FBI Wants Records Kept of Web sites You Visited

yak pac fatal

Well-Known Member
#1
WASHINGTON--The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years, a requirement that law enforcement believes could help it in investigations of child pornography and other serious crimes.

FBI Director Robert Mueller supports storing Internet users' "origin and destination information," a bureau attorney said at a federal task force meeting on Thursday.

As far back as a 2006 speech, Mueller had called for data retention on the part of Internet providers, and emphasized the point two years later when explicitly asking Congress to enact a law making it mandatory. But it had not been clear before that the FBI was asking companies to begin to keep logs of what Web sites are visited, which few if any currently do.

The FBI is not alone in renewing its push for data retention. As CNET reported earlier this week, a survey of state computer crime investigators found them to be nearly unanimous in supporting the idea. Matt Dunn, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent in the Department of Homeland Security, also expressed support for the idea during the task force meeting.

Greg Motta, the chief of the FBI's digital evidence section, said that the bureau was trying to preserve its existing ability to conduct criminal investigations. Federal regulations in place since at least 1986 require phone companies that offer toll service to "retain for a period of 18 months" records including "the name, address, and telephone number of the caller, telephone number called, date, time and length of the call."

At Thursday's meeting (PDF) of the Online Safety and Technology Working Group, which was created by Congress and organized by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Motta stressed that the bureau was not asking that content data, such as the text of e-mail messages, be retained.

"The question at least for the bureau has been about non-content transactional data to be preserved: transmission records, non-content records...addressing, routing, signaling of the communication," Motta said. Director Mueller recognizes, he added "there's going to be a balance of what industry can bear...He recommends origin and destination information for non-content data."

Motta pointed to a 2006 resolution from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which called for the "retention of customer subscriber information, and source and destination information for a minimum specified reasonable period of time so that it will be available to the law enforcement community."

Recording what Web sites are visited, though, is likely to draw both practical and privacy objections.

"We're not set up to keep URL information anywhere in the network," said Drew Arena, Verizon's vice president and associate general counsel for law enforcement compliance.

And, Arena added, "if you were do to deep packet inspection to see all the URLs, you would arguably violate the Wiretap Act."

Another industry representative with knowledge of how Internet service providers work was unaware of any company keeping logs of what Web sites its customers visit.

If logs of Web sites visited began to be kept, they would be available only to local, state, and federal police with legal authorization such as a subpoena or search warrant.

What remains unclear are the details of what the FBI is proposing. The possibilities include requiring an Internet provider to log the Internet protocol (IP) address of a Web site visited, or the domain name such as cnet.com, a host name such as news.cnet.com, or the actual URL such as MP3 players, digital music, CD players & portable audio reviews - CNET Reviews.

While the first three categories could be logged without doing deep packet inspection, the fourth category would require it. That could run up against opposition in Congress, which lambasted the concept in a series of hearings in 2008, causing the demise of a company, NebuAd, which pioneered it inside the United States.

The technical challenges also may be formidable. John Seiver, an attorney at Davis Wright Tremaine who represents cable providers, said one of his clients had experience with a law enforcement request that required the logging of outbound URLs.

"Eighteen million hits an hour would have to have been logged," a staggering amount of data to sort through, Seiver said. The purpose of the FBI's request was to identify visitors to two URLs, "to try to find out...who's going to them."

A Justice Department representative said the department does not have an official position on data retention.

Disclosure: The author of this story participated in the meeting of the Online Safety and Technology Working Group, though after the law enforcement representatives spoke.
FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited | Politics and Law - CNET News
 

Da_Funk

Well-Known Member
#3
Honestly I could give two shits. I don't have anything to hide and if someone keeping track of what websites I visit helps put criminals in jail I'll gladly agree to it.


Also if your gonna post an article like this, at least leave a fucking opinion.
 

Kadafi Son

Well-Known Member
#5
Yea, i disagree with this. Even if you have nothing to hide, you could still get into trouble or interrogated for even small issues. Ya'll ever saw Yes Man? Shit, this is a 2pac site. Pac did Killuminati type shit and had relatives who were amerikkka's most wanted. Just for being a member of this site, they might think we follow 2pac's ideals to alternate the government
 

Flipmo

VIP Member
Staff member
#6
Is this for Canada also... cause the number of pirated movies, music and porn over the years is nothing short of amazing, and I would prefer it if nobody knew the number of gigs else from me.
 

Da_Funk

Well-Known Member
#8
^im sorry

i disagree with it. invasion of privacy even if you got nothing to hide.
Like I said, if it helps put people who are distributing kiddie porn in jail then I'm all for it.


Yea, i disagree with this. Even if you have nothing to hide, you could still get into trouble or interrogated for even small issues. Ya'll ever saw Yes Man? Shit, this is a 2pac site. Pac did Killuminati type shit and had relatives who were amerikkka's most wanted. Just for being a member of this site, they might think we follow 2pac's ideals to alternate the government
You either need to stop smoking weed or get a clue.
 

yak pac fatal

Well-Known Member
#9
Like I said, if it helps put people who are distributing kiddie porn in jail then I'm all for it.




You either need to stop smoking weed or get a clue.
theyre not gonna catch the uploader/source, theyll be going for the downloader.

this will grow from catching those sick fucks to getting people downloading music/movies and so on.

if a regular person dont have the right to peep out whats on their computer(the folks who want this shit) than whats gives these hoes the right to do so?

they already do those online chatting traps, where the cops/fbi/cia pretend to be underage and catch that sick ass muthafucka.

steadily eliminating the 4th ammendment now
 

Da_Funk

Well-Known Member
#10
theyre not gonna catch the uploader/source, theyll be going for the downloader.

this will grow from catching those sick fucks to getting people downloading music/movies and so on.

if a regular person dont have the right to peep out whats on their computer(the folks who want this shit) than whats gives these hoes the right to do so?

they already do those online chatting traps, where the cops/fbi/cia pretend to be underage and catch that sick ass muthafucka.

steadily eliminating the 4th ammendment now
First of all, I don't even understand what you're trying to say with the part I bolded.

Secondly, this would go a long way towards helping them catch the uploader, and if they arrest the downloader as well, good.

Thirdly this will not leak over to people downloading movies/music. Why won't it? Because the FBI doesn't have the man power to individually track what each and every joe smith out there is doing. The ONLY way a law like this will effect you is if your under investigation for a serious crime.
 

yak pac fatal

Well-Known Member
#11
what i meant is if a regular person like you and i dont have the right to few other peoples computer history, why do they? just cuz theyre the gov?

if they truely want to crack down child porn, shut down the goddamn sites instead searching for people that dled from them sites.

they wont ever catch the source just look at the drug war. they catch small time weed dealer and the person whos buys it.
 

Sebastian

Well-Known Member
#12
what i meant is if a regular person like you and i dont have the right to few other peoples computer history, why do they? just cuz theyre the gov?
Exactly, because its the government.lol

There are many other examples where people working for the government are allowed to interfere with your privacy or private data, rightfully.
 

hizzle?

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#13
Is this for Canada also... cause the number of pirated movies, music and porn over the years is nothing short of amazing, and I would prefer it if nobody knew the number of gigs else from me.
I ruined my Internet company with the gigs of porn I download per day.

I must do a good Tetrabyte per year.
 
#18
Yeah! Police state! Down with privacy! Let's keep taking away privacy to fight criminals!

The NSA listens to regular telephone conversations everyday and are required to even if they have nothing to do with terrorists according to their policy. That's wasting time to find the real terrorists.

So using that logic, lets keep web site records of everyone, even if they aren't peddling child porn or doing other illegal online acts. Fuck that. As fucked up child porn is and other shitty online acts, we shouldn't let them walk over our privacy rights just because a few bad seeds ruin it for everyone. That's my take on it.

I'm telling you, 1984 is becoming more of a reality every day. Big Brother is watching and he'll do it with Nano based cameras. You won't even know you're being watched. One day they'll record everyone's lives and anything you do wrong can be used against you in court. Not saying it's going to happen, just giving fair warning that it IS possible one day. I'm not one of those conspiracy nuts but shit, we as the people need to pay attention to the powers that be and make sure government power is being used appropriately.
 

S. Fourteen

Well-Known Member
#20
So using that logic, lets keep web site records of everyone, even if they aren't peddling child porn or doing other illegal online acts. Fuck that. As fucked up child porn is and other shitty online acts, we shouldn't let them walk over our privacy rights just because a few bad seeds ruin it for everyone. That's my take on it
I rather have a record of the sites I visit than the bullshit music, movies, TV shows they try to the sell to maximize profit potential.

The Internet is not your living room, Rock.
 

Latest posts

Donate

Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.

Members online

No members online now.
Top