If you have "no place to go," come here!

Well, that's one solution to the missing White House emails

DCblogger's picture

FBI, politicos renew push for ISP data retention laws

WASHINGTON--The FBI and multiple members of Congress said on Wednesday that Internet service providers must be legally required to keep records of their users' activities for later review by police.

Their suggestions for mandatory data retention revive a push for potentially sweeping federal laws--which civil libertarians oppose--that flagged last year after the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the idea's most prominent proponent.

FBI Director Robert Mueller told a House of Representatives committee that Internet service providers should be required to keep records of users' activities for two years.

If only we have had something like this in place for the Rove emails.

Seriously, I don't even know where to begin.

No votes yet


willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

most stuff is logged, one way or another.

And most logs are backed up.

Those backups are retained for years in some cases. (Fathered and Grandfathered).

Re:White House mail.

As a person in IT, I can only conclude that the White House is completely full of doo doo.

If there are no records of these emails, they were purposefully deleted.

Someone knows something, just a matter of figuring out who was supposed to maintain these backups and start pressing for answers.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

but Congressmen and their staffs aren't IT experts and so you can spin them right round, baby, right round.

I have mixed feelings about data retention laws. On the one hand, other types of data don't generally have to be retained (e.g., mail). On the other, the internet does permit huge amounts of materials and information to travel all over the world almost instantaneously and that is a genuine problem when it comes to enforcing some important laws (child porn, terrorism, fraud, espionage, etc.). The problem is the current administration is more interested in law breaking than legitimate law enforcement.

I wouldn't give the current wankers any new authorities. Instead, I'd wait for the new folks and let them propose something that balances law enforcement needs with privacy rights - the need for a warrant, certain restrictions on the companies use of the information with stringent penalties, limitations on what kind of information has to be retained, etc. There are ways to do it where it's not a civil liberties disaster, but I don't trust the current folks to do it any of those ways. Or even to follow the law if it's done those ways. You don't get new authorities after repeatedly breaching the public trust.