Two representatives of Congress introduced on March 30 the National Security Letters Reform Act of 2009. This act if passed would limit an NSL to cases that the F. B. I. finds specific facts that the person they are investigating is a person who is part of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. This bill would require court approval to prolong an NSL gag order beyond 30 days. It would also force the Justice Department to eliminate data if the NSL was obtained incorrectly. If someone were investigated when they should not have been, that person can sue whoever issued the NSL to a maximum of $50,000.
Library groups have been in opposition to NSLs to obtain patron records ever since the Patriot Act became a law in 2001. The Connecticut consortium Library Connection and the Internet Archive challenged the use of NSLs in court. The result was that the F. B. I. withdrew the NSL in both cases.
In February 2009 the U. S. House and Senate introduced a bill called the Internet Safety Act. This bill would require all Wi-Fi providers and end users, including libraries, to keep all records for two years concerning a user's identity when they are assigned a network address. This would assist law enforcers to identify who is viewing, uploading, and distributing child pornography. The American Library Association is not in favor of this bill.
References
"Congress Revisits NSLs, Digital Privacy." American Libraries 40 (5) (May 2009): 20.
The Internet Safety Act seems like it could be used for more than catching people uploading child pornography. What would they do about people who use their neighbors WiFi because it is not locked? I do not think that this is what this Act is really for. It seems like just another way to watch people using child pornography as an excuse to do so.
ReplyDeleteSounds like it's time to write to our Congressmen. If I understand correctly, the government as things stand now can search the records of ANYONE who it believes might be "relevant" to a terrorism investigation even if that person is not suspected of criminal conduct. Hopefully the NFL Reform Act will pass.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah - I think they use child porn as a cover because no one wants to defend or protect a pedophile. How woudl we ever know what they are really monotoring?
ReplyDeleteSarah and Megan, good points about child pornography as a cover. No one will say that child pornography should be protected or allowed to grow. At the same time how can we be sure that the government will actually only monitor these people? How can they find these people without looking at other people's info too?
ReplyDelete