Chalk this up as forcing you to become big brother:

Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations.

The legislation, which echoes a measure proposed by one of their Democratic colleagues three years ago, would impose unprecedented data retention requirements on a broad swath of Internet access providers and is certain to draw fire from businesses and privacy advocates.

"While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children," U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said at a press conference on Thursday. "Keeping our children safe requires cooperation on the local, state, federal, and family level."

Joining Cornyn was Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the senior Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who said such a measure would let "law enforcement stay ahead of the criminals."

Two bills have been introduced so far--S.436 in the Senate and H.R.1076 in the House. Each of the companion bills is titled "Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act," or Internet Safety Act.

So in essence, if you have a wireless router in your home then you would be required to log all access to that router and keep those logs for two years. Why? Because your neighbor might do something bad and use your internet connection to do it.

What has me scratching my head is the situation of failure. What if my $50 Linksys decides to bite the dust after one year? Do I have to store that router for another year to comply with this law?

How about people who have routers without logging, or that has very limited logging that might only keep X number of records and couldn’t possibly store the data for two years? Will these people have to go out and by new routers now?

This legislation will really cause outcries from privacy advocates. Just the idea that some people may have to go out and buy new hardware simply to become a new “big brother” for our government is very troubling.

The Agonist (cross-posted at The Seminal):

A bill introduced last week by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) is beginning to raise eyebrows.

[It] would require ISPs to record all users' surfing activity, IM conversations and email traffic indefinitely.

The bill, dubbed the Safety Act by sponsor Lamar Smith, a republican congressman from Texas, would impose fines and a prison term of one year on ISPs which failed to keep full records. (emphasis mine)
This is a terrifying development and it must be stopped before it gains any significant momentum. Background, Action items and contact information below the fold.
Under the guise of reducing child pornography, the SAFETY (Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act) Act is currently the gravest threat to digital privacy rights on the Internet. Given the increasing tendency of people, especially young people, to use the Internet as a primary means of communications, this measure would effect nearly all Americans in ways we are only beginning to understand. Also, given the fact that the Act requires all Internet Service Providers to record the web surfing activity of all Internet users, this amounts to the warrantless wiretapping of the entire Internet.

Does this worry you? Good. It should. If this continues, it is an OUTRAGEOUS violation of our privacy and civil liberties. Read the full article and start contacting people immediately. Contact list at the bottom of the article.

via The Carpet Bagger Report:

The fire-breathing Republican rage against judges was finally on the wane. The Terri Schiavo controversy faded from view, several high-profile Republicans started distancing themselves from over-heated rhetoric, and one almost had the impression that cooler heads would once again prevail.

But The Hammer had other ideas. Not satisfied with the current level of anti-judiciary animosity, Tom DeLay has decided to kick things up a notch and generate a new level of anger with courts that occasionally disagree with him.

Representative Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, escalated his talk of a battle between the legislative and judicial branches of government on Thursday, saying federal courts had “run amok,” in large part because of the failure of Congress to confront them.

“Judicial independence does not equal judicial supremacy,” Mr. DeLay said in a videotaped speech delivered to a conservative conference in Washington entitled “Confronting the Judicial War on Faith.”

Mr. DeLay faulted courts for what he said was their invention of rights to abortion and prohibitions on school prayer, saying courts had ignored the intent of Congress and improperly cited international standards and precedents. “These are not examples of a mature society,” he said, “but of a judiciary run amok.”

“The failure is to a great degree Congress’s,” Mr. DeLay said. “The response of the legislative branch has mostly been to complain. There is another way, ladies and gentlemen, and that is to reassert our constitutional authority over the courts.”

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), for example, appeared in DeLay’s place at the right-wing conference yesterday. Smith, whom DeLay put on the House Ethics Committee to help shield him from accountability, parroted the DeLay line.

“Judges continue to substitute their own political views for the law, and we must push back,” Smith said. Asked whether he would take steps to retaliate against judges in the Schiavo case, Smith said: “I would certainly be a part of any effort that Tom DeLay was. If that’s the direction that the leaders want to go, I would be happy to go that direction as well.”

It’s not just the House that’s been infected with such lunacy.

“I am in favor of impeachment,” Michael Schwartz, chief of staff to Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, said in a panel discussion on abortion, suggesting “mass impeachment” might be needed.

The inflammatory language from GOP lawmakers against the federal judiciary made a right turn at irresponsible-town and is coming up on looneyville. The one Republican who hasn’t said much on the subject — George W. Bush — could help bring some of his allies on the Hill back from the brink. Any chance he’ll show a little leadership here?

I usually don't put as much up on a particular post, but Steve does an incredible job. Please read his whole article. There will be no slowing down on this subject from Delay and Friends.