In the exponentially increasing Police State in which the American people have grown comfortable with, comes the news that while the circus over the debt ceiling continues – the Congress has approved a bill to mandate your internet provider keep logs of all your internet activity for a minimum of one year in the event law enforcement wants to review your activities online.
Anyone recall the screeching from the Left when it was learned Bush via the Patriot Act were monitoring phone calls from foreign countries into the US? So now – when the government decides they have the right to access your internet activity - there is the sound of crickets chirping. Silence. Because it’s Dear Leader’s government.
The new bill demands that your ISP store and keep a log of every activity and transaction you engage in on the internet, including names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses. To ensure the bill sails through the House without any opposition – the bill has been called Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 – even though the purpose behind this effort and the potentially devastating control the government will have over everything you do, has little to do with child porn.
While perhaps the GOP panel members might have noble intentions for this bill, are they truly so blind as to grant the Ruling Class oligarchs in Washington such power to have at it’s fingertips, every single keystroke, transaction and site you visit on the internet?? I actually find myself in agreement to the sentiments some of the Leftist Democrats have expressed, while our motives come from opposite directions. The Left want their constituencies safe from any snooping, I see huge danger affording the Ruling Class such power to know every activity you engage in on the internet – including logging all your transactions and bank information.
CNET reports the details:
nternet providers would be forced to keep logs of their customers’ activities for one year–in case police want to review them in the future–under legislation that a U.S. House of Representatives committee approved today.
The 19 to 10 vote represents a victory for conservative Republicans, who made data retention their first major technology initiative after last fall’s elections, and the Justice Department officials who have quietly lobbied for the sweeping new requirements, a development first reported by 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. By a 7-16 vote, the panel rejected an amendment that would have clarified that only IP addresses must be stored.
It represents “a data bank of every digital act by every American” that would “let us find out where every single American visited Web sites,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, who led Democratic opposition to the bill.
Lofgren said the data retention requirements are easily avoided because they only apply to “commercial” providers. Criminals would simply go to libraries or Starbucks coffeehouses and use the Web anonymously, she said, while law-abiding Americans would have their activities recorded.
To make it politically difficult to oppose, proponents of the data retention requirements dubbed the bill the Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011, even though the mandatory logs would be accessible to police investigating any crime and perhaps attorneys litigating civil disputes in divorce, insurance fraud, and other cases as well.
…..Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and previous chairman of the House Judiciary committee, had criticized it at a hearing earlier this month, and again in the voting session that began yesterday and continued through this morning.
“I oppose this bill,” said Sensenbrenner. “It can be amended, but I don’t think it can be fixed… It poses numerous risks that well outweigh any benefits, and I’m not convinced it will contribute in a significant way to protecting children.”
…the Obama Justice Department was following suit. Jason Weinstein, the deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division, warned that wireless providers must be included because “when this information is not stored, it may be impossible for law enforcement to collect essential evidence.”