Should your Internet provider be required by the federal government to maintain records of all the sites you visit on the Web?
Should search engines like Google be required to keep permanent records of your Web searches?
Many in the federal government -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- say yes. And renowned CNET tech reporter Declan McCullagh says this is going to be one of the hottest privacy battles of the coming year.
Look for the FBI and other government agencies to push hard for this legislation when the new Congress convenes in early 2007.
The idea was recently endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. FBI director Robert Mueller praised that endorsement, saying:
"Terrorists coordinate their plans cloaked in the anonymity of the Internet, as do violent sexual predators prowling chat rooms... All too often, we find that before we can catch these offenders, Internet service providers have unwittingly deleted the very records that would help us identify these offenders and protect future victims," Mueller said. "We must find a balance between the legitimate need for privacy and law enforcement's clear need for access."
It's to be expected that this privacy grab, like so many others, will be cloaked under the guises of fighting terrorism and protecting children. And of course, our "legitimate need for privacy" -- or rather, our right to privacy -- must be "balanced." ("Balanced" is too often a government euphemism for "obliterated.")
This is the classic government rhetoric we've come to expect before a major curtailment of our rights.
What might such laws require? CNET's McCullagh gives some possibilities:
Should search engines like Google be required to keep permanent records of your Web searches?
Many in the federal government -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- say yes. And renowned CNET tech reporter Declan McCullagh says this is going to be one of the hottest privacy battles of the coming year.
Look for the FBI and other government agencies to push hard for this legislation when the new Congress convenes in early 2007.
The idea was recently endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. FBI director Robert Mueller praised that endorsement, saying:
"Terrorists coordinate their plans cloaked in the anonymity of the Internet, as do violent sexual predators prowling chat rooms... All too often, we find that before we can catch these offenders, Internet service providers have unwittingly deleted the very records that would help us identify these offenders and protect future victims," Mueller said. "We must find a balance between the legitimate need for privacy and law enforcement's clear need for access."
It's to be expected that this privacy grab, like so many others, will be cloaked under the guises of fighting terrorism and protecting children. And of course, our "legitimate need for privacy" -- or rather, our right to privacy -- must be "balanced." ("Balanced" is too often a government euphemism for "obliterated.")
This is the classic government rhetoric we've come to expect before a major curtailment of our rights.
What might such laws require? CNET's McCullagh gives some possibilities:
- Require your Internet service providers (ISP) to keep permanent records of your Web surfing habits. (Currently ISPs keep this information for varying lengths of time, until it is no longer needed for business reasons such as network monitoring or stopping fraud.)
- Require registrars (companies that sell domain names) to maintain permanent records of your searches and requests.
- Require search engines to keep permanent traceable logs of all your searches.
Is such a drastic invasion of our privacy really necessary for the government to fight terrorists and child molesters? No. McCullagh notes that current federal law already requires ISPs to retain any record in their possession for 90 days "upon the request of a governmental entity."
Thus, notes McCullagh: "Industry representatives say that if police respond to tips promptly instead of dawdling, it would be difficult to imagine any investigation that would be imperiled" by the lack of mandatory retention of your personal Web surfing history.
But since when has reason and common sense stopped the government from trying to expand its snooping powers?
Source: CNET, "FBI director wants ISPs to track users"
Thus, notes McCullagh: "Industry representatives say that if police respond to tips promptly instead of dawdling, it would be difficult to imagine any investigation that would be imperiled" by the lack of mandatory retention of your personal Web surfing history.
But since when has reason and common sense stopped the government from trying to expand its snooping powers?
No comments:
Post a Comment