Data Retention Backer Mystified That Anyone Would Oppose Such A Plan
from the can-we-list-out-the-reasons? dept
You know you're in trouble when a politician tells you that a particular new regulation will only present a "very minor burden." It seems our politicians rarely (if ever) understand the burden they do create with certain laws. In this case, it's the proposed US data retention law that is being proposed (of course) "to protect children." Europe, of course, already has data retention laws, though politicians there are similarly unconcerned about the burden. In this case, the backer of the law, Rep. Diana DeGette, insists that data retention laws are "necessary" to stop child pornographers, and can't understand why anyone would be against that. Perhaps it's because the people against it actually understand how this all works, and know that data retention tends to make it harder to find the useful data, by burying it in lots of useless data -- and that the data retention costs can be excessively expensive. In other words, this is a more expensive solution, forced on everyone, that does little to actually stop the problem. Of course, in related news, the FCC has (surprise, surprise) authorized new taxes on ISPs to pay for the mandatory wiretap access on broadband and VoIP services. Add to that some more taxes to pay for mandatory data retention, and we should all expect to see our ISP bills increase... all so that the government can more easily snoop on us, while hiding the important data and possibly exposing many more people to privacy violations. How could anyone possibly be against that?