Friday, February 20, 2009

Not A Dime's Bit of Difference: Republicans Propose Bill To Require ISPs, Wi-Fi Keep Logs for Police

Isn't bipartisanship wonderful!

From cnet news, by Declan McCullagh:

Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations.

The legislation, which echoes a measure proposed by one of their Democratic colleagues three years ago, would impose unprecedented data retention requirements on a broad swath of Internet access providers and is certain to draw fire from businesses and privacy advocates.

"While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children," U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said at a press conference on Thursday. "Keeping our children safe requires cooperation on the local, state, federal, and family level."
Ah, yes, of course! It's all "for the children." Who could be against that?

Joining Cornyn was Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who said such a measure would let "law enforcement stay ahead of the criminals."

In the Bush administration, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had called for a very similar proposal, saying that subscriber information and network data should be logged for two years.

Until Gonzales' remarks in 2006, the Bush administration had generally opposed laws requiring data retention, saying it had "serious reservations" about them. But after the European Parliament approved such a requirement for Internet, telephone and VoIP providers, top administration officials began talking about the practice more favorably.

Gonzales never met a totalitarian idea he did not like, so no surprise there, but I thought Republicans were against doing stuff just because those pansy Europeans did it.

After Gonzales left the Justice Department, the political will for data retention legislation seemed to ebb for a time, but then FBI Director Robert Mueller resumed lobbying efforts last spring.

This tends to be a bipartisan sentiment: Attorney General Eric Holder, a Democrat, said in 1999 that "certain data must be retained by ISPs for reasonable periods of time so that it can be accessible to law enforcement." Rep. John Conyers, the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said that FBI proposals for data retention legislation "would be most welcome."

Read the rest here.

Well, if both sides of the aisle are for it, by gosh it must be good! Remember HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, which proposed keeping files on people considered to be thinking dangerous thoughts and expressing dangerous ideas? That was bipartisan too, passing the House by a vote of 404 to six. It was sponsored by Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman, 36th District of California (Chair of the Intelligence Subcommittee) and co-sponsored by a Republican.

introduced HR 1955 on April 19, 2007. And she made it clear it was no coincidence, stating “April 19th marks the 12th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, which claimed 168 lives and injured over 800. Only September 11, 2001, eclipses that dark day as the deadliest act of terrorism on US soil.” She introduced her bill on April 19 to make it very clear that her goal is to go after the future “Timothy McVeighs” out there right along with Muslim terrorists.

Well, the hand holding continues! Repbublicans and Democrats have put aside whatever petty differences they may have had and are now singing the same Big Brother tune -and these Republicans are not even worried about growing the powers of Big Brother in the hands of anti-gun Holder, Emanuel, and Obama!

They simply don't care anymore who has that power, so long as it is grown - I suppose they figure they will get to use it one day themselves, and besides, they really agree with Holder, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary and Obama on nearly everything, so why not?

I am DONE with the Republican Party. Done. A pox on both their houses.

Time to sharpen those pitchforks. We can be "bipartisan" too.


1 comment:

Darren said...

I am and will always be U.S. Cavalry
This debate is one reason why in my simple span of life I will not engage in politics. The science of “Developmental Democracy” will continue to be opposed by individuals who will enforce the methods of “Demographic Democracy” that has not changed in principle in thousands of years.
What has changed is our level of technology and our confidence to produce levels of technology that regimes can’t assimilate as a tool to prevent freedom of thought. This being the case has force totalitarian regimes to build the legal argument that such “Free World” technology is self-destructive and must be employed only in the preservation of the “Autocracies of the World”, this in the name of the right to Self-Preservation and the preservation of life on earth.
I don't believe that such legislation is needed should we maintain our alliance with one party governments or regimes. For a small fee they will be more than happy to provide us with such information. Should we show that we are functional and responsible enough to use such information collected from our citizens in a manner that is considered appropriate for our future “Demographic Leaders” to use.
It could become very important to access such data about the United States by those who have no concepts of free will so that our government may be permitted to exist.
Should the totalitarian regimes of the world decide we are not entitled to such dissemination of data collection from their functional data collection systems it may be determined that we are not capable of self-government as is the entire point of "Rule of Regime" or "one man rule"! "Rule of Law" can be legally blamed for such dangerous concepts in the United Nation and the democracies of the free world.
Should "Developmental Democracy" fail at the level of information defense why would any regime on earth consider such a free nation as capable of Nuclear Weapon responsibility? Should the regimes declare under international law democracies have no secure level of functionalism, the regimes of the world must under the conditions of international law maneuver to exercise their "Right to Self-Preservation".
This simply dictates that all moral political grounds for a “Flash War” against democracy must be established by the democracies of the world as the only logical remaining option for the dictators on earth.
In concert with Captain B. H. Liddell Hart, Carl von Clausewitz and John M. Collins the regime will continue to maneuver until the concept of “Deterrent through Measured Response” is no longer a functional political instrument.
The details of failed Developmental Democracy are too gruesome to discuss in any public forum!