Telecommunications company Qwest has taken an about face on its stance regarding the privacy of its customers. Apparently, they would like to help the government track what the public does online.
The disturbing story from CNET News:
Broadband company Qwest Communications International on Tuesday strongly endorsed federal legislation requiring Internet providers to keep records of their customers' behavior, a move that could accelerate efforts in Congress to enact new laws.
Jennifer Mardosz, Qwest's corporate counsel and chief privacy officer, applauded efforts by politicians to force broadband providers to engage in so-called "data retention," which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said will aid in investigations into terrorism and child exploitation. This appears to be the first time a broadband provider has called for data retention laws.
This move is surprising for Qwest, since they are the same company that resisted a request by the National Security Agency for their customers' phone records back in May, citing privacy concerns.
CNET News reports that Qwest already keeps logs for more than 99 percent of its services for one year. If mandatory data retention laws are enacted, companies could be forced to store personal identifiable data on its customers for several years.
Fortunately, other telecommunication companies have raised the red flag regarding proposed mandatory data retention laws, along with privacy groups (via CNET News):
Privacy groups have strongly opposed mandatory data retention, and many Internet providers have been skeptical of new laws. The U.S. Internet Industry Association has said current proposals aren't "going about this the right way," and the Information Technology Association of America has raised "real reservations" about legislation.
"Imposing broad data retention would be a significant change to U.S. law, especially when it has not been shown that a narrower data preservation approach will not work just as well," said Kate Dean, director of the U.S. Internet Service Provider Association. "The proposal to store enormous amounts of data on subscribers and keep it live for a lengthy period of time raises serious technical, legal and security concerns." (The association's members include AOL, AT&T, BellSouth, EarthLink and Verizon Communications.)
"...which Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said will aid in investigations into terrorism and child exploitation."
This raises an important question for the LP: How can we advocate pure liberty, decriminalizing everything that doesn't hurt anyone else, and still condemn child pornography? Groups like NAMBLA are sick and twisted, yet they claim that they "love" the kids and that it's consensual. How as libertarians can we deny the legitimacy of consensual agreements? Do we have to agree that a certain age marks adulthood, or is the question more about the age difference rather than the age of the person (or persons) involved?
Internet predators are, in my opinion, some of the most evil people in the world today, and we probably mostly agree that something should be done to stop them. But do we have to rely on shows like America's Most Wanted to catch these people by way of going online and acting like an underage child? Furthermore, what constitutes an "underage child"?
Libertarians want government limited to its smallest possible form, sticking true to the limits imposed on it by the Constitution, and rightfully so. And if the government is supposed to protect our property rights, and if we agree that we need police, then how do we "police" the internet... or do we?
Just some questions to think about.
Marcus;
Child porn and pedophilia are hardly "victimless crimes", so don't agonize over it. The shadow of Liberty is responsibility and logical judgement. Some people mature at fifteen, others still don't get it at fifty. Even I, hard line Libertarian that I am, have no problem drawing fast lines for the age of majority.
What is that line though? I agree with you; even though there is no "adulthood" clause in the Constitution (outside of the 26th Amendment), most of us can agree that there is an age when someone is an adult and can make decisions for themselves.
I guess a big problem I have is that let's say there's a couple in high school who have been dating for a few years. The boy graduates, but the girl is a school year behind. He hits age 19, and she's only 17. They have consensual sex. Is that rape, if the age cut off is 18? What if she was 16?
I know there are laws for consent, but those seem so easy to dodge if the girl (or boy) decides that she or he hates the other person afterwards.
I know we can all agree, for instance, that 6 years old is too young for consent. There are certain ages that are just naturally seen as "too young." But when a person gets into his or her teens, I think the situation becomes harder. I almost wish there was something written by a Libertarian on this subject.
You're surprised? Qwest only wants to eliminate the perceived competitive advantage other ISPs have who may not retain such data on their customers' browsing habits.
Posted by: Michael Hampton at August 24, 2006 02:26 AM