Please register or login. There are 0 registered and 1247 anonymous users currently online. Current bandwidth usage: 326.30 kbit/s December 12 - 06:23pm EST 
Hardware Analysis
      
Forums Product Prices
  Contents 
 
 

  Latest Topics 
 

More >>
 

    
 
 

  You Are Here: 
 
/ Forums / General Technology /
 

  HR1981 =MASSIVE Loss of Internet Privacy in US 
 
 Author 
 Date Written 
 Tools 
john albrich Aug 02, 2011, 02:57pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List Replies: 6 - Views: 3466

I suggest reading both these (and other) articles on this currently in-process legislation completely. Get yourself informed on this. Find out where your representatives and senators stand on this bill.

Note: this bill is being RELENTLESSLY pushed by the Obama/Holder Justice Department. Long term detailed internet usage data retention was also strongly pushed by the Bush Administration. This isn't just a Republican v. Democrat issue, even though some articles are painting it as a strictly Republican proposal with Democrats trying to 'ride to the rescue'.

The HR1981 bill requires all ISPs and EMAIL service providers (e.g. hotmail, gmail, etc) to maintain YOUR comprehensive internet and email usage records for 1.5 years (although an amendment may tone it down to just 1 year....as if taking 6 months off makes ANY difference!

BOTH the EFF and the ACLU are opposed to this bill. The bill is being "opposed by over 30 civil liberties and consumer advocacy organizations".
There are vital loss of privacy and constitutional issues here.

For example, that ANY lawyer, even in a CIVIL case, could file a demand for the ISP and EMAIL records of anyone. No criminal investigation, no probable cause, no terrorist threat to public safety, etc....and...no threat of ANY kind to ANY child required to force YOUR internet and email usage data AND possibly some content to be handed over.

It's so dire, that I admit I agree for once with Rep. John Conyers (D-Michigan) when he says about this bill:
“The bill is mislabeled. This is not protecting children from Internet pornography. It’s creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes.”


I also agree with Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) when he says about this bill:
"I oppose this bill. It can be amended, but I don't think it can be fixed... It poses numerous risks that well outweigh any benefits, and I'm not convinced it will contribute in a significant way to protecting children."


This legislation will allow government AND civil litigators to go on unprecedented fishing expeditions with virtually no impediments.

(Related Bills in the Senate: S.596, S.1308)



August 1, 2011
"How The New ‘Protecting Children’ Bill Puts You At Risk"

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/how-the-new-8216protectin...t-risk/590


Another recent article
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20084939-281/house-panel-app...ping-bill/
July 28, 2011 1:41 PM PDT
"House panel approves broadened ISP snooping bill"

A last-minute rewrite of the bill expands the information that commercial Internet providers are required to store to include customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses.
(albrich note: another amendment is reported to require retaining the content of some emails...not just the header information).
To make it politically difficult to oppose, proponents of the data retention requirements dubbed the bill the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011, even though the mandatory logs would be accessible to police investigating any crime and perhaps attorneys litigating civil disputes in divorce, insurance fraud, and other cases as well.
(albrich note: analysis of one version of this bill took the "perhaps" out of "perhaps attorneys litigating civil...")
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and previous chairman of the House Judiciary committee, had criticized it at a hearing earlier this month, and again in the voting session that began yesterday and continued through this morning. Sensenbrenner said,
"I oppose this bill. It can be amended, but I don't think it can be fixed... It poses numerous risks that well outweigh any benefits, and I'm not convinced it will contribute in a significant way to protecting children."



Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
micro Aug 02, 2011, 03:10pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: HR1981 =MASSIVE Loss of Internet Privacy in US
Thanks for the heads up on this. I had heard a while back that something like this was in the works, but had not seen an update.

GA-Z68X-UD3H-B3, 2600k @ 4.0
16 gig Corsair Vengeance
Evga gtx 260 216, samsung 2253lw"
Baracuda 7,200.12 CoolerMaster 212 +
Win 7 64, fsp fx700-gln, Razer DA,G15
Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid
Silence in the face of evil is it's self Ev
John Doe Aug 03, 2011, 03:59am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: HR1981 =MASSIVE Loss of Internet Privacy in US
Thinking ahead how is this going to affect world wide users of hotmail/gmail? Do they use the ip addresses to establish location, and if so (and i am niaive about this), can't people use fake ip's or something anyway?

john albrich Aug 06, 2011, 10:27am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Aug 06, 2011, 10:38am EDT

 
>> Re: HR1981 =MASSIVE Loss of Internet Privacy in US

While the spooky music in the background is amusing, this video regarding Facebook's Terms of Service and financial connections does give one food for thought...assuming it's accurate. Notice: I have not vetted the YouTube video's information.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJqGbA2tLww

Facebook's Randi Zuckerberg is S-T-R-O-N-G-L-Y pushing for what would effectively become a RealID in the United States...(universal identification documentation is also I believe a UN objective). Simply to allow participation on their website, an increasing number of websites are requiring users to register on Facebook and your Facebook ID will be used to "login" to their website. Which means of course that people may see a comment you make, take extreme exception to your opinion, and can now troll your Facebook content for info about your family, friends, activities, plans, physical location, pictures, etc. I later learned the EFF shares this exact concern.

if REALID ever gets passed in the US/globally, it's going to be done via the internet
http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/topic/77760/#592444 (dated Jun21, 2011)

(another "it's for the safety of our children" piece of rationali-fiction*)
Facebook's Randi Zuckerberg: Anonymity Online 'Has To Go Away'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/randi-zuckerberg-anon...10892.html (dated Jul27, 2011)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) says Zuckerberg's 'no-anonymity' mandate could actually increase cyber-bullying and cyber-stalking...That is something with which I happen to agree.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2011/08/randi-zucker...ine/40808/


Note: I thought the YouTube video using the bizarre example of "The Catcher In The Rye" was funny/clever. In the movie "Conspiracy Theory", the CIA implants Mel Gibson's character with a forced mental (torture/drugs/the usual) compulsion to purchase the book over and over. It's used by the CIA to track the character. The CIA's "dark" computer nerds apparently have real-time acquisition and analysis of "all" purchases in the US :).


*I hereby claim first-coinage of the term "rational-ifiction"

john albrich Aug 06, 2011, 03:53pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Aug 06, 2011, 03:55pm EDT

 
>> Re: HR1981 =MASSIVE Loss of Internet Privacy in US

Here's more information on the HR1981 Bill passed 19-10 by the House Judiciary Committee

http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2353-House-Advances-...lance-Bill

And this I believe creates an environment which will actually increase the risk your private data will not be as aggressively protected as it should. If you're a "cloud" service provider, why would you put a lot of money into securing the databases that store customer data, screening your employees, etc. when you are 100% free of any liability if there is a teensy-tiny itty-bitty little old "LEAK"?
Under the bill, businesses required to retain data would be given complete liability relief in the case of data leaks.

Mandatory data retention would force your Internet Service Provider to create vast and expensive new databases of sensitive information about you. That information would then be available to the government, in secret and without any court oversight, based on weak and outdated electronic privacy laws.

That same data could become available to civil litigants in private lawsuits—whether it’s the RIAA trying to identify downloaders, a company trying to uncover and retaliate against an anonymous critic, or a divorce lawyer looking for dirty laundry. These databases would also be a new and valuable target for black hat hackers, be they criminals trying to steal identities or foreign governments trying to unmask anonymous dissidents.

Meats_Of_Evil Aug 07, 2011, 04:39am EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List  
>> Re: HR1981 =MASSIVE Loss of Internet Privacy in US
I could've sworn I replied to this but very interesting article john, thanks for sharing.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everything I write is Sarcasm.
john albrich Oct 31, 2014, 09:43pm EDT Reply - Quote - Report Abuse
Private Message - Add to Buddy List

Edited: Nov 02, 2014, 06:48pm EST

 
>> Re: HR1981 =MASSIVE Loss of Internet Privacy in US
.
What this MEANS in such situations, is that you will be unable to "plead the Fifth Amendment" (which (in simple terms) states you can't be compelled to testify against yourself).

I believe this ruling sets a legal precedent that applies to ANY biometric access controls (e.g. eye/retina, chemical, facial recognition, etc)

AND it applies to "key"-based systems such as those that require a device such as a USB stick (or file on that stick), a ring or bracelet, or phone (e.g. NFC).

That includes REAL-ID cards/technology.

http://www.macrumors.com/2014/10/31/fingerprints-not-protected...amendment/
A Circuit Court judge in Virginia has ruled that fingerprints are not protected by the Fifth Amendment, a decision that has clear privacy implications for fingerprint-protected devices like newer iPhones and iPads.

According to Judge Steven C. Fucci, while a criminal defendant can't be compelled to hand over a passcode to police officers for the purpose of unlocking a cellular device, law enforcement officials can compel a defendant to give up a fingerprint.


The following should come as no surprise.

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/222057-white-house-off...e-password
The White House has been trying to push people away from passwords since early 2011, when it launched the National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC). The initiative funded public-private pilot programs working on secure password replacements.
(more info on NSTIC, see http://www.nist.gov/nstic/about-nstic.html)



Write a Reply >>


 

    
 
 

  Topic Tools 
 
RSS UpdatesRSS Updates
 

  Related Articles 
 
 

  Newsletter 
 
A weekly newsletter featuring an editorial and a roundup of the latest articles, news and other interesting topics.

Please enter your email address below and click Subscribe.