- Impact
- 13,258
Who could possibly object to a bill labeled the "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act?" (HR 1981)
What if I said it was brought to you by Lamar Smith, of SOPA fame?
Basically, what HR1981 does is make it mandatory for any "commercial provider of an electronic communication service " including ISP's, social networking sites, email services, cloud storage services) to store your personal information (including name, address, phone number, credit card numbers, bank account numbers) along with a full history of every IP address you have used for the past 18 months.
So builds a multi-point database of everything you've done online in the past 18 months, along with your confidential financial information.
But that's OK if it's for law enforcement and protecting children from pornographers, right?
Here's what the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) has to say:
The bill does say that:
OK ... so the RIAA or whoever convinces the governmental entity to "compell" the access. Whatever. BTW, note that it doesn't require these "governmental entities" to have a court order...
Aside from the privacy issues, it gives identity thieves some very tempting targets. Hack the data storage node with the weakest security.
Here's the bill, if anyone wants to read it. Not that there aren't some good things in it, there are. BUT once again it's a wolf in sheep's clothing - dangerously broad legislation wrapped up in the guise of something that seems innocuous.
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1981rh/pdf/BILLS-112hr1981rh.pdf
What if I said it was brought to you by Lamar Smith, of SOPA fame?
Basically, what HR1981 does is make it mandatory for any "commercial provider of an electronic communication service " including ISP's, social networking sites, email services, cloud storage services) to store your personal information (including name, address, phone number, credit card numbers, bank account numbers) along with a full history of every IP address you have used for the past 18 months.
So builds a multi-point database of everything you've done online in the past 18 months, along with your confidential financial information.
But that's OK if it's for law enforcement and protecting children from pornographers, right?
Here's what the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) has to say:
that same data could become available to civil litigants in private lawsuits–whether it’s the RIAA trying to identify downloaders, a company trying to uncover and retaliate against an anonymous critic, or a divorce lawyer looking for dirty laundry. These
databases would also be a new and valuable target for black hat hackers, be they criminals trying to steal identities or foreign governments trying to unmask anonymous dissidents.
The bill does say that:
Access to a record or information required to be retained under this subsection may not be compelled by any person or other entity that is not a governmental entity.
OK ... so the RIAA or whoever convinces the governmental entity to "compell" the access. Whatever. BTW, note that it doesn't require these "governmental entities" to have a court order...
Aside from the privacy issues, it gives identity thieves some very tempting targets. Hack the data storage node with the weakest security.
Here's the bill, if anyone wants to read it. Not that there aren't some good things in it, there are. BUT once again it's a wolf in sheep's clothing - dangerously broad legislation wrapped up in the guise of something that seems innocuous.
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1981rh/pdf/BILLS-112hr1981rh.pdf