Proponents dubbed the bill the “Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011.”
Critics say that the name is misleading because the bill would create a database of every “every digital act by every American.” The Obama Administration Department of Justice has lobbied for these expanded record-gathering and -keeping powers.
According to the CRS bill summary for HR 1981 (wow, that was awfully close to 1984), which Rep Lamar Smith (R-TX) introduced in May 2011, the bill:
Requires a provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service to retain for at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account unless that address is transmitted by radio communication. Bars any cause of action against a provider for retaining records as required. Makes a good faith reliance on the requirement to retain records a complete defense to a civil action. Expresses the sense of Congress that such records should be stored securely to protect customer privacy and prevent breaches of the records.
That sounds tame compared to the details that came out in news reports last summer:
[U]nder language approved 19 to 10 by a House committee, the firm that sells you Internet access would be required to track all of your Internet activity and save it for 18 months, along with your name, the address where you live, your bank account numbers, your credit card numbers, and IP addresses you’ve been assigned.
Tracking the private daily behavior of everyone in order to help catch a small number of child criminals is itself the noxious practice of police states. Said an attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation: “The data retention mandate in this bill would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American.” Even more troubling is what the government would need to do in order to access this trove of private information: ask for it. (emphasis in original)
The vote on what information must be collected and retained was 7-16 against “an amendment that would have clarified that only IP addresses must be stored.”
The bill has 39 co-sponsors. According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis (pdf), the costs imposed on providers of electronic communications services would exceed the threshold set by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Note 1: these are primarily Republicans calling for a new law that would increase the cost of doing business.
Note 2: the fact that the cost of the bill exceeds the UMRA threshold is basically meaningless.
Known for gnawing at complex questions like a terrier with a bone. Digital evangelist, writer, teacher. Transplanted Southerner; teach newbies to ride motorcycles. @kegill (Twitter and Mastodon.social); wiredpen.com