Justice Department takes aim at image-sharing sites

[Syrinx]

The Bush administration has accelerated its Internet surveillance push by proposing that Web sites must keep records of who uploads photographs or videos in case police determine the content is illegal and choose to investigate, CNET News.com has learned.

That proposal surfaced Wednesday in a private meeting during which U.S. Department of Justice officials, including Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand, tried to convince industry representatives such as AOL and Comcast that data retention would be valuable in investigating terrorism, child pornography and other crimes. The discussions were described to News.com by several people who attended the meeting.

A second purpose of the meeting in Washington, D.C., according to the sources, was to ask Internet service providers how much it would cost to record details on their subscribers for two years. At the very least, the companies would be required to keep logs for police of which customer is assigned a specific Internet address.

Only universities and libraries would be excluded, one participant said. "There's a PR concern with including the libraries, so we're not going to include them," the participant quoted the Justice Department as saying. "We know we're going to get a pushback, so we're not going to do that."

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6163679.html

[sce56]

1. Gee I wonder if has anything to do with these types of photos

Got Fascism Yet?


http://www.georgewalkerbush.net/bush-nazilinkconfirmed.htm



Fascism Accomplished!




http://www.reservoir.com/extra/wtc/

[Norrin Radd]

2. I see the Constitution-haters are busy again with their Sharpies and shredders.

Traitors, all of them.

[MADem]

3. OOOPS, you upload pics like this, and they'll put you on the TERRA list!!!!!

Be very afraid....look over your shoulder, FEAR, FEAR, FEAR!!!! And you have to just LOVE the 'exemption' for universities and libraries--say, wanna break the law in any fashion? Head to your university or library to do it!

What's the POINT, then?


What a bunch of assholes--who are they kidding?

[yowzayowzayowza]

4. Naw. They're prolly after stuff more like this:

"where the plaintext version of your sensitive data is encrypted and hidden inside another file (typically images or sound or video files)."

http://www.thefreecountry.com/security/encryption.shtml

[MADem]

5. Awww, there ya go, getting all serious and realistic.

I still like the pictures!!!

[Zenlitened]

6. But but but... "undue regulatory burden on business"!!!

Why is Bush raising costs on internet-based businesses? Does he hate America, Inc.? :shrug:

[StefanX]

7. I have two questions

(1) If the Constitution has "freedom of speech" how can any content be "illegal"?

(2) Free speech includes ANONYMOUS speech. So how can the Justice department be justified in looking into this?