FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited

[SSSnail]

I don' visit a single site I'd be worried about the FBI looking into. While I don't care to have my privacy violated, since I don't do shit wrong, and this could very well lead to some sickfuck pedpos getting sent to prison. Then go ahead and violate my rights so some small children kids can possibly be saved from bullshit like this.

You'd be surprised what viral marketing can do for you. While a good computer forensic examiner can determine what sites you have visited from performing an investigation on your hard drive, a list of address from your ISP will never make the case. Third party cookie is a bitch.

It's so easy to sell the "welfare of the children" to stupid people nowadays, even if that means your privacy is trampled upon. If they specifically want just the pedos, it is so easily done; it's not at all difficult to set up a filter for blacklisted websites, and not having to keep track of EVERYTHING.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Congress will embrace this.

 

[StageLeft]

Sad to see Anandtech so full of pedophile-sympathizers who won't support a common-sense law to help avoid it

 

[bob4432]

see sig....

 

[Fern]

Privacy violated?

I'm not seeing it. The article doesn't say the FBI/government gets that data, rather it sounds like they want the ISP to retain it so if they have an investigation and get a judge's order (subpeona) they can get it. What's wrong with them getting the data under that circumstance?

The article compares this with the telephone companies' requirement to keep records so that if is needed in an investigation the authorities can get it. Are those of you outraged over this equally upset with the telephone company requirement? Or, were you under the (apparently) mistaken impression the gov is trying to get hold of your internet surfing data right directly?

Other than the burden on the ISP, and related technical issues, I'm not seeing the big problem with this.

Fern

 

[QueBert]

Slippery Slope.

Do you do any of the following?:

• Download pirated music?
• Download pirated movies?
• Download pirated software?
• Discuss political viewpoints that may be in contrast with the viewpoint of the government? (Such as legalizing marijuana, or organizing protests, etc)
• Allow people other than yourself to use your internet connection?
• Use a Wifi access point relying on WEP or WPA as your security method, or open wifi?
• A myriad of other possibilities

If so, you might want to think before you start handing over your rights.

I do none of the things you mentioned, I don't even ever drive over the speed limit. If the FBI monitored my life they would be bored as fuck. It's simple to not break laws, and it's simple to not do shit the government will come after you for. I use my grocery store club card when I shop, so they'd know exactly what I buy (if they wanted to) i registered my GPS so I'm assuming they could easily track everywhere I drive. Privacy means something, but I'd give up my privacy if it meant eliminating some pedos from the public. Even if all they ever would do is look at pictures they need to be locked the fuck up.

Besides, they're not going to monitor shit unless they have a reason to, and they're not going to monitor shit to see if there's a reason to. They'll go after records of people who get busted for shit like this, and use the records to help them nail the fucker. It's a win/win. There's zero chance they'd ever ask my ISP for records of what I did.

 

[Matthiasa]

@ QueBert - yeah...it's like the airport - all the extra security is a pain, but I'd rather deal with it than have it be totally open to terrorists. There are a lot of messed-up people in this world, and the Internet offers total anonymity so people can get as screwed up as they want, which spills out into real-life.

Plus they're monitoring everything already, so who cares.../puts on tinfoil hat :hmm:

You missed the bosom bomb thread I take it? Or how the lines make people easy targets?

 

[SunSamurai]

lol, why does every bill like this use child pornography as its crutch?

Most sense you've made this year.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I really don't get the child porn laws in this country. So, if I look at pictures of an underage girl naked I'm guilty of what exactly? I didn't molest anyone, I didn't force anyone to take their clothes off, I didn't even take the picture, I just looked at it...I don't get it.

 

[SunSamurai]

Sad to see Anandtech so full of pedophile-sympathizers who won't support a common-sense law to help avoid it

 

[Matthiasa]

I really don't get the child porn laws in this country. So, if I look at pictures of an underage girl naked I'm guilty of what exactly? I didn't molest anyone, I didn't force anyone to take their clothes off, I didn't even take the picture, I just looked at it...I don't get it.

Pretty sure it's to kill the market for it so that those that produce, and the heinous act that is involved with that, will stop. That and viewing can maybe lead to acting on it in some people.

 

[SunSamurai]

I really don't get the child porn laws in this country. So, if I look at pictures of an underage girl naked I'm guilty of what exactly? I didn't molest anyone, I didn't force anyone to take their clothes off, I didn't even take the picture, I just looked at it...I don't get it.

The person has to be a lot younger than simply 'underage'.

 

[I Saw OJ]

I really don't get the child porn laws in this country. So, if I look at pictures of an underage girl naked I'm guilty of what exactly? I didn't molest anyone, I didn't force anyone to take their clothes off, I didn't even take the picture, I just looked at it...I don't get it.

Since its harder to go after the people who actually take the pictures and whatnot, lawmakers try to dry up demand by creating tougher penalties for people who posses the material whether they had a hand in creating it or not.

 

[Matthiasa]

The person has to be a lot younger than simply 'underage'.

No, they only have to be younger then 18, meaning they can potentially be legal in some states and countries...

 

[lxskllr]

The person has to be a lot younger than simply 'underage'.

I don't know about that. Once the witch hunts really crank up, anything's fair game. We had a teacher that got busted for "child Porn" around here. I kind of half assed followed the case because I had him in school, and liked him as a teacher. Nothing came of it. No conviction, no nothin'. That leads me to believe there was nothing there in the first place. As to his career and reputation....

 

[Linflas]

I don' visit a single site I'd be worried about the FBI looking into. While I don't care to have my privacy violated, since I don't do shit wrong, and this could very well lead to some sickfuck pedpos getting sent to prison. Then go ahead and violate my rights so some small children kids can possibly be saved from bullshit like this.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Don't like it? Then get the states together in a constitutional convention and amend the Constitution or get the congress to pass an amendment and get it ratified by 2/3 of the states otherwise the FBI can go screw themselves. And you should be ashamed that you place such little value on your liberty.

 

[SunSamurai]

No, they only have to be younger then 18, meaning they can potentially be legal in some states and countries...

I meant in terms of pedophilia.

 

[FelixDeCat]

If law enforcement cant do its job with the tools currently available and at its disposal, then they are the ones doing a poor job. When was the last time a subpeona was rejected by a judge? I dont know but Im going to guess almost never.

Law enforcement is lazy. They have almost unlimited powers, and I dont want my ISP keeping all those records for browsing by some 19 year old employee who wants to play wannabe cop.

I think what this is really for is to support a flimsy case some two bit cop brings up. "Look people, he visted this site!! While we found no evidence on his computer, he visited the site! Surely he is guilty of what we accuse him of!!!" And before you laugh, imagine you are on a jury or worse the defendant.

 

[RoloMather]

I see NO potential for this to be abused at all. None whatsoever.

 

[ShawnD1]

I meant in terms of pedophilia.

The law is the law. How many times have we seen articles posted in ATOT about a couple of 17 year olds being arrested because they sent naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriend or girlfriend?


Deep down I hope the people passing laws "for the children" get fucked by their own laws and go to jail for 30 years because they happen to have a naked baby picture in their photo album. With a bit of luck they'll be stabbed in prison.

The FBI probably now has me on a watch list because I just hoped for half of congress to be stabbed in prison. Luckily I don't live in the US

 

[dawp]

I don' visit a single site I'd be worried about the FBI looking into. While I don't care to have my privacy violated, since I don't do shit wrong, and this could very well lead to some sickfuck pedpos getting sent to prison. Then go ahead and violate my rights so some small children kids can possibly be saved from bullshit like this.

Have you ever mistyped a web address and went somewhere totally unexpected? I have but it happens less less nowadays.

there was a guy a few years ago that would set up pornsites on domain names that were common misspelling of popular legit site. one i know of was circuitcity . com mispelled curcuitcity


If they want this info for a reason, make them get a court order.

 

[ShawnD1]

Have you ever mistyped a web address and went somewhere totally unexpected? I have but it happens less less nowadays.

At one time, Chrysler was a car website while Crysler (the H is missing) was a porn website.

 

[chusteczka]

http://www.torproject.org/

Problem solved.

Tor is free software and an open network that helps you defend against a form of network surveillance that threatens personal freedom and privacy, confidential business activities and relationships, and state security known as traffic analysis.

A link on its own is useless. It helps to introduce the link so people know what it is for.

 

[Raduque]

I do none of the things you mentioned, I don't even ever drive over the speed limit. If the FBI monitored my life they would be bored as fuck. It's simple to not break laws, and it's simple to not do shit the government will come after you for. I use my grocery store club card when I shop, so they'd know exactly what I buy (if they wanted to) i registered my GPS so I'm assuming they could easily track everywhere I drive. Privacy means something, but I'd give up my privacy if it meant eliminating some pedos from the public. Even if all they ever would do is look at pictures they need to be locked the fuck up.

Besides, they're not going to monitor shit unless they have a reason to, and they're not going to monitor shit to see if there's a reason to. They'll go after records of people who get busted for shit like this, and use the records to help them nail the fucker. It's a win/win. There's zero chance they'd ever ask my ISP for records of what I did.

This is a shining example of the kind of douchebag that runs on emotion and wants to strip away all rights just to "protect the children".

 

[shortylickens]

This is a shining example of the kind of douchebag that runs on emotion and wants to strip away all rights just to "protect the children".

He's not a douchebag, you just dont agree with his opinion.

And if this is the kind of argument we are going to have then maybe it belongs in P&N with the other bitch-fests. Instead of the sophisticated world of OT.