Special: Feds Continue Push For Mandated Internet Data Retention

[Guest guest]

Mark Hull-Richter <mhrichter wrote:

 

I rarely forward items from this forum, but this particular issue is

now in the greedy, grasping hands of Congress and their big bucks

backers in the telecom industry. They want total control over what we

can do with the internet because it is the last bastion of unregulated

" airwave " -type freedom left in this country that is still available to

the common person.

 

The DOJ wants to stick their noses into every one of our bodily

orifices, no matter who we are or what we do with those orifices (and

there is some reason to believe that they do care what our political

orientation is, so Republicans, Fear Not, unless you are a heretic who

believes in genuine freedom and real conservativism!).

 

Call your Congress members and Senators. Demand that they tell the DOJ

to back off all further restrictions and encroachments on the 4th

amendment. Or just read this and weep.

 

The choice is yours.

 

--- privacy wrote:

> privacy-list

> Fri, 02 Jun 2006 09:44:02 -0700

> privacy

> [ PRIVACY Forum ] Special: Feds Continue Push For Mandated

> Internet

> Data Retention

>

 

http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-fi-internet2jun02,0,622125.story?coll=la-ho\

me-headlines

> " The Justice Department said Thursday that it was not seeking

> to have the contents of e-mail archived, just information

> about the websites people visit and those with whom they

> correspond. "

>

> http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000175.html

> " Sounding the Alarm on Government-Mandated Data Retention "

>

>

> Greetings. This is a critical topic. The impracticality and cost

> issues associated with the new DOJ Internet data retention proposals

> are relatively obvious. It's difficult to even understand who would

> be required to comply with such demands. Only the big Web service

> companies? ISPs? (via packet tracking of their rs running

> their own servers?) Every small firm, organization, or even

> individual who operate their own e-mail and Web servers? Are the

> existing privacy policies of such entities instantly negated if they

> conflict with the DOJ wish list or data retention legislation?

>

> It's also obvious how e-mail contact information could be abused.

> But there's something even more insidious in this situation. In the

> recent DOJ vs. Google case, Google and most unbiased observers

> correctly noted that " Web destinations " (URLs) frequently contain

> all manner of personal and private information. Names, addresses,

> social security numbers, dreams, hopes, interests, fears, medical

> queries -- all manner of details of our lives are embedded in the

> URLs we submit to search engines and other Web sites.

>

> For all practical purposes, URLs in the Web context are very much

> like the content of phone calls in the conventional telecom context,

> judging by the level of detailed data that URLs provide and their

> ability to allow complete tracking of our every related Internet

> action in most cases.

>

> If Internet users must live in fear that their actions on the Net are

> subject to retrospective analysis -- not only based on today's

> criteria but potentially on tomorrow's as well -- the effects on how

> we view and use the Net will be drastic, with vast unintended

> negative consequences that strike to the heart of our democracies.

>

> This issue is ultimately more important than network neutrality,

> Internet governance, or most (if not all) of the other

> technically-related concerns that we bandy about here in IP or in

> most other forums, because it strikes to the very core of basic

> privacy concerns and personal freedoms.

>

> Government-mandated Internet data retention could be the most potent

> single technological move in recent history toward enabling future

> tyranny against both individuals and groups.

>

> We must not allow this issue to be " managed " through private

> meetings requested by government officials, or as a mere footnote in

> the public discourse or hastily passed legislation -- to be treated

> as a fait accompli by this or future administrations.

>

> --Lauren--

> Lauren Weinstein

> lauren or lauren

> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800

> http://www.pfir.org/lauren

> Co-Founder, PFIR

> - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org

> Co-Founder, IOIC

> - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net

> Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com

> Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy

> Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com

> DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com

>

> _____________

> privacy mailing list

> http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy

>

 

 

Mark Hull-Richter, U.S. Citizen & Patriot

Write-In Candidate for the Democratic nomination for

U.S. Representative, California's 42nd CD

http://MarkHRforCongress.net

U.S.A. - From democracy to kakistocracy in one fell coup.

" Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution

inevitable. " - JFK

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0416-01.htm

http://verifiedvoting.org http://blackboxvoting.org

http://PatrickHenryThinkTank.org

 

 

" To be nobody-but-myself in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to

make me everybody else - means to fight the hardest battle which any human being

can fight, and never stop fighting. " -e.e. cummings-

 

 

 

 

Non-text portions of this message have been removed]