORDS PERIOD from an ISP needs a warrant or reasonable suspicion of a crime.
        Lerianis10
      • @Lerianis10....

        @Lerianis10,
        "reasonable suspicion of a crime."

        i.e. given a crime, ANY crime, EVERY persons data is queried in a mass trawl.

        Whereas before only SUSPECTS data was queried.

        Sidestepping privacy.
        guihombre
      • RE: CNET: Justice Dept. to ask Congress for ISP data retention law

        @guihombre

        Again, guihombre: the courts have been saying that ANY DATA PERIOD requested from the ISP has to have a warrant. Meaning that they cannot look at ANY data (even if it's just for a whole lot of people or the whole of the ISP's customers) without a warrant or REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A CRIME.

        Meaning, basically, that they would have to have someone at the ISP (who they are not LEO's and therefore not covered under the need for a warrant to look at this data, though they are covered under some other laws from looking at this data without good purpose) come to the LEO's and say "Hey, I think I caught X person trading child porn/illegal pirated games/etc.!"
        That would be reasonable suspicion of a crime.
        Lerianis10
  • Again you're missing the point of a DB

    (Was in reply to Lerianis10 comment)
    Again, I think you're missing the point of specifying the database and throwing everyone's data into it.<br><br>The less subdivided the data, the wider the trawl for each query has to be and the less opportunity for a Judge to deny any request based on specificity of suspect. <br><br>Hence the UK's Jacqui Smith specified a distributed database of ALL internet comms for maximum trawl. In doing so, each query was not targetted at all because they constructed an undivided dataset!<br><br>The DOJ are likewise specifying the WAY the data is stored, but what does it matter to them how its stored unless they want to run coordinated queries across multiple ISPs... which presumably is what they're after.<br><br>""Hey, I think I caught X person trading child porn/illegal pirated games/etc.!"<br><br>More like someone on 4Chan upsets FBI, FBI finds first image it can call CP posted to 4Chan. It then:<br>1. then goes to court to demand the IP address from 4chan.... NOT LIKELY.<br>2. It goes to court to pull ALL 4Chan logs... MAYBE, but only if a judge stops them going for option 3.<br>3. It goes to the ISP where 4Chan is hosted, and pulls all records on those servers... MOST LIKELY.<br><br>Now if you're query mechanism was a central query connected to distributed ISPs database, then the only option for a judge would be Option 4, run the query across all ISP for every query.
    guihombre
  • Can I see your papers please?

    <i>CNET reported late Monday that the U.S. Justice Department will tell Congress at a hearing today that criminal investigations are being hampered without a law that forces Internet service providers to track and store data about their customers online activity.</i><br>
    Imagine the reduction in crime if we all had to show papers while travelling about our day.
    ye
    • RE: CNET: Justice Dept. to ask Congress for ISP data retention law

      @ye

      Papers? What century are you living in?!?!

      RFID chip implanted at birth.
      VRSpock
  • Define crime

    (Was in response to ye)<br>Because I have yet to see the crime people who read Wikileaks committed, yet their Twitter data was pulled. (and presumably their Facebook data, Email data and other data too, but since these demands were done in secret we didn't find out about them).<br><br>We only know about Twitter, because Twitter challenged the secrecy clause, that in turn gave people whose data was being obtained, the chance to challenge the demand. <br><br>If you automate it so you can directly query Twitter logs, then of course you've lost that check & balance.
    guihombre
  • RE: CNET: Justice Dept. to ask Congress for ISP data retention law

    How much will it cost and who is gonna pay for this ?? This is liable to be expensive as hell .
    rfpower