1 / 13

Striking A Balance:

Striking A Balance:. Internet Service Providers and Data Retention. Data Retention, Broadly Retention vs. Preservation Stakeholders Individuals Law Enforcement Internet Service Providers (ISPs) The European Union Directive The SAFETY Act US Legal Obstacles 1 st Amendment

glenys
Télécharger la présentation

Striking A Balance:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Striking A Balance: Internet Service Providers and Data Retention

  2. Data Retention, Broadly • Retention vs. Preservation • Stakeholders • Individuals • Law Enforcement • Internet Service Providers (ISPs) • The European Union Directive • The SAFETY Act • US Legal Obstacles • 1st Amendment • Retention vs. Preservation, Revisited • Recommendation Overview

  3. Internet Service Providers provide and control access to the Internet • Every online activity leaves a trace • Retention proposals vary • Time • Six months, two years, forever • Data gathered • Web page vs. Web site • Data retention requires ISPs to collect and store records on users’ activity Data Retention, Broadly

  4. Data Preservation, 18 USC § 2703 (f) • “A provider of wire or electronic communication services or a remote computing service, upon the request of a governmental entity, shall take all necessary steps to preserve records and other evidence in its possession pending the issuance of a court order or other process.” • Upper limit of 180 days • Targeted and specific • In time • In focus Retention vs. Preservation

  5. The Internet as a platform • “Chilling” effect on free speech • The option for online anonymity would disappear • Every Internet user, every online activity is recorded • 74% of adult Americans • 93%, age 18-29 Stakeholders: Individuals

  6. The Internet as a crime-fighting tool • A wide variety of crime • Computer crime • Terrorism • Child pornography • A necessary extension of current capabilities Stakeholders: Law Enforcement

  7. Internet as a business • Resistant to increased responsibility • High compliance costs Stakeholders: ISPs

  8. Directive 2006/24/EC • Directed member states to develop data retention laws • A minimum of six months, a maximum of two years • Civic opposition • data retention is no solution • EDRi • DRI • Legal challenges • Romania • Germany The EU Directive

  9. 2005-2006 • Series of closed-door meetings between DoJ and ISPs • DoJ began pushing data retention • 2006-2007 • Three bills surfaced in the US Congress • Bipartisan support • Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO): • “[Data retention] seems to me to be a very simple piece of legislation.” US Data Retention

  10. The Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today’s Youth (SAFETY) Act of 2009 • Contains a passage mandating data retention • Minimum of two years • Currently stalled in committee The Internet SAFETY Act

  11. Judicial support for Anonymity • Central to 1st Amendment jurisprudence • McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission • Talley v. California • Data retention, by design, eliminates anonymity • Serious potential obstacle US Legal Obstacles: The 1st Amendment

  12. Retention vs. Preservation, Revisited

  13. Data preservation is a better policy for individuals, industry and law enforcement • Preserves individual rights • Provides law enforcement with access to a power tool • Does not have the same high compliance costs for industry Recommendation

More Related