Rep DeGette has finally started talking about some of the details about her mandatory data retention law. On first glance, it doesn't seem to be a bad law. In fact, it actually seems to be completely overblown:
It's not clear whether the DeGette language would be limited only to commercial e-mail providers and ISPs and places like coffeehouses, bookstores, or home users that provide Wi-Fi access at no charge. Also, an expansive reading of DeGette's measure would require every Web site to retain those records. (Details would be left to the Federal Communications Commission.)
The bill is only two very short pages long. CNet is, I am sorry to say, just fear-mongering on this issue because the bill clearly excludes websites and other services from having to do any logging:
INTERNET ACCESS SERVICE.-The term 9 'Internet access service' means a service that enables 10 users to access content, information, electronic mail, 11 or other services offered over the Internet, and may 12 also include access to proprietary content, informa13 tion, and other services as part of a package of serv14 ices offered to consumers. Such term does not in15 clude telecommunications services.''.
It's possible that the FCC could try to require all service providers to do this, but any judge would see that the bill only grants authority to regulate companies that provide general TCP/IP access. Now, the bigger question is will this satisfy law enforcement and I seriously doubt that it will come even close to satisfying the Department of Justice's desire to get ahold of as much data as possible. However, on its face, this bill, as is, is not a particularly big deal. The burden it would impose would be to periodically update a simple log file and even for a large ISP it's unlike that that log file would get bigger than a single DVD-R for an entire year if some good compression is applied.
Update: Mark has a point. Even though this is semi-necessary, there is probably not enough clear constitutional authority to enact this new police power. As such, I think it is worth opposing, even though it is "common sense" in the long run. They need to start doing things the right way and police powers of all things need constitutional grounding.
"... it doesn’t seem to be a bad law..."
Sorry, Mike, but you were closer on the first pass, and the 60K or so reasons such crap is bad law. Reason number one has to be "Where does the Constitution authorize Big Brother to do ANY such thing?"
Mark,
It's generally acknowledged that the federal government has "secondary powers" that are related to carrying out its delegated roles. Technically, they don't have the authority to maintain or do any of the following:
1) US Marine Corps as it is not an army nor a navy.
2) An Air Force.
3) Acquire new territory.
But we recognize that there are practical areas that are within the spirit of what the Constitution defines.
What this bill does is nothing bad. It is a basic police power for the Internet. All the law would require the ISP to do is log each time its DHCP server issued you an IP address and what that IP was. It's basically saying that they have to remember who you were, not monitor anything you've been doing. Without these records, it's very hard for the federal government to do basic law enforcement online, so I'm inclined to say it's no big deal.
I should add Mark that I think that law enforcement needs to justify why they claim they are hindered without it first. If they really can present good, empirical evidence that they need this to be able to do simple law enforcement, then I could see grounds for compromise. Otherwise, it shouldn't be mandated.
A couple of things, MikeT --
- The Constitution also limits our now-standing army to what once was a two-year limit, and used to require a thing called a "declaration of war".
- Although there are no "police powers" in that thing Bush called a "G-D- piece of paper", there once WAS a requirement for a thing called a "warrant".
- There are only FOUR crimes where the "federal" government (that word now means Big Brother, as opposed to the former state-central power sharing under the document, BTW) has any jurisdiction.
I'm a stickler for the written word (and Word)...
as a former USSC justice once noted, otherwise, why bother to write it down?
I have yet to see DeGette give a d- about the enumerated powers (or Rights) in the Constitution, anyway. In that, there are 533 more like her on the hill, and tons more in the other run-amok branches of an overreaching FedGov. I'm agin' ANY increase in the power of the beast. (Capitalize it if you like...)
Blessings,
[...] Trust Rep. Sensenbrenner to take a modest proposal and turn it into a monstrosity. Regardless of how you feel about the NSA monitoring program, this is basically no different than allowing the NSA to order your phone company to record every telephone conversation you make. For bloggers and others, this is particularly true because if they require the ISPs to log the HTTP request data, every blog comment, post, etc. will be recorded by your provider for posterity until the law allows them to delete the data. For the non-geeks out there, this is a sample (modified from this source’s example) of what is sent out by your web browser when you hit the comment or post button on a blog: POST /path/script.cgi HTTP/1.0 [...]