Snooping Bill Would Force ISPs to Retain and Share Your Browsing History, Credit Card and Bank Info

6 thoughts on “Snooping Bill Would Force ISPs to Retain and Share Your Browsing History, Credit Card and Bank Info”

1. …having all of that info kept in one makes it a tempting target for identity thieves.

   So not only is this bill not ethical, it simply is not wise.

   Log in to Reply

2. I got your email yesterday. It seems to leave out a lot of facts (if they exist). Here’s the email I sent to a friend who was up in arms about it:

   
   I looked up the full text for the HR 1981. Despite the simpering name (Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011) it does not appear to me that the facts support Demand Progress’s statements. Here’s the pertinent passage:

   “SEC. 4. RETENTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS BY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.

   (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).’.
   
   (b) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that records retained pursuant to section 2703(h) of title 18, United States Code, should be stored securely to protect customer privacy and prevent against breaches of the records.”

   I generally like Demand Progress but cannot see where they are coming from here. Here’s the full text: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1981: — It is brief and readable.

   The only substantiation offered by Demand Progress is from CNet, which reports that an amendment clarifying that only IP addresses would be stored was rejected by the committee. However, “clarifying” sounds like that is already the case. So perhaps the real issue is that the bill could be used as a defense in court by an ISP choosing to retain that information–perhaps they would claim it was required by HR 1981 even though that is not explicit, on the basis that the clarifying amendment was voted down?

   Also from CNet:

   “A last-minute rewrite of the bill expands the information that commercial Internet providers are required to store to include customers’ names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses, some committee members suggested.”

   Seems that the “some committee members suggested” is key here. Which committee members and on what basis? That information is not included in the CNet report and did not appear in a cursory Web search. I considered the possibility that the published text is pre-rewrite, but the CNet article reporting the rewrite links to the same version. I think much more information should have been provided by Demand Progress to substantiate the statements explicitly made on their petition page about this bill.
   

   So, if you want our help, care to explain how a bill requiring the retention of IP addresses somehow hands people your credit card number?

   I agree it’s a mess of a bill–I like to think if I were in the unenviable position of casting a vote on it, I’d oppose it no matter how good “voted against protecting children from pornographers” would look on oppo mailers. But I don’t see where it does what you say it does. I wouldn’t be surprised if it did, with the current Congress. But please educate me by explaining what language of the bill mandates the retention of the data you claim would be held.

   Log in to Reply

   1. Patriot act, clean skies, healthy forests…

      Log in to Reply
      1. Log in to Reply

         1. I was outraged when I saw this, then I read your post and was more outraged over Demand’s lack of information.

            I’m starting to get cynical about signing petitions because of tactics like these. I don’t always have the time to research every single issue there’s a petition circulating for, so I try to limit myself to groups I am already knowledgable about (i.e. Think Progress, NARAL, DNC, etc) but wonder how many causes I miss out on because of it.

            Anyway, I hope they get back to you with answers to your questions. And thanks for your attention to detail!!

            You rock.

            Log in to Reply

            1. There’s so much in the world that’s worth being hysterical over–why make stuff up? I don’t understand it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and it annoys me that they didn’t even try to provide any.

               Log in to Reply