Board 8 > this is even worse than SOPA

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-legislation-that-could-kill-internet-privacy-for-good/242853/

TLDR

-requires ISPs to keep a full record of everyone's online activities for a minimum of 18 months
-gives government access to this database with no warrant or even having to prove cause, you don't even have to be under investigation

I'm convinced that lamar smith is trying to incite a civil war.

this just proves my plan to destroy american government should be taken into effect right away.

--
big rigs is game of the ever

not so bad

I mean as long as you aren't doing anything you shouldn't be, there's no need to be worried

--
Menji~
Shotgun, BANG. What's up with that thang?

oh wait im not in US im fine.

--
big rigs is game of the ever

you're saying you are doing nothing the government wouldnt look questioningly at, Menji?

--
FC 1849 0634 8041
Boring sig is boring

Menji76 posted...
not so bad

I mean as long as you aren't doing anything you shouldn't be, there's no need to be worried

someone who has never read a history book in his life right here.

From: htaeD | #005
you're saying you are doing nothing the government wouldnt look questioningly at, Menji?

well I certainly won't be anymore ;)

--
Menji~
Congrats to SuperNiceDog: "Rivalry Rumble" Guru Champion!

for the last year it seems like they've come up with dozens of stupid internet related bills, everyone freaks out, and then it doesn't pass or doesn't get voted on

eventually they're going to stop dicking around and actually get one of these going

Rep. Zoe Lofgren was a major opponent of the bill and offered several amendments to limit it. According to the National Journal:

When none of her major amendments passed, Lofgren offered a final poke in the eye. Lofgren proposed renaming the bill the “Keep Every American’s Digital Data for Submission to the Federal Government Without a Warrant Act of 2011.” That also failed.

“I think we ought to say what we’re doing rather than pretend that this is about child pornography,” she said.

go lofgren

--
Ginhyun
http://img.imgcake.com/Ginhyun/dog198jpgry.jpg

VitalVI posted...
this just proves my plan to destroy american government should be taken into effect right away.

Well, it would solve the deficit. :-)

--
PSN: JDTAY87

Are these bills actually meant to stop the things they are saying they'll stop, or are they wanting to crush the internet's power so much, that they name it these ridiculous things so that people who oppose them are suppose to come off as bad people, because it makes them sound like pirates or pedos?


*blastin' off, yo*

--
[Vacant Space For Sale]

From: rocket157 | #011
Are these bills actually meant to stop the things they are saying they'll stop, or are they wanting to crush the internet's power so much, that they name it these ridiculous things so that people who oppose them are suppose to come off as bad people, because it makes them sound like pirates or pedos?


*blastin' off, yo*

this is a rhetorical question right

--
http://i.imgur.com/bha4D.png

That's generally how these things usually get passed. They will attach 'Amendment to Make America a Police State and Kick Puppies' to 'Bill to Make Sure Our Soldiers Actually Have Guns'. If anyone tries to argue the lump bill, they'll go "Look at this communist who hates our armed forces, look look look."

--
We are thought, and reality, and concept, and the unimaginable

I notice this article is from August, is this bill still alive, could it still show up for consideration sometime or anything?

Anyways, ha well needless to say that's mindblowingly bad.

--
One Piece: Pirates with style!
-= Metal Gear Solid: Tactical Espionage Action =-

From: rocket157 | #011
Are these bills actually meant to stop the things they are saying they'll stop, or are they wanting to crush the internet's power so much, that they name it these ridiculous things so that people who oppose them are suppose to come off as bad people, because it makes them sound like pirates or pedos?

I'd bet that they really do intend this, right now, to be used solely for combating child pornography.

"intend, right now" being important..

--
I fought SuperNiceDog, and SuperNiceDog won.
"I like goldfish." Godric

I'd bet that they really do intend this, right now, to be used solely for combating child pornography.

the language of this is far too vague, it doesn't have this specific intent, you don't even need to be investigated for anything, the government is just free to dig up info on anyone under this. the architect of this bill is also one of the people behind SOPA, this is patterned behavior.

From: VitalVI | #004
oh wait im not in US im fine.

if you are in a EU country, I'm pretty sure ISP's already have to do this, although they only need to keep records for a minumum of 6 months

--
DON~!

The Patriots aren't very subtle are they :(

--
caps

One thing I'm not clear on, while this is super terrible in general, does this sort of thing also include emails? Or just what sites you've visited?

Either way, that kind of invasion of privacy is madness, it'd be like the government reading your mail (well, literally).

--
One Piece: Pirates with style!
-= Metal Gear Solid: Tactical Espionage Action =-

Senjougaharaism posted...
From: VitalVI | #004
oh wait im not in US im fine.
if you are in a EU country, I'm pretty sure ISP's already have to do this, although they only need to keep records for a minumum of 6 months

Nope. I'm from Canada and canada doesn't do it by the way just saying.
Just like our country's police and government say we have more important things to do than catch people who download illegal movies and music

--
big rigs is game of the ever

if you are in a EU country, I'm pretty sure ISP's already have to do this, although they only need to keep records for a minumum of 6 months

and what does the government need to do to access this information? not that I support the existence of such a database to begin with, but there's still a difference between having to get a warrant and simply having to ask without so much as proving that the individual in question is under investigation for anything.

Thought this was gonna be about ACTA.

--
RayDyn on his Droid, probably at work.

Jesus Christ America is going down the crapper.

--
http://soundcloud.com/thundersheep/lunatic-asylum
http://soundcloud.com/thundersheep/summer-rain

I swear to god

is there anywhere in the world that protects the freedom of man? Serious question.

I'm worried that the US will go to hell, and we'll enter a new dark ages. It literally would not be different than 1984.

--
"What if you just eat vegetarians?"-neonreaper
"^ You are what you eat. ^_~"-Koiji

From: Lord Bob Bree | #015
From Title 18, section 2703;

(d) Requirements for Court Order. - A court order for disclosure
under subsection (b) or (c) may be issued by any court that is a
court of competent jurisdiction and shall issue only if the
governmental entity offers specific and articulable facts showing
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the contents of a
wire or electronic communication, or the records or other
information sought, are relevant and material to an ongoing
criminal investigation.

So where does not even needing to be under investigation come from?

Look at the part that refers to subsection d:

(1) A governmental entity may require a provider of remote computing service to disclose the contents of any wire or electronic communication to which this paragraph is made applicable by paragraph (2) of this subsection—
(A) without required notice to the subscriber or customer, if the governmental entity obtains a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or, in the case of a State court, issued using State warrant procedures) by a court of competent jurisdiction; or
(B) with prior notice from the governmental entity to the subscriber or customer if the governmental entity—
(i) uses an administrative subpoena authorized by a Federal or State statute or a Federal or State grand jury or trial subpoena; or
(ii) obtains a court order for such disclosure under subsection (d) of this section;

So if they get a warrant, they can get the info without notifying the subscriber, which is fine. BUT if you look at (i) they can get the info with just a subpoena, and the site and subscriber can't do anything about it.

Really all this new bill changes is the amount of information that the site is required to keep. As far as I can tell, they want subscribing websites to store the IP addresses of all their members for at least 18 months, and all these IPs will be subject to subpoenas. Honestly, I don't know any sites that don't already do this, but making all of these subject to subpoenas could be problematic. This law is way more on the legal and detective side of things, so I don't really understand its implication fully, while SOPA affects the internet far more strongly.

--
_foolmo_
'You are obviously intelligent and insightful' - Sir Chris about me

You can literally get all this information right now with a subpoena or warrant. All that changes is mandating how long this information is stored. (okay, nominally speaking it mandates that they HAVE to carry this information, but all of them do already) And I would not be surprised if the current mean duration is like a year.

--
assert(!hotterThan(foo, "Hot Nymphomaniacal Lesbian Mind-Controlling Dominatrix Fairy Doctors with glasses"))

Pretty much

I mean look at Gamefaqs. They keep the IPs of everyone for many years. That's how their usermap system works.

--
_foolmo_
'It's easy to get yourself in trouble if you start quoting people who don't like you in your signature' - Mods