Sensenbrenner's Internets

Sensenbrenner's Internets

I am sure that many have heard about H.R. 5417, the Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006. According to the article at Raw Story

It would amend the Clayton Act to require that network providers: 1) interconnect with the facilities of other network providers on a reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis; 2) operate their network in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner such that non-affiliated providers of content, services and applications have an equal opportunity to reach consumers; and 3) refrain from interfering with users' ability to choose the lawful content, services and applications they want to use.

Geeze, if I weren't such a trusting individual I'd think that Sensenbrenner's motives are those of a man pure of heart. Of course, I am not that trusting. You probably noted that the previous paragraph doesn't really work with the cartoon. The information it contains serves as an interesting contrast between the cartoon and the following that I first learned about over at Agitprop.

The U.S. Department of Justice is quietly shopping around the explosive idea of requiring Internet service providers to retain records of their customers' online activities.

According to the current law, US Code: TITLE 18, Part I, Chapter 121 requires Internet providers to retain any "record" in their possession for 90 days "upon the request of a governmental entity" all in the name of protecting children from internet predators and sexual explotation. Under the legislation being written by Sensenbrenner, Internet Service Providers (ISP) would be mandated to hold user log information for what Attorney Alberto Gonzalez refers to as "reasonable amount of time."

My distrust of government kicks in when I read

Sensenbrenner's legislation--expected to be announced as early as this week--also would create a federal felony targeted at bloggers, search engines, e-mail service providers and many other Web sites. It's aimed at any site that might have "reason to believe" it facilitates access to child pornography--through hyperlinks or a discussion forum, for instance.

Reason to believe what? Catch-all phrases like "reason to believe" are a blank check to an administration that interprets the Constitution and US law to suit their needs and a Congress that is unwilling to fulfill its role as a check to the office of the President.

Are we supposed to believe that the intentions of AG Gonzalez and Sensenbrenner are pure of heart and pose no threat to the average US citizen? I think that Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, hits the nail on the head when he referred to

Sensenbrenner's measure [as] an "open-ended obligation to collect information about all customers for all purposes. It opens the door to government fishing expeditions and unbounded data mining."

I have serious reservations about the suggestions made by Alberto Gonzalez when considering his past suggestions about the subject of torture. As for Sensenbrenner, wasn't he the one his proposed legislation making all illegal immigrants felons? I thought so.