[241] in Privacy_Forum
[ PRIVACY Forum ] Congress vs. File Sharing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (privacy@vortex.com)
Fri May 4 19:55:26 2007
Message-Id: <200705042300.l44N0rLA012756@chrome.vortex.com>
To: privacy-list@vortex.com
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 16:00:53 -0700
From: privacy@vortex.com
Reply-To: PRIVACY Forum Digest mailing list <privacy@vortex.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: privacy-bounces+privacy-forum=mit.edu@vortex.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Congress vs. File Sharing
( http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000230.html )
Greetings. A very recent letter from the House of Representatives
demanding that universities "testify" as to their students' use of
file sharing (including port numbers, ability to run inbound
servers, and other details, no less) demonstrates a profound lack of
understanding regarding how the "abuses of concern" could easily
migrate to underground, off-campus networks.
(See: http://tinyurl.com/2gpwd4 for the full letter.)
But one paragraph in the survey particularly caught my attention:
II.9: Does your institution retain records that enable the
identification of specific users of computer and network
resources who may be the subject of a notice of infringement
from a copyright holder? For how long are these "user logs"
maintained? What factors were considered in making the decision
to retain such "user logs" and in determining how long to retain
such records? Is the lack of such records or a limited retention
time a practical impediment to the effective identification of
violators of your institution's acceptable use policies?
Ah! There it is -- the handwriting on the wall for yet another
"mandated data retention" argument sees the brighter light of day in
a public context. First we were told that Internet usage data
retention was to fight terrorism. When that argument didn't fly so
well, the current popular line -- fighting child abuse -- became the
data retention talking point de rigeur. Now we see the next phase
brought even further out in the open -- data retention for DMCA
enforcement.
There's no need for complex analysis to understand all this. It's
abundantly clear that government dreams of the day that they can
have unfettered access to the complete Internet usage records (and
often content) of everyone on the Net. They view Internet records as
a law enforcement and policy enforcement boon of a sort that Stalin
and his ilk could never have imagined. Broad data retention
advocates will keep dragging out argument after argument, and any
persons who fight such concepts will be branded as being soft on
crime and as opponents of the American way.
Government has been relying so far mostly on the Internet usage
records that are being kept voluntarily by Internet services for
their own corporate purposes -- that's created a bad situation in
and of itself. But now the moves toward legislation are becoming a
drumbeat. In the process, the concepts of privacy and free speech
are being pounded into oblivion, and the necessary balance between
laudable law enforcement and basic freedoms risks being thrown
utterly out of balance.
You can bet that even as universities are the target today,
conventional ISPs and their users in general will be in the
crosshairs tomorrow.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com or lauren@pfir.org
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
Co-Founder, IOIC
- International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net
Founder, CIFIP
- California Initiative For Internet Privacy - http://www.cifip.org
Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com
Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com
_______________________________________________
privacy mailing list
http://lists.vortex.com/mailman/listinfo/privacy
