HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Here we go again. Now it...

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 01:59 PM

Here we go again. Now it's supposedly about child pornography.

The following was posted in DU2 by librtbell but deserves a link here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2475133

[font color=blue]Et tu, Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

http://www.slashgear.com/sopa-sponsor-has-another-internet-bill-that-records-you-247-20210264

Senator Lamar Smith, lead sponsor of the currently dead SOPA bill you’ve heard so much about, has another bill in the works that uses Child Pornography as a screen to push through an amendment that’ll have your internet service provider tracking all of your financial dealings online. Each time you use a credit card, each time you read your bank statement, all of your IP information and your search history will be required by your ISP to be stored for 18 months at all times. This bill is H.R. 1981 and will have more dire consequences than SOPA or PIPA ever had the potential to have.
(Read more at link, above)

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9217074/New_U.S._bill_would_make_ISPs_keep_records_for_18_months

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (Republican-Texas) and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Democrat-Florida) said they introduced the bill to help investigators track down dangerous pedophiles and protect children from sexual exploitation.

=====

SPREAD THIS FAR AND WIDE! [/font color]

69 replies, 8489 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 69 replies Author Time Post
Reply Here we go again. Now it's supposedly about child pornography. (Original post)
woo me with science Jan 2012 OP
Warren Stupidity Jan 2012 #1
woo me with science Jan 2012 #16
BadgerKid Jan 2012 #22
proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #57
Warren Stupidity Jan 2012 #61
russspeakeasy Jan 2012 #2
woo me with science Jan 2012 #7
Taverner Jan 2012 #3
woo me with science Jan 2012 #18
Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #31
MattBaggins Jan 2012 #4
boppers Jan 2012 #48
T S Justly Jan 2012 #5
DirkGently Jan 2012 #6
proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #8
LAGC Jan 2012 #11
woo me with science Jan 2012 #17
JackRiddler Jan 2012 #28
proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #60
LAGC Jan 2012 #62
proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #63
Warren Stupidity Jan 2012 #27
proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #45
Hugabear Jan 2012 #64
woo me with science Jan 2012 #65
proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #66
justiceischeap Jan 2012 #42
Leopolds Ghost Jan 2012 #49
snagglepuss Jan 2012 #53
Drale Jan 2012 #9
proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #12
Drale Jan 2012 #21
proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #13
GoneOffShore Jan 2012 #32
Edweird Jan 2012 #10
woo me with science Jan 2012 #14
Edweird Jan 2012 #24
woo me with science Jan 2012 #33
quinnox Jan 2012 #15
quinnox Jan 2012 #19
Edweird Jan 2012 #23
quinnox Jan 2012 #25
Initech Jan 2012 #20
derby378 Jan 2012 #26
Prophet 451 Jan 2012 #29
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #38
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #30
woo me with science Jan 2012 #34
Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #43
sabrina 1 Jan 2012 #44
Kablooie Jan 2012 #35
jwirr Jan 2012 #36
krispos42 Jan 2012 #37
woo me with science Jan 2012 #39
Rowdyboy Jan 2012 #40
Louisiana1976 Jan 2012 #41
WillyT Jan 2012 #46
boppers Jan 2012 #47
joshcryer Jan 2012 #50
boppers Jan 2012 #51
joshcryer Jan 2012 #52
boppers Jan 2012 #58
TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #54
boppers Jan 2012 #59
meow2u3 Jan 2012 #55
proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #56
BiggJawn Jan 2012 #67
proverbialwisdom Jan 2012 #68
woo me with science Jan 2012 #69

Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:02 PM

1. Of course. It is fucking pathetic how transparent they are.

 

What is even more pathetic is that this will work. Nobody will vote against anything that has 'child porn' as its war cry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:58 PM

16. Utterly dishonest tactics of the authoritarians.

You're right. That is exactly why they are doing it this way, and it is an outrage.

They are going to keep at this until they are tracking each and every one of us. We seriously are at a turning point in this nation. We need to occupy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 03:33 PM

22. Worse is, which Critter(s) will point it out? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 05:51 PM

57. Nobody? Factually false, which is tragic considering the indefensible crimes and that

"...interdicting child pornography trafficking by sexual predators is the most effective strategy possible for detecting and stopping child sexual abuse."
- PROTECT.ORG


More here: http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/news/Penn-State-Tragedy-Inspires-Law-Targeting-PA-Attorney-General.html


Coburn (OK) and Flake (AZ) immediately come to mind during the 2 years before passage of S.1738, PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008 (see WSJ) and, of course, funding is still an ongoing battle.

http://www.protect.org/campaigns/success/167/707
LATEST NEWS
July 31, 2011: Elizabeth Smart joined PROTECT on Capitol Hill for meetings last week with members of the U.S. House and Senate. Our two-part agenda: Hands off the $30 million now in the budget for America’s Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task forces and then find another $30 million to fully fund the PROTECT Our Children Act.

http://protect.org/component/content/article/702
Note: Earlier provisions to authorize increased funding for FBI, ICE and USPIS personnel and resources were cut from bill under pressure from members of the Senate minority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #57)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 08:55 PM

61. I understand that you are confused and think these bills are actually about

 

Child porn. I get it. You've made that abuntly clear. Obviously I completely disagree. You aren't going to change my mind by repeating your points over and over and over again. There is no need for new legislation as there are no legal obstacles currently preventing a robust and effective prosecution of child porn offenders. These bills wrap themselves in kiddie porn to promote odious interference and control over all Internet access. No thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:02 PM

2. Thanks for the post, woo. I have been looking all over the board for you.

Happy to see you posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to russspeakeasy (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:26 PM

7. Hey,

That was really nice of you. Good to see you too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:05 PM

3. They say kiddie porn, but it will be used to track filesharing AND pot growers

 

A lot of hydroponic equipment sells online...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 03:03 PM

18. Yup.

I'm sure it will have many uses for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 05:14 PM

31. Always. Isn't that what they've mostly used the PATRIOT act for?

$60 Billion+ a year to throw pot smoking cancer grannies in prison. Yay.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:11 PM

4. So will that make SSL, HTTPS, VPN and general encryption illegal?

She is pretty damn stupid if she thinks what she wants is feasible.

Then again, when it comes to the intertubes, politicians have not a clue what they are talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MattBaggins (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 05:47 AM

48. No, that's not how the prospective law was written.

There has been non-tech "interpretations" that are confused. Basically, it's a record-keeping law. ISPs would be required to keep a record of MAC -> IP leases. Search engines would be required to keep records on search-term ->IP. Websites would be required to keep logs of page -> IP. Payment processors would have to log payment -> IP.

Transport encryption makes no difference, because the logging is at post-decryption points. Basically, the OP fails to explain this, because everything "not on their computer" is considered "an ISP". The law would have everybody in the chain keeping persistent logs (and most already do), to make tracking data down simpler.

In a "for the children"/"immanent attack" model, the idea is that it should be somewhat easy to chase down somebody mid-crime, using mandatory/required logging.

Of course, it won't work for anybody who goes to another jurisdiction for proxies, or jumps packets from open WiFi to open WiFi, but laws are generally created to catch really, really, stupid folks, not smart ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:17 PM

5. K&R (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:22 PM

6. Wow. The old Protect the Children Gambit. Disappointed in Debbie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:26 PM

8. Wrong, wrong, wrong! Wasserman-Schultz's work on this issue cannot be legitimately critiqued.

http://protect.org/component/content/article/1009

[img][/img]

[img][/img]
(Photo caption: Lead sponsors of the PROTECT Our Children Act 2008, left to right: Sen. Joe Biden (D), Sen. Orrin Hatch (R), Rep. Wasserman Schultz (D), Rep. Joe Barton (R))

Video of Congressional Testimony:
Testimony of PROTECT Executive Director Grier Weeks (video)
Testimony of Alicia Kozakiewicz (video)
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz questions the FBI Director Mueller (video)

What this fight was about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v= P5OmJ6DffaM (warning: graphic FBI Congressional testimony excerpt)
http://www.spcoalition.org/
http://protect.org/component/content/article/702

.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:42 PM

11. Please don't defend this fascist crap.

Law enforcement already has plenty of tools at their disposal to catch online predators, they are just under-funded as that first video you posted attested to.

We don't need a new over-reaching law that casts a wide net and affects millions of law-abiding users who value their privacy and Fourth Amendment rights.

If you don't think the government would abuse this new-found power, take a look at countries like China that heavily monitor and censor their networks.

We don't need that authoritarian crap here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:59 PM

17. Well said. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #11)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 04:39 PM

28. I think it's an ironic way to point at who supports this madness.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #11)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 08:19 PM

60. Fair points. Thanks for acknowledging there's a massive unresolved problem due to underfunding.

What's up with others ignoring that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #60)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 09:58 PM

62. Yeah, I don't think anyone would be opposed to a bill SOLELY to increase law enforcement funding.

It's just the wide net the are wanting to cast with this particular bill (H.R. 1981) that has serious privacy concerns for law-abiding citizens.

The ACLU even said the only part of it they oppose is Section 4: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/privacy_sign_on_letter_hr1981_final.pdf

But the rest of it presumably wouldn't infringe on law-abiding citizens' rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #62)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 11:10 AM

63. Read and weep: http://protect.org/component/content/article/1196

Then stop, regroup, and join PROTECT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 04:23 PM

27. As I said, cloaking this crap in 'kiddie porn' is despicable.

 

CDA PROTECT whatever. It is all the same shit warmed over. The courts threw out the two prior abominations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #27)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 02:08 AM

45. Don't slime PROTECT.ORG when you don't have any supporting facts and don't know their views on this.

You missed my point which was the relevant past outstanding legislation by Wasserman-Schultz as cited. Nothing whatsoever objectionable there.

As for PROTECT.ORG, no link, but I read recently on their website or in a linked article that they did not have an official position on the bills, finding experts on both sides.

Informative website. Check it out.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #45)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 11:13 AM

64. Yes, and Chris Dodd used to be on our side as well

Does that mean we should just blindly accept his position on SOPA as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #64)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 11:37 AM

65. And Al Franken. Money talks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #64)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 09:13 PM

66. Good point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 09:04 PM

42. If they were so concerned about online child pornography

The news this week wouldn't have been about Megaupload being taken down, it would have been about a shit ton of child porn sites being taken down.

So far, the only organization I see exposing child porn is Anonymous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 05:52 AM

49. I guess folks haven't noticed how many of these predators are in elected office :-(

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #42)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 01:40 PM

53. That's an excellent point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:35 PM

9. More like H.R. 1984. /nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:46 PM

12. Follow the money, reduce the demand for illegal porn.

Maybe learn about the nature and magnitude of what you're reflexively defending: http://www.protect.org/component/content/article/1576

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #12)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 03:09 PM

21. I'm not defending any thing

have you ever read 1984? We are moving closer and closer to that every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drale (Reply #9)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:49 PM

13. Follow the money, reduce the demand for illegal porn.

Maybe learn about the nature and magnitude of what you're reflexively defending: http://www.protect.org/component/content/article/1576

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #13)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 05:20 PM

32. You follow the money as explained below -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002197126#post30

And look at who's giving the folks supporting this nonsensical and pernicious legislation the money. Then come back and say
"It's about the children".

It's about sucking up to corporate masters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:39 PM

10. The article is from May 2011.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:50 PM

14. Try reading more carefully.

The second link is dated May 2011 and refers back to when the bill was introduced.

The first link is current and indicates that the bill has now cleared committee and is moving forward. There are links to its discharge from the committee on December 16, 2011.

Please do not spread disinformation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #14)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 04:04 PM

24. It wasn't an attempt to 'dis-inform'.

 

Based on the date I assumed it was either 'old news' or folded into what became SOPA/PIPA. I was wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #24)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 06:08 PM

33. Thank you. I apologize.

I have seen so many legitimate posts smacked around for no good reason lately that I had my indignation up when it should not have been.

Thanks for the clarification, and for all your great posts here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 02:51 PM

15. Incorrect, if you go to the link for the first article - SOPA sponsor has another Internet bill that

 

"SOPA sponsor has another Internet bill that records you 24/7" you will see its dated Jan. 20th, 2012

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #10)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 03:04 PM

19. out of curiosity, any reaction to this

 

besides "this must be old news".

Is this a good idea in your opinion? Bad idea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #19)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 04:01 PM

23. Hell no, it's not a good idea.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Edweird (Reply #23)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 04:09 PM

25. thanks, I agree

 

Treating every internet user as a potential child porn criminal deviant is not the way to go, I think just about all of us can agree to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 03:06 PM

20. Now theyre trying to find a scapegoat for SOPA.

Don't take this as "I'm supporting child porn" (someone will misinterpret this that way... ) - I'm not even slightly - but the fact they're trying to find ways to scapegoat SOPA/PIPA is even scarier than the legislation itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 04:10 PM

26. How many times can Wikipedia go dark in protest...

...before nobody gives a damn anymore?

We need to threaten these legislators with unemployment unless they back off and make it stick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 04:45 PM

29. Bullshit

There are already laws in place to shut down child porn networks and trace the finances of them (which are often imperfectly applied, that's just a given).

"For the kiddies" is always the first excuse of anyone wanting to pull a fast one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Prophet 451 (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 07:59 PM

38. Anonymous had no problem finding them and exposing them. Maybe they should

work with Anonymous. This is BS, just another door they will try to use to gain control of the Internet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 05:02 PM

30. Follow the money:

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/01/20/wasserman-schultz-doesnt-pull-support-for-sopa/

Wasserman Schultz has pulled in quite a bit of money from the TV/Movies/Music industry while supporting SOPA. According to campaign documents, Wasserman Schultz has received donations of $70,000 from that field.

Overall, the TV/Movies/Music industry is the fifth leading contributor to Wasserman Schultz’s campaign and the industry is second in contributions to Wasserman Schultz’s PACs.

The same industry is the leading contributor to Republican Lamar Smith’s campaign, who has been leading the charge for the passage of SOPA.


How money corrupts our system is in a way, the number one issue that needs to be dealt with. It is the root of all the problems we complain about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 06:37 PM

34. Wow, very important information about their contributors.

You are absolutely correct. Everything that has outraged us in recent years, over and over and over again, *always* leads back to the purchase of our politicians.

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #30)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 09:15 PM

43. Phhhhhttttt, that's pocket money.

Seriously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #43)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 09:43 PM

44. Not if they are among your top five campaign contributers:

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00026106


Top 5 Industries, 2011-2012, Campaign Cmte

Industry Total Indivs PACs
Lawyers/Law Firms $101,369 $72,369 $29,000
Public Sector Unions $75,000 $ 0
Real Estate $70,676 $55,676 $15,000
Health Professionals $63,000 $24,000 $39,000
TV/Movies/Music $55,000 $13,500 $41,500


I know that under the current system, they have little choice but to take money from corporations. That amount is what she has received SO FAR for the 2012 campaign.


If you want to see who gets the most from the Music/Movie industry, here is a list together with their votes, until the blackout and public pressure forced them to rethink that bill.

The largest amounts go to people on the Dem side, like Schumer, Reid, Boxer (big disappointment) Leahy (another big disappointment) and all were ready to vote 'yes' on that bill.

http://projects.propublica.org/sopa/pipa#roll_call

It's beyond blaming them, the longer they are in DC the more they accept how things work there. The problem is the system and that is what must be changed or the people will never be truly represented.

Shorter election seasons would be a start.

It's doubtful, eg, if many of them even knew what it was about. I have read that they are told by the Lobbyists what to think about a particular bill and that they view them as 'experts' so take their word most of the time. The public has little input into this system unless the outrage is so great, they have to listen.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 07:42 PM

35. They seem to be catching scads of child porn hawkers even without this.

New worldwide sweeps seem to be in the news every few months.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 07:46 PM

36. The lobbying has never stopped. I cannot remember which show but there is a pro-SOPA ad on one

of the news shows at night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 07:47 PM

37. From another thread...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 08:42 PM

39. Excellent. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #37)

Sat Jan 21, 2012, 08:51 PM

40. Hits the nail on the head.......n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 02:13 AM

46. Jesus... K & R !!!

 




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 03:11 AM

47. I call bullshit.

"all of your IP information and your search history will be required by your ISP to be stored for 18 months at all times"... uhm, yeah, the ISP doesn't even have that information, let alone the storage capacity for it. This is what happens when folks write about tech without the slightest clue as to how it works... and this is true for both legislators and the crap that passes for journalism these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 05:52 AM

50. There's storage for it. If you have a Google account check your web history.

Google Web History goes back indefinitely, and they have hundreds of millions of daily users.

http://www.google.com/history/welcome

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #50)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 06:07 AM

51. Google is not an ISP.

They also don't track MAC, or require fixed IP addressing, so anybody can conceivably inject false "history" into an account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #51)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 06:27 AM

52. IP's are 4 bytes. MAC addresses are, what, 32?

I am not arguing of the sanity of this, it can be abused in more ways than one. I am saying that the storage requirements are not overly difficult, and that ultimately it's already being done as we already see pedophiles being taken down over such forensic type of thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #52)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 05:54 PM

58. MAC addresses are ripped off the packet at each router hop.

If every router stored every packet, that passed through every location, yeah, that's technically *possible*. Insane, though. And yes, a lot of internet forensics involves assembling and cross-referencing logs, if they exist, and are available. Some shadier outfits don't keep logs (wink wink nudge nudge), or only keep a few days, or log very little.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #47)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 02:42 PM

54. Hell, that would work out well as an excuse for a round of corporate welfare.

We have to give our ISP's billions to enable them to help us stop terrorisim and help the innocent children of America and if they can't finagle that (or maybe even if they do) they will be granted a nice line item on our bills to pay for it and at the same time make it more difficult for new providers to take off which reduces the threat of competetion from the existing wanna be (and actual) monopolies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #54)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 05:57 PM

59. It's a hard-drive manufacturer bailout?

Based on my internet activity, it would cost about $200 a month in purchasing storage to monitor (at the levels suggested by the OP) just me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 02:46 PM

55. When all other excuses fail, it's time to pull out the child porn card

to justify totalitarian control over the people. This frosts me!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meow2u3 (Reply #55)

Sun Jan 22, 2012, 03:52 PM

56. Obviously, then, the solution is to eliminate "the child porn card."

Assuming only good faith posts on this thread, I encourage everyone here to learn about PROTECT.ORG which emphatically does not advocate the passage of laws intended to be misapplied or fail.

Read about their latest advocacy in PA here:

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/news/Penn-State-Tragedy-Inspires-Law-Targeting-PA-Attorney-General.html

Penn State Tragedy Inspires Law Targeting PA’s Attorney General

By Tara Murtha
Posted Dec. 27 2011


The introduction of the Pennsylvania Attorney General Mandated Reporter Law by Rep. Dan Deasy (D-Allegheny) on the steps of the Allegheny county courthouse in early December didn’t make much of a splash here, but the implications of the legislation are explosive: Supporters allege that the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office is sitting on thousands of leads on child sex abusers, collecting the data on their possible whereabouts but not trying to find them.

“The facts are that there are 22,000 graphic child pornographers in Pennsylvania, thousands of them are likely to be committing child abuse right now, and if we’re not giving out that information to local law enforcement, which is the case … we are not doing our job as best we could,” says former U.S. Representative Patrick Murphy, currently campaigning to become the first Democrat elected as Pennsylvania Attorney General next year.

The bill’s supporters want the Attorney General’s office to share leads generated in RoundUp, a sophisticated forensic tool that scours peer-to-peer file-sharing networks like Gnutella and BitTorrent and pinpoints IP addresses of computers sharing graphic child pornography.

Murphy sees the new law as a stateside extension of the federal PROTECT Our Children Act in 2008. During Congressional testimony for that legislation, the FBI and Department of Justice estimated less than 1 percent of all leads are investigated.

More at link.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Original post)

Mon Jan 23, 2012, 09:41 PM

67. Always "For the Children".

Damn Authoritarians have to know what everybody is doing every minute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #68)

Thu Jan 26, 2012, 08:44 AM

69. Thank you very much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread