US Attorney General demands ISPs snoop on customers to stop "terrorism"

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat org>
Date: June 1, 2006 1:45:29 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net, Ip ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject:  US Attorney General demands ISPs snoop on customers to stop  
"terrorism"

Dave:

For IP, if you'd like. As an ISP, I can tell you that what the USDOJ  
is demanding in the article below is not only an unprecedented, vast,  
unwarranted intrusion that should have every citizen up in arms but  
would be extremely costly and in many cases simply impossible.

For example, the article mentions that the DOJ wants ISPs to retain  
lists of the IP addresses used by every user. But we, as an ISP, do  
not give each user a unique IP address; we use network address  
translation, or NAT. To abandon the use of NAT would not only  
compromise users' safety (by making them more susceptible to Internet  
worms and other attacks); it would also require us to spend thousands  
of dollars to obtain more addresses from ARIN and to re-architect our  
network. What's more, the imposition of such a requirement upon all  
ISPs would instantly exhaust the remaining pool of IPV4 addresses at  
a time when most equipment is not ready for IPV6.

The requirement that all VOIP calls be monitored is likewise absurd.  
We don't provide VOIP ourselves; we merely provide the pipes. We  
don't even know when a VOIP call is taking place on our network. We  
would have no way to monitor and track every one on behalf of the  
government, even if we were willing to (which we are not; we owe it  
to our users never to participate in such blatantly unconstitutional  
activity).

Note that the government first attempted to use kiddie porn as an  
excuse to destroy our liberty, but seems to have decided that  
terrorism is a more effective excuse -- despite the fact that there  
have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11.

The belief that everything and everyone must be monitored in the hope  
of preventing possible criminal activity is a hallmark of a police  
state. Is this what the US is coming to? If so, the 9/11 terrorists  
have won. By killing fewer people than died in the recent earthquake,  
they have given an irresponsible government an excuse to destroy our  
freedom, and have successfully cowed the populace into allowing it to  
happen.

--Brett Glass

------------------

Terrorism invoked in ISP snooping proposal

By Declan McCullagh
http://news.com.com/Terrorism+invoked+in+ISP+snooping+proposal/ 
2100-1028_3-6078229.html

Story last modified Wed May 31 06:12:45 PDT 2006

In a radical departure from earlier statements, Attorney General  
Alberto Gonzales has said that requiring Internet service providers  
to save records of their customers' online activities is necessary in  
the fight against terrorism, CNET News.com has learned.

Gonzales and FBI Director Robert Mueller privately met with  
representatives of AOL, Comcast, Google, Microsoft and Verizon last  
week and said that Internet providers--and perhaps search engines-- 
must retain data for two years to aid in anti-terrorism prosecutions,  
according to multiple sources familiar with the discussion who spoke  
on condition of anonymity on Tuesday.

"We want this for terrorism," Gonzales said, according to one person  
familiar with the discussion.

Gonzales' earlier position had only emphasized how mandatory data  
retention would help thwart child exploitation.

In a speech last month at the National Center for Missing and  
Exploited Children, Gonzales said that Internet providers must retain  
records to aid investigations of criminals "abusing kids and sending  
images of the abuse around the world through the Internet."

If data retention becomes viewed primarily as an anti-terrorism  
measure, recent legal and political spats could complicate the  
Justice Department's efforts to make it standard practice.

Especially after recent reports that AT&T has opened its databases to  
the National Security Agency, Internet and telecommunications  
executives have become skittish about appearing to be cooperating too  
closely with the federal government's surveillance efforts.

In addition, the positive publicity that Google received during its  
legal dispute with the Justice Department over search terms has  
demonstrated to Internet companies the benefits of objecting to  
government requests on privacy grounds.

"A monumental data trove is a crazy thing from a privacy  
perspective," said one person familiar with Friday's discussions.  
"It's crazy that the U.S. government is going to retain more data  
than the Chinese government does."

Comcast said in a statement that "we fully share the attorney  
general's concern with the need to combat illegal use of the Internet  
for child pornography, terrorism and other illegal activities. We  
applaud the attorney general's initiative in convening an internal  
task force on this issue and look forward to continuing to cooperate  
with him and the FBI."

"The reasons for skepticism are growing," said Jim Harper, an analyst  
at the free-market Cato Institute and member of the Department of  
Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee. He  
predicted the reaction among Internet and telecom companies will be  
"mildly unfavorable but people are not yet to the point where they'll  
say the emperor has no clothes."

More at http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-6078229.html?tag=st.util.print

Sidebar: ISP snooping time line

In events first reported by CNET News.com, Bush administration  
officials have said Internet providers must keep track of what  
Americans are doing online. Here's the time line:

June 2005: Justice Department officials quietly propose data  
retention rules.

December 2005: European Parliament votes for data retention of up to  
two years.

April 14, 2006: Data retention proposals surface in Colorado and the  
U.S. Congress.

April 20, 2006: Attorney General Gonzales says data retention "must  
be addressed."

April 28, 2006: Rep. DeGette proposes data retention amendment.

May 16, 2006: Rep. Sensenbrenner drafts data retention legislation,  
but backs away from it two days later.

May 26, 2006: Gonzales and FBI Director Mueller meet with Internet  
and telecommunications companies.

Details of the Justice Department's proposal remain murky. One  
possibility is requiring Internet providers to record the Internet  
addresses that their customers are temporarily assigned. A more  
extensive mandate would require them to keep track of the identities  
of Americans' e-mail and instant messaging correspondents and save  
the logs of Internet phone calls.


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/