NEWS: FBI wants records kept of Web sites visited
in [Wireless Internet]
|
Prev: NEWS: Broadcom Adds Bluetooth 3.0, Wi-Fi Direct to Android
Next: NEWS: Sprint 4Q Loss Narrows,Pre-Paid Growth Falls Short
From: John Navas on 9 Feb 2010 23:32 The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years, a requirement that law enforcement believes could help it in investigations of child pornography and other serious crimes. FBI Director Robert Mueller supports storing Internet users' "origin and destination information," a bureau attorney said at a federal task force meeting on Thursday. MORE: <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10448060-38.html> -- Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://wireless.navas.us> John FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi> Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo> Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.navas.us/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
From: Gandalf Parker on 10 Feb 2010 08:25 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> contributed wisdom to news:8kd4n55b1uigomf5qt6dilfn1cdvfiesff(a)4ax.com: > The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites > customers visit and retain those logs for two years, a requirement that > law enforcement believes could help it in investigations of child > pornography and other serious crimes. On the one hand, this is a serious breach of our personal security. On the other hand, most "carriers" of our personal information keep records which are often used to solve crimes. At least the tv shows and movies make it seem that way until the average public doesnt even blink at the idea of someone viewing a "criminals" personal records. It might be that too many will view this as nothing different from a package service keeping records on what you mail and where it goes. Or a cable company keeping records on what channels you get. Or at most like the phone companies records which only a "law entity" can get. Gandalf Parker
From: DanS on 10 Feb 2010 08:40 Gandalf Parker <gandalf(a)the.dead.ISP.of.Community.net> wrote in news:Xns9D1B37297108Bgandalfparker(a)199.245.68.61: > John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> contributed wisdom to > news:8kd4n55b1uigomf5qt6dilfn1cdvfiesff(a)4ax.com: > >> The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web >> sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years, a >> requirement that law enforcement believes could help it in >> investigations of child pornography and other serious crimes. > > On the one hand, this is a serious breach of our personal security. > > On the other hand, most "carriers" of our personal information keep > records which are often used to solve crimes. At least the tv shows > and movies make it seem that way until the average public doesnt even > blink at the idea of someone viewing a "criminals" personal records. > > It might be that too many will view this as nothing different from a > package service keeping records on what you mail and where it goes. Or > a cable company keeping records on what channels you get. Or at most > like the phone companies records which only a "law entity" can get. Or, it can be viewed that with a telephone record, it is absolutely one person using a telephone number to call another absolute number......a web page though, even though you go to xxxxx.com.......xxxxx.com can pull data from multiple other sources to show you as part of it's webpage, or what- have-you, and the user may have absolutely no clue, and could get labelled as (whatever) because of that.
From: Gandalf Parker on 10 Feb 2010 14:29 DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t(a)r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> contributed wisdom to news:Xns9D1B583FF779thisnthatroadrunnern(a)216.196.97.131: > Or, it can be viewed that with a telephone record, it is absolutely > one person using a telephone number to call another absolute > number......a web page though, even though you go to > xxxxx.com.......xxxxx.com can pull data from multiple other sources to > show you as part of it's webpage, or what- have-you, and the user may > have absolutely no clue, and could get labelled as (whatever) because > of that. Actually the thing that worries me more is when I see news articles talking about "found evidence on his computer" and I wonder if they understand the difference between cache and actually copying something to your machine. Im sure that later a computer expert cleared everything up but for some reason retractions end up much deeper and less noticable than the original article. :) Gandalf Parker
From: DanS on 10 Feb 2010 17:04
Gandalf Parker <gandalf(a)the.dead.ISP.of.Community.net> wrote in news:Xns9D1B74FA02DBEgandalfparker(a)199.245.68.61: > DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t(a)r.o.a.d.r.u.n.n.e.r.c.o.m> contributed wisdom > to > news:Xns9D1B583FF779thisnthatroadrunnern(a)216.196.97.131: > >> Or, it can be viewed that with a telephone record, it is absolutely >> one person using a telephone number to call another absolute >> number......a web page though, even though you go to >> xxxxx.com.......xxxxx.com can pull data from multiple other sources >> to show you as part of it's webpage, or what- have-you, and the user >> may have absolutely no clue, and could get labelled as (whatever) >> because of that. > > Actually the thing that worries me more is when I see news articles > talking about "found evidence on his computer" and I wonder if they > understand the difference between cache and actually copying something > to your machine. Maybe they do...maybe they don't......are those thumbnail size pics of naked women yours ? or where they just cache'd from some website that showed them to get you to click on them ? Or maybe they are bigger because they were from a popup window. > Im sure that later a computer expert cleared everything up but for > some reason retractions end up much deeper and less noticable than the > original article. :) You can't be sure of anything. |