House panel approves broadened ISP snooping bill

[VMI77]

Evidence that it's going to take more than an election or two to arrest our descent into the abyss.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20084 ... ping-bill/

Internet providers would be forced to keep logs of their customers' activities for one year--in case police want to review them in the future--under legislation that a U.S. House of Representatives committee approved today.

The 19 to 10 vote represents a victory for conservative Republicans, who made data retention their first major technology initiative after last fall's elections, and the Justice Department officials who have quietly lobbied for the sweeping new requirements, a development first reported by CNET.

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.

[sjfcontrol]

I'm not sure what makes this a "conservative republican" issue. Seems like a privacy violation to me.

Guess that explains the notice I got today from ATT informing me that my high-speed internet connection fees are going up $5/month.

[The Mad Moderate]

We need less Big Brother and more common sense in our Representatives of both parties or we may one day find ourselves in a police state. I HAD once "hoped" that Obama would dial back some of the assaults on out liberty butt I see now his "Hope" was just smoke.

[sjfcontrol]

We need less Big Brother and more common sense in our Representatives of both parties or we may one day find ourselves in a police state. I HAD once "hoped" that Obama would dial back some of the assaults on out liberty butt I see now his "Hope" was just smoke.

I had no such hope.

The police state issue has been exacerbated by technology. Law enforcement is given certain powers to perform investigations. The founding fathers purposely tried to temper those powers to balance them against the rights of the people. The 1st 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, (and probably others) and, as a last resort, the 2nd amendments all are intended in some part to limit or expose (1st) the operation of police investigations.

Bruce Schneier (a well known security expert) refers to this type of activity as "wholesale surveillance". Examples beyond logging all internet activity include devices such as Red Light Cameras, and vehicles equipped to automatically read and trace all license plates as the vehicles are passed.

Historically, in order for someone to be ticked for running a red light (for example), an officer would have to be present and see the infraction. He would then have to stop the vehicle and issue a citation. (Immediate feedback to the driver purportedly has some effect to prevent repeated similar infractions -- so there's a safety advantage.) In addition, the officer has the discretion to not issue a ticket, or give a warning if he feels it's appropriate. If the person cited disagreed with the citation, he could take it to court where he'd have an opportunity to cross-exam the officer to determine just what the officer saw and why he acted as he did, and ultimately, whether he acted within the law. This is purposely a difficult process. The Red Light camera, however, watches EVERY vehicle pass thru the intersection 24/7, with microsecond accuracy. Citations are issued weeks (or months?) later, so there is no immediate feedback for the driver. And there is no officer to cross-examine at trial.

In San Diego, they had an officer that supposedly had studied the proprietary software running in the cameras, and he was available for cross-exam. The actual software and/or the designers were not available for analysis/exam. Basically, his testimony amounted to "The software works as designed." And, since the cameras were built and installed by private enterprises that got a piece of each fine, fraud was a problem. The installers (or the city) would purposely shorten the yellow light in order to trap more vehicles passing over the line just as the light changed. Then it was discovered they purposely installed the road sensors such that the camera would capture vehicles that actually entered the intersection BEFORE the light changed. San Diego had to refund YEARS of red-light fines when they lost the court challenge. The cameras were turned off for years, but eventually the program was resurrected with the issues supposedly fixed.

One of Bruce Schneier's blogs regarding wholesale surveillance and internet privacy can be found here: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2 ... g_the.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[The Annoyed Man]

Bruce Schneier (a well known security expert) refers to this type of activity as "wholesale surveillance". Examples beyond logging all internet activity include devices such as Red Light Cameras, and vehicles equipped to automatically read and trace all license plates as the vehicles are passed.

Historically, in order for someone to be ticked for running a red light (for example), an officer would have to be present and see the infraction. He would then have to stop the vehicle and issue a citation. (Immediate feedback to the driver purportedly has some effect to prevent repeated similar infractions -- so there's a safety advantage.) In addition, the officer has the discretion to not issue a ticket, or give a warning if he feels it's appropriate. If the person cited disagreed with the citation, he could take it to court where he'd have an opportunity to cross-exam the officer to determine just what the officer saw and why he acted as he did, and ultimately, whether he acted within the law. This is purposely a difficult process. The Red Light camera, however, watches EVERY vehicle pass thru the intersection 24/7, with microsecond accuracy. Citations are issued weeks (or months?) later, so there is no immediate feedback for the driver. And there is no officer to cross-examine at trial.

The other day, my son ran a red light while making a right turn, and a camera picked him up and took the picture. The ticket was mailed to me because I co-signed the loan on his car. When I phoned to try and get them to mail the ticket to him as it's not my car, and he doesn't live at home with us, I was told that was not possible. The "consolation" was that the ticket does not get reported to either the DMV or my insurance carrier.

We paid the ticket, and now my son owes me $75.00.

In previous posts, I have vociferously defended the stationing of red-light cameras at intersections as an accident reduction tool. But I have to say that this experience has changed my mind. The rest of you are correct. This is merely a revenue generator. They were not the least bit interested in punishing the actual person who ran the red light. If they were, they would have been amenable to re-issuing the ticket to my son. Many years ago, an employee of mine was speeding on a residential street in one of our vehicles and got picked up by a photo-radar trap. The ticket was mailed to the company. The employee's face was plainly visible in the windshield, and I was able to place him on that street at that time in our vehicle. I called the city of Pasadena (California) and explained the situation to them and gave them the employee's CDL number which we had on file. They matched the photo on his CDL to the face in the photo taken by the radar camera, and were happy to reissue the ticket to the offending driver. As long as that was the modus operandi, I was OK with the notion. But when they are not interested in ticketing the actual offending driver, it is no longer about punishment, and it becomes purely an issue of revenue generation. Paying that ticket won't make me a better driver, because I don't run red lights. Ever.

So never let it be said that I'm not willing to admit when I've been wrong about something.

[sjfcontrol]

The other day, my son ran a red light while making a right turn, and a camera picked him up and took the picture. The ticket was mailed to me because I co-signed the loan on his car. When I phoned to try and get them to mail the ticket to him as it's not my car, and he doesn't live at home with us, I was told that was not possible. The "consolation" was that the ticket does not get reported to either the DMV or my insurance carrier.

We paid the ticket, and now my son owes me $75.00.

In previous posts, I have vociferously defended the stationing of red-light cameras at intersections as an accident reduction tool. But I have to say that this experience has changed my mind. The rest of you are correct. This is merely a revenue generator. They were not the least bit interested in punishing the actual person who ran the red light. If they were, they would have been amenable to re-issuing the ticket to my son. Many years ago, an employee of mine was speeding on a residential street in one of our vehicles and got picked up by a photo-radar trap. The ticket was mailed to the company. The employee's face was plainly visible in the windshield, and I was able to place him on that street at that time in our vehicle. I called the city of Pasadena (California) and explained the situation to them and gave them the employee's CDL number which we had on file. They matched the photo on his CDL to the face in the photo taken by the radar camera, and were happy to reissue the ticket to the offending driver. As long as that was the modus operandi, I was OK with the notion. But when they are not interested in ticketing the actual offending driver, it is no longer about punishment, and it becomes purely an issue of revenue generation. Paying that ticket won't make me a better driver, because I don't run red lights. Ever.

So never let it be said that I'm not willing to admit when I've been wrong about something.

Welcome to the dark-side, TAM!

By the way, the fine for the "Red Light Scamera" offense in San Diego was something like $275 or $325, can't remember for sure. $75 wouldn't touch it. And I believe it WAS a moving violation, there. Here its more like a parking ticket (thus they don't care who the actual violator was).

[alvins]

well you did cosign the loan saying you would be responsible for somthing not under your control.

[boba]

Evidence that it's going to take more than an election or two to arrest our descent into the abyss.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20084 ... ping-bill/

Internet providers would be forced to keep logs of their customers' activities for one year--in case police want to review them in the future--under legislation that a U.S. House of Representatives committee approved today.

The 19 to 10 vote represents a victory for conservative Republicans, who made data retention their first major technology initiative after last fall's elections, and the Justice Department officials who have quietly lobbied for the sweeping new requirements, a development first reported by CNET.

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.

The KGB would be green with envy.

[C-dub]

The other day, my son ran a red light while making a right turn, and a camera picked him up and took the picture. The ticket was mailed to me because I co-signed the loan on his car. When I phoned to try and get them to mail the ticket to him as it's not my car, and he doesn't live at home with us, I was told that was not possible. The "consolation" was that the ticket does not get reported to either the DMV or my insurance carrier.

We paid the ticket, and now my son owes me $75.00.

And here I thought the ticket was sent to the registered owner. How would the city or whoever know you merely co-signed for the loan? Or, since you co-signed, is your name also on the registration? My mom co-signed on my first motorcycle purchase, but I don't remember if her name was on the registration or not.

[BigPa]

Sometimes I feel we are already living in an occupied territory. If you think we still live in a free country, look around you.

[C-dub]

I think I have only ran 4-5 red lights in my life and luckily not hit or been hit by anyone. Only in a car or truck and never on a bike. Each time, as soon as I was through the intersection and realized what I did I usually got white as a ghost. The first two time I even pulled over and waited for a couple of minutes for the cop I was sure would be there and to recover from the shock before going on.

I have only been photographed by a red light camera once, but I didn't run that light. I entered the intersection under a green and waited for oncoming traffic to complete my left turn. The light turned yellow and then red before I was able to continue. I saw the flash and knew what had happened and was expecting the ticket. I was going to fight it, but it never came. I guess the human reviewing these figured out what happened and did not issue the citation.

[i8godzilla]

The other day, my son ran a red light while making a right turn, and a camera picked him up and took the picture. The ticket was mailed to me because I co-signed the loan on his car. When I phoned to try and get them to mail the ticket to him as it's not my car, and he doesn't live at home with us, I was told that was not possible. The "consolation" was that the ticket does not get reported to either the DMV or my insurance carrier.

We paid the ticket, and now my son owes me $75.00.

In previous posts, I have vociferously defended the stationing of red-light cameras at intersections as an accident reduction tool. But I have to say that this experience has changed my mind. The rest of you are correct. This is merely a revenue generator. They were not the least bit interested in punishing the actual person who ran the red light. If they were, they would have been amenable to re-issuing the ticket to my son. Many years ago, an employee of mine was speeding on a residential street in one of our vehicles and got picked up by a photo-radar trap. The ticket was mailed to the company. The employee's face was plainly visible in the windshield, and I was able to place him on that street at that time in our vehicle. I called the city of Pasadena (California) and explained the situation to them and gave them the employee's CDL number which we had on file. They matched the photo on his CDL to the face in the photo taken by the radar camera, and were happy to reissue the ticket to the offending driver. As long as that was the modus operandi, I was OK with the notion. But when they are not interested in ticketing the actual offending driver, it is no longer about punishment, and it becomes purely an issue of revenue generation. Paying that ticket won't make me a better driver, because I don't run red lights. Ever.

So never let it be said that I'm not willing to admit when I've been wrong about something.

Everyone needs to quit paying these tickets. These so called tickets are "issued" by private corporations in a revenue sharing arrangement with the city. Without the revenue the companies cannot continue to operate. In TX they can 'report' it to the county tax authority and the county could refuse to renew your license plates. The county governments need the revenue, why would they not want your money? Next it may go to a collection agency but there are ways to make the private company prove that YOU owe the debt. Now can you imagine the significant costs that will be incurred by companies trying to collect. There are specific time limits that must be adhered to for the company to prove to the credit agency that the debt is valid. If a company has to respond to thousands of rebuttals every month it will become costly. Once there is mass refusal to pay, those willing to invest in these companies will dry up.

I received one of these a couple of years ago. I never paid it. It never went to collection and it is not on my credit report. Unless a LEO pulls me over and writes me summons I'm not paying.