So, eavesdropping on each American's web habits is how congress will create jobs?

[oryan]

So I had a chance to read the bill. I'll admit I'm no expert on legislative jargon and a lot of times reading these bills requires a law degree to get the full understanding of it. However, I'm not seeing anything here I disagree with and I don't see how this infringes on people's privacy. The bill explicitly outlines online transactions for child pornography. If I'm not purchasing child porn, then I'm not being spied on, period. I will note that this is a bi-partisan bill, also co-sponsored than none other than Debbie Schultz-Wasserman (DNC Chair). Also interesting is that the online petition doesn't link to the actual bill.......hmm, wonder why? They know most people won't read it.


Here's a link to the bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1981:

[thenakedarab]

So I had a chance to read the bill. I'll admit I'm no expert on legislative jargon and a lot of times reading these bills requires a law degree to get the full understanding of it. However, I'm not seeing anything here I disagree with and I don't see how this infringes on people's privacy. The bill explicitly outlines online transactions for child pornography. If I'm not purchasing child porn, then I'm not being spied on, period. I will note that this is a bi-partisan bill, also co-sponsored than none other than Debbie Schultz-Wasserman (DNC Chair). Also interesting is that the online petition doesn't link to the actual bill.......hmm, wonder why? They know most people won't read it. Here's a link to the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1981:

 

 

The issue is that they are not targeting people involved in such activities. They are forcing businesses to maintain records of everyone's information. It's a dragnet that snares everybody's info, and once it's there there is not much stopping them from using it for what ever they wish.

[Sheik_Yerbouti]

So I had a chance to read the bill. I'll admit I'm no expert on legislative jargon and a lot of times reading these bills requires a law degree to get the full understanding of it. However, I'm not seeing anything here I disagree with and I don't see how this infringes on people's privacy. The bill explicitly outlines online transactions for child pornography. If I'm not purchasing child porn, then I'm not being spied on, period. I will note that this is a bi-partisan bill, also co-sponsored than none other than Debbie Schultz-Wasserman (DNC Chair). Also interesting is that the online petition doesn't link to the actual bill.......hmm, wonder why? They know most people won't read it. Here's a link to the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1981:

 

 

 

OOPS.

 

See what I mean?!

 

Hypocrites!

[oryan]

The issue is that they are not targeting people involved in such activities. They are forcing businesses to maintain records of everyone's information. It's a dragnet that snares everybody's info, and once it's there there is not much stopping them from using it for what ever they wish.

 

 

(a) In General- Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

 

`(h) Retention of Certain Records- A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account, unless that address is transmitted by radio communication (as defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934).'.

 

I'm assuming this is what you are referring to? I'm still not seeing an issue with this. The authorities still need subpoenas to obtain the information from the providers. All the law does is require the ISP's to retain the info for a specified time (18 months). Law enforcement still needs "probable cause" and a subpoena to get the information from ISP's. The only change here's the requirement of ISP to hold onto the information (which they already do) for 18 months.