
The Legislation That Could Kill Internet Privacy for Good  - dimm
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/08/the-legislation-that-could-kill-internet-privacy-for-good/242853/
======
runningdogx
The article starts off on the wrong foot.

"Every right-thinking person abhors child pornography."

Wrong. The way child porn is defined, I do not necessarily abhor it. One
17-year-old in a legal relationship [in case anyone out there thinks age of
consent is 18 everywhere, google age of consent; you're in for a shock],
taking nude photos of him/herself and sending them to his/her partner, is
classified as "child porn" under current federal law.

The average person, hearing "child porn", conjures images of minors being
abducted and abused in some basement, or being abused by relatives. If only
child porn laws were tailored that narrowly.

(I completely agree with the main premise of the article, but this bill is
hardly a new phenomenon. Pedophilia (technically pre-pubescent minors),
ephebophilia (post-pubescent minors) and/or child porn has been one of the
four horsemen of the infocalypse[1] for many years.)

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyps...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse)

~~~
daeken
While I totally agree with your premise -- child pornography laws have been
used in ridiculous ways, hurting teenagers in uncountable ways -- it's
_really_ tough to come up with a definition that's narrow enough to not be
usable for ridiculous cases while still being able to go after the
legitimately bad guys.

For instance, if you define that even if every other qualification in the law
is met, it's not child pornography if it's one partner in a legal relationship
sending another a nude photo, you still have a couple problems: 1) It's legal,
as far as I know, for an adult to date a minor less than 4 years younger than
him/her in PA, so you'd make it legal for a 14 year old to send nude photos to
an 18 year old -- is this acceptable? 2) What about people that intercept the
photos, or something of that sort?

This really isn't a cut-and-dry issue, I believe, but _something_ needs to
change.

~~~
JoachimSchipper
If, by the people's consensus, it's legal for said 18-year old to have sex
with said 14-year old, exactly why would it be illegal for said 18-year old to
look at said 14-year old naked, in a photograph or otherwise[1]?

As to your second point, wiretapping laws already exist.

[1] I could actually see an argument along the lines of "the internet never
forgets", "having nude photos of yourself online sucks", "14-year olds do
stupid things and should be protected from themselves". However, it's not at
all clear that destroying the 18-year old's life is the best way to "fix"
this. (It's also quite possible to have different rules for supposedly private
messages and public distribution.)

~~~
jonnathanson
The law gets interpreted _very_ strictly and very literally around this
subject. In fact, there has actually been a case where a 15-year-old girl was
arrested for taking nude photos of _herself_ and sharing them with others via
chatrooms. She was charged with trafficking in child pornography, which is
somewhat understandable. But she was also charged with exploitation of a
minor, which seems a bit silly in this case (unless she had a split
personality doing the photography?).

~~~
AlexandrB
> She was charged with trafficking in child pornography, which is somewhat
> understandable.

I'm not sure how. The intent (as I understand it) is to protect minors from
predators and exploitation, not to give them a criminal record for their own
actions - consider that the perpetrator and supposed victim are one and the
same in this case. Had they charged others who viewed/shared the photos in the
chatrooms, that would be understandable, even if they're minors themselves.

~~~
jonnathanson
Whether she realized it or not, she became the initial vector for distribution
of child pornography the second she shared the photos online. So there is a
semi-reasonable argument to be made that she caused some degree of social harm
in distributing the photos. I'm not sure which side of the fence I fall on,
but at least I could entertain the argument with a straight face.

The exploitation charge, on the other hand, was patently ludicrous.

~~~
JulianMorrison
The social harm of distributing photos is that a minor was harmed.

Jailing a minor is harm!

What utter idiocy.

------
nextparadigms
Nowadays they're using child pornography as an excuse to verify or monitor
just about everything. But there's always a hidden agenda behind it. Plus, I'm
sure the music and movie labels gave their full support for this one, because
they _truly_ care about child porn - oh, and that other little detail that
they can more easily use this law to catch "copyright infringers" later on.

EDIT: And I really think they're "boiling the frog" here. They steadily take
away our rights to privacy so there are only a few people mad about it at a
time, until they have full control.

But we need to step back a little and think about what they're really doing.
They're trying to have full access to everything you're doing online, while
the Internet is becoming more and more our main communication method. Then how
is this much different from communism where the Government wants to monitor
the whole population - "so there are no crimes or anything". It's a very
slippery slope, and it has started a while ago. Take a step back and look at
everything: Patriot Act, TSA, and now this and other similar laws. What's the
end-goal here? 100% complete security - therefore no liberties?

~~~
jonnathanson
Child pornography is one of those bugbears -- much like terrorism -- that is
so theoretically abhorrent to a lot of people that anyone trying to push
legislation or regulation through the system can summon its specter for an
instant veneer of credibility and legitimacy.

"If you don't support X, then you're leaving people vulnerable to Y!" has long
been a cheap scare tactic trotted out in service of agendas on all sides of
all aisles, pretty much since the dawn of time.

I hate that tactic in general, and I hate it here specifically. Not just
because it's intellectually dishonest, but because it cheapens the _actual_
victims of child pornography and exploitation -- using them as little more
than rhetorical chess pieces.

~~~
benjiweber
In the UK, BT (The biggest ISP) introduced CleanFeed[0] and "strongly
encouraged" (read forced) to be used by the government. It was claimed that it
would only ever be used for blocking child sexual abuse imagery.

Recently a judge has ruled that BT must use the same system to block a website
used to share links. [1]

The list of blacklist sites itself can only be edited by a small group (iirc 4
people) of unelected and unaccountable people at the IWF[2]

Cleanfeed is also pretty flawed, doesn't work with HTTPS, can be interrogated
to get a list of blocked content (using TTLs) and misleadingly returns 404 for
blocked content.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_%28content_blocking_s...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_%28content_blocking_system%29)
[1] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/british-
tele...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/british-telecom-
ordered-to-blacklist-usenet-search-engine.ars) [2] <http://www.iwf.org.uk/>
[3] <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/cleanfeed.pdf>

~~~
pimeys
In Finland the government encourages the ISP's to filter a list of sites. The
list is secret and managed by the police to filter out child porn. One of the
sites included in that list is a site which is criticizing the filtering.

<http://lapsiporno.info/english-2008-02-15.html>

------
smussman
From everything I've been able to read[1], this bill requires ISPs to track
IPs that they've assigned to users, but does not require storage of all
Internet traffic. This hardly seems like it would "kill Internet privacy for
good."

[1]
[http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1981&...](http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1981&version=ih&nid=t0%3Aih%3A26)

~~~
camiller
And if it was the bill introduced two months ago that would be fine. Govtrack,
as great a resource as it is, is often days to weeks behind. According to the
cnet article linked from the Atlantic article a few changes were made by the
committee:

"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."

~~~
darrikmazey
Has anyone actually seen the text of this "last-minute rewrite"? I'm
skeptical, because I've been seeing this fear broadcast about this bill since
day one. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems like a pretty large leap from temporary
ip addresses to bank account numbers, names, phone numbers, etc. Every
reference I can find to this bill still only contains the text for the initial
retention of ip addresses.

Would love to see verification of the broader scope.

~~~
camiller
So far information is only coming from interviews with congress-critters on
the committee that passed the bill(19-10). It takes awhile for Thomas (and
from there GovTrack) to get updated with the revised text.

------
Shenglong
I don't feel this bill could even serve the purpose it was originally designed
for. I would imagine that the perverts who haven't been caught yet, probably
employ a decent amount of security in terms of encryption and proxies.

Oh, USA... what are you doing?

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Silly child, thinking that this bill actually has anything to do with stopping
child pornography.

------
cheald
So, the actual criminals will just continue to use Tor or an overseas VPN and
continue to be untrackable, and the common citizen is the one that pays the
price here.

Don't think for one second that this is about child porn. "For the children"
rings so hollow here, it's ridiculous.

------
dstein

      In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only
      crime is getting caught.
        — Hunter S. Thompson

~~~
dpatru
This is a good quote generally, but not when discussing child porn and the
sexual exploitation of children. In this context, everybody is not guilty.

~~~
dstein
Well the quote relates more to the whole spying on your every online activity.
There's a lot more to this than catching child pornographers.

------
dendory
That's why we need everything to become encrypted. Any time a new project, a
new startup is created, one of the first feature implemented should be full
encryption, end to end.

~~~
djeikyb
Wouldn't the gov't simply demand the logs be unencrypted? And wouldn't
companies simply roll over like they do now?

------
DenisM
Instead of freaking out, why not go and read the bill in question? Here's what
it says:

 _`(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).'._

That's it, that's all there is to it - DHCP assignment log preservation. My
Comcast DHCP-assigned IP address did not change in over a year, chances are
most people's addresses are not changing over the discussed 18-month period at
all. The law changes nothing for most people.

For the government to know if you visited certain site they would still have
to get the traffic logs from that site.

~~~
roc
You're quoting from the bill as drafted at the end of May. The uproar is over
a last-minute re-write that _changed_ the retention requirement to include
names, banking information, etc and a vote that _rejected_ an amendment to
overturn that change.

So, yes, there's not much to freak out about in the May 25th draft. Which is
why there wasn't a story until the middle of June when the DoJ started
shopping around a proposal to expand the logs: [http://news.cnet.com/Your-ISP-
as-Net-watchdog/2100-1028_3-57...](http://news.cnet.com/Your-ISP-as-Net-
watchdog/2100-1028_3-5748649.html)

And people didn't get really fired up about this particular bill, until it was
amended to include some of DOJ's wishlist, and made it out of committee with
those changes intact: [http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20084939-281/house-
panel-a...](http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20084939-281/house-panel-
approves-broadened-isp-snooping-bill/)

I can't find the amended text on Thomas, but what you've quoted is not what
has everyone worked up.

~~~
DenisM
I got this quote by clicking through the article. And pretty much every single
article I have seen before links to the same place. No one has the new
wording, yet everyone is freaking out about it.

But fine, even if they collect CC and other information pertaining to the
person... Again Comcast and Verizon already do retain all billing information
anyway. This requirement changes nothing for the vast majority of the people.

Of note, no edition of the bill proposes tracking the browsing history, yet it
seems to me that most people discussing the subject assume that it does.

~~~
roc
> _"This requirement changes nothing for the vast majority of the people."_

How can you be so certain when we don't have the amended text?

~~~
DenisM
Is this clearer?

 _even if they collect CC and other information pertaining to the person... []
This requirement changes nothing []_

------
buddylw
This is bad news for everyone. It is also unlikely to achieve its intended
goal due to proxies and encrypted networks.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." \--Benjamin Franklin

------
fourk
I think this, like the Patriot Act and countless others, is indicative of a
problem with the way in which we name our bills. No politician wants to be the
guy that voted against the "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers
Act of 2011", when that can be taken out of context of the actual text of the
bill and used as a political weapon against him/her. Haven't we realized that
our current system of naming bills leads to a system in which our
representatives are politically pressured to vote for or against a bill based
upon a sensationalist and misleading name?

~~~
SoftwareMaven
I totally agree, but who is there to stop the practice? Everybody wants their
own bills passed, so everybody put names on them to encourage (extort)
passing.

------
Erwin
EU has already similar data retention laws for ISPs, see
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retenti...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention#European_Union)

I'm not sure how well they work in practice in individual member countries. I
recall some ISP guys complaining about how this required Denmark to
essentially save all netflow data which would be a huge data storage
requirement, but maybe it got relaxed. I can't say I exactly have heard of it
being the base of any arrests.

~~~
DasIch
Germany's Federal Constitutional Court invalidated a law that required ISPs to
store the internet history and phone calls (who called whom and location they
were made from in case of cell phones) for 6 months.

Afaik there are constitutional issues in several countries with the data
retention laws the EU tries to enforce.

------
dexen
Just as much as the proverbial yelling `Fire!' in a crowded theater is not
exercise of free speech, perhaps fueling moral panic shouldn't be? </random
musing>

------
AJ007
No search warrant should also mean you don't need probable cause or be
constrained to search what the warrant covers.

This sounds great to me, anyone who wants to run for public office or is in
public office can have the internet activity of themselves and all of their
associates continually reviewed. Internet activity of course also encompassing
a large segment of what is done on your mobile phone too. So its kind of like
an open wiretap on everyone.

This would bring a swift end to idiots that can't even figure out how they
accidentally tweeted a picture of their crotch to the whole world. Everyone
else with half a brain will finally begin using end to end encryption for all
of their online communication.

~~~
d0ne
This is, among other reasons, is why we created Social Fortress. We posted a
Show HN earlier today about it[1].

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2837142>

------
LiveTheDream
You can send a form letter about this to your congressperson from here, via
the EFF:
[https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=Us...](https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=497)

------
julius
"Child porn" happened in germany 1 or 2 years ago (for some stupid dns-
censorship law).

The nice thing about "child porn" is, "normal people" do not easily understand
why a law against "child porn" could possibly be bad. Really, they do not
easily listen to arguments. Unless you talk to them for at least 30 minutes.
Even when they understand, they are often not comfortable fighting "anti child
porn"-stuff.

Lets just hope the law gets crazy amounts of negative mass media press.
Otherwise, I do not believe, you stand a chance.

------
tomlin
What a short-term thought process. Creating laws that pertain to _the current
conditions_ only is a zero-sum game.

Child porn (nothing to do with this bill) will soon find its way into bitcoin-
level undetectability, along with many other illegal things that society
doesn't like. There are elements of life that _just can't be controlled_.

How is this bill going to solve future technological advances, like when we're
able to augment 3D with models of real people (ie: children)? Will society
prevent this? Will this bill prevent anything like this? Unlikely.

It would be nice if politicians considered the snowballing, exponential effect
of technology innovations and realize that any laws they pass are temporarily
effective at best.

------
JeffffreyF
The bill is a pure lie. They worry about anonymous dissidents, not
pornagraphers. They use the word "child" to promote fear and confusion they
can hide behide. Nothing new, WE HAVE SEEN THEIR KIND BEFORE. And on it goes.

------
llambda
Here's the same article, without the ads and other cruft:
[http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/print/2011/08/the-
legisl...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/print/2011/08/the-legislation-
that-could-kill-internet-privacy-for-good/242853/)

~~~
danso
The Atlantic is a publication that makes money through ads, IIRC.

~~~
tedunangst
Making money is so old media.

------
nomdeplume
using CP as a reason is useful because the media does not rely on logic but
rather sensationalism to judge the worthiness of something. Instead of
focusing on the logic of the stuff in the bill, the authors can just say "you
must love CP!!!" instead and then the argument is already destroyed. 2ndly,
noone wants to be labled as a cp lover so they are more likely to shut up even
though they hate the bill.

------
gburt
Isn't Canada doing this right now? The new Harper government promised
something like this.

------
TGJ
Soon the guilty will have more rights because the innocent will have none.

------
georgieporgie
"H.R. 1981: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011"

I really wish that bills were named for their function, not their intent.

~~~
nicker
I wish there was a way to hold legislators accountable/liable for badly
written laws. Our statute books are overflowing with junk. It is like we have
a mammoth code base with no source control and no one even trying to clean it
up. Just a stream of special interest patches being thrown on top.

