From: Scotty Starnes's Blog <no-reply@wordpress.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:32 PM
Subject: [New post] The Department of Justice and their Internet Tracking Plan
To: baconlard@gmail.com
 | The Department of Justice and their Internet Tracking PlanScotty Starnes | January 26, 2011 at 2:32 PM | Tags: Attorney General Eric Holder, criminal investigations, data retention, Department of Justice, Internet, internet tracking, Jason Weinstein, Rep Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich) | Categories: Political Issues | URL: http://wp.me/pvnFC-4fs |
The Obama regime is hell-bent on taking over the internet. From net-neutrality to making it easier to wiretap the internet to creating internet identification for all Americans, one can see this regime is out to control every industry they can. We have seen that when the Obama regime can't legislate, they turn to regulation to gain control.
This is the first time I've heard about the Obama Department of Justice, led by political appointee, Attorney General Eric Holder, and their "internet tracking plan." They want internet providers to 'retain data' on their users for a 2 year period. Folks, we need to wake up and start holding these usurpers accountable.
Declan McCullagh reports, via CNet.com:
Members of Congress chided the U.S. Department of Justice today for suggesting a new law requiring Internet companies to keep records of user activity, but not disclosing details on how it should be crafted to aid criminal investigations.
At a House of Representatives hearing, as CNET was the first to report, the Justice Department endorsed the concept of forcing Internet companies to collect and store data about their customers that they would not normally retain. This echoes the Bush administration's position under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
It was wrong under Bush and it is equally wrong under Obama. The whole "Bush did it" defense is old. Remember, Obama was elected on "change." I know, I laughed when I typed that too.
But Jason Weinstein, deputy assistant attorney general for the criminal division, irked the committee members by saying "the government doesn't have a specific proposal" at this time.
"When are you going to get a specific proposal?" said Rep. John Conyers, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary committee. "How many years is this going to take?" Apparently recalling that mandatory data retention proposals have been circulating since 2005, Conyers added: "I'm going to call (attorney general) Eric Holder right after this hearing and see if we can get this moving...I don't think we need a whole lot of time."
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said mandatory data retention would help law enforcement "connect the dots" in criminal investigations. "I'm really not understanding why you don't have a specific proposal," she said.
So did Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), a former judge, who used the lack of specifics to question whether the Justice Department really needed a new law. In court, Gohmert said, "if people don't want to get specific, it's not legitimate testimony that will come into evidence."
This is an odd situation: when the Justice Department asks Congress for a new law, it typically provides draft legislation, or at the very least, an unequivocal endorsement. In 2004, the department explicitly endorsed a pair of copyright bills backed by the entertainment industry. It did not equivocate when lending its support to a proposal to give life sentences to certain hackers in 2002 or a 2007 proposal outlawing "attempted" copyright infringement.
Weinstein did say that the Justice Department was not interested in forcing companies to retain "content information" such as the text of e-mail, text, or SMS messages. He added, in response to questions, that up to two years of data retention "would be a useful starting point," which echoes what FBI director Robert Mueller told Congress in 2008. (Ideally, to help law enforcement the most, "I'd think the statute of limitations would be the place to start the discussion" in terms of retention periods, he said.)
But he did not address the scope of the law, including whether social network sites and image-uploading sites would be required to record user activities--a proposal that surfaced inside the department four years ago.
Once again, our Fourth Amendment rights are being trampled on by the overreaching hand of the federal government.
 | WordPress.com | Thanks for flying with WordPress! |
Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://subscribe.wordpress.com
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment