Online Privacy Battle - Feds to Monitor Your Every Click

Pending legislation affecting your online privacy would drag Internet service providers, protesting every inch of the way, even further into the role of Internet police. House Bill 1981 is just the latest round of new limitations on Internet service providers and their users - you and me.

Titled "Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011," the bill was introduced in May 2011. It establishes sentencing guidelines associated with sexual exploitation of minors, protects children from harassment and intimidation when testifying in court and related issues. However, the "Retention of Records" clause has caught the attention of privacy advocates.

''(h) RETENTION OF CERTAIN RECORDS. A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least 18 months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account, unless that address is transmitted by radio communication (as defined in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934).''

If this bill becomes law, your Internet service provider will keep a log file of every web site you visit, most likely including the date and time of day along with your IP address, for 18 months. No matter where you blog, post comments, do your online banking, bill paying, manage your 401-K, go shopping online, search the Internet or simply view content, you will be tracked. While wireless devices like smart phones, Kindles and Nook readers are excluded under this version of the bill, the trend to capture and retain more and more data about our online behavior has grown dramatically since the Justice Department first proposed such legislation in 2005. Can wireless tracking be far behind?

The Act intends to give law enforcement a way to associate Internet activity with sex offenders and child pornographers so authorities can bring criminal charges. However, the bill does not limit how log files can be used. Unless the bill restricts the use of log files, law enforcement - perhaps even attorneys in a divorce fight - could access the files to help prosecute almost any type of case.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, an international online privacy advocate, protested the bill to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee:

"Section 4 of H.R. 1981 would impose sweeping new requirements on companies that provide internet access, forcing them for the first time to keep large volumes of records on their customers - impacting hundreds of millions of individuals who have no connection to the sexual exploitation of children whatsoever. The scope of this new requirement is very broad. Contrary to the title of the legislation, there is nothing in the bill that would limit the use of these records to child exploitation cases. In fact, the records would involve all internet users everywhere and they would be available to law enforcement for any purpose."

This new initiative follows another policing action imposed on Internet service providers. The Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America announced a "Copyright Alert" system in July. Under pressure from the White House ISP's have reluctantly consented to become copyright cops. They will contact users who download copyrighted movies and music, and can impose penalties up to cutting off Internet service. Could this include innocently watching a copyrighted YouTube video that someone else uploaded? Will this prevent illegal downloads from people using public computers at libraries or Internet cafes? Could this even lead to an "illegal downloaders offender registry" where your good name is posted for all to see? Probably not. Yet this alert system is one more effort to force ISP's - who count on your good will - into the role of enforcer.

Online privacy is an important issue. We all want it, along with the freedom to use the Internet without encumbrances. Yet as the Internet continues to grow and mature, and as services like "cloud" storage and computing expand, more regulation and structure will be needed. Do you agree with the Electronic Frontier Foundation that "best practices in privacy demand the deletion of records as soon as they are no longer necessary?" Sign in, post a comment and let us know.