Last week, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a Republican, gave a speech saying that data retention by Internet service providers is an "issue that must be addressed." Child pornography investigations have been "hampered" because data may be routinely deleted, Gonzales warned.

It's not clear whether that requirement would be limited only to e-mail providers and Internet providers such as DSL (digital subscriber line) or cable modem services. An expansive reading of DeGette's measure would require every Web site to retain those records. (Details would be left to the Federal Communications Commission.)

The Bush administration's current position is an abrupt reversal of its previous long-held belief that data retention is unnecessary and imposes an unacceptable burden on Internet providers. In 2001, the Bush administration expressed "serious reservations about broad mandatory data retention regimes."

DeGette said in a statement that her amendment was necessary because: "America is the No. 1 global consumer of child pornography, the No. 2 producer. This is a plague we had nearly wiped out in the seventies, and sadly the Internet, an entity that we practically worship for all the great things it has brought to us, is being used to commit a crime against humanity."

At the moment, Internet service providers typically discard any log file that's no longer required for business reasons such as network monitoring, fraud prevention or billing disputes. Companies do, however, alter that general rule when contacted by police performing an investigation--a practice called data preservation.

Is there actually a problem with ISPs not cooperating with child porn investigations? Or is this just being used as a excuse to make ISPs preserve more information that is subject to NSLs and other types of monitoring? I think the latter.

Congress may consider mandatory ISP snooping | CNET News.com

But in a little-noticed white paper submitted by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to Congress on January 19 justifying the legality of the NSA eavesdropping, Justice Department lawyers made a tacit case that President Bush also has the inherent authority to order such physical searches.

This wouldn't even have been in there unless they were doing it. The 4th Amendment states

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There isn't really any ambiguity in there, and the places that have been fuzzy (Miranda, searching of vehicles on the way to impound etc.) have largely been ruled on by the courts. Where is there zero ambiguity? Houses and businesses. If there is to be a search, it is done with a warrant, period.

I have zero doubts they've been doing this. It is too consistent with everything else they've done already.

USNews.com: The White House says spying on terrorism suspects without court approval is OK. What about physical searches?

The proposed bill would allow the president to authorize wiretapping without seeking a warrant for up to 45 days if the communication under surveillance involved someone suspected of being a member of or a collaborator with a specified list of terrorist groups and if at least one party to the conversation was outside the United States.

At least one Republican Senator has balls:

Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said Congress should seek a court ruling on the legitimacy of the program in addition to new oversight.

He said he put the administration "on notice" he might seek to block its financing if Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales did not give more information.

G.O.P. Senators Say Accord Is Set on Wiretapping - New York Times

Google is rebuffing the Bush administration's demand for a peek at what millions of people have been looking up on the internet's leading search engine — a request that underscores the potential for online databases to become tools for government surveillance.

Google has refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued last summer, prompting U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales this week to ask a federal judge in San Jose, California for an order to hand over the requested records.

The government wants a list of all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week — a breakdown that could conceivably span tens of millions of queries. In addition, it seeks 1 million randomly selected web addresses from various Google databases.

In court papers that the San Jose Mercury News reported on after seeing them Wednesday, the Bush administration depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore online child protection laws that have been struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yahoo, which runs the internet's second-most used search engine, confirmed Thursday that it had complied with a similar government subpoena.

Google Won't Hand Over Files

] Leading candidates to succeed Mr. Ashcroft include
] Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, and Marc
] Racicot, the chairman of Mr. Bush's re-election campaign.
] Larry D. Thompson, who served as deputy attorney general
] until last year and is now the general counsel of Pepsico
] in Purchase, N.Y., is a personal favorite of the
] president but is said not to be interested in the job, a
] Republican close to the White House said.

] Former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York City was
] mentioned by some as a possible successor, but his
] spokeswoman, Sunny Mindel, said Tuesday night that
] he was not interested in the job.

NYT | Ashcroft Quits Top Justice Post; Evans Going, Too

Leading candidates to succeed Mr. Ashcroft include Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, and Mark Racicot, the chairman of Mr. Bush's re-election campaign.

Ashcroft Quits Top Justice Post

This is an extremely frightening development in the United States of America:

...

Lawyers for President Bush have concluded he can launch an attack on Iraq without new approval from Congress, in part because they say permission remains in force from the 1991 resolution giving Bush's father authority to wage war in the Persian Gulf, according to administration officials.

...

"We don't want to be in the legal position of asking Congress to authorize the use of force when the president already has that full authority," said a senior administration official involved in setting the strategy. "We don't want, in getting a resolution, to have conceded that one was constitutionally necessary."

...

Inside the White House, a full-throated debate over some of these issues has been underway for some time. In particular, White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales had his deputy, Timothy E. Flanigan, develop the administration's legal position on questions surrounding a war with Iraq.

Officials said Gonzales told Bush earlier this month that he would not be legally bound to obtain approval for action against Iraq. In making this case, officials point first to the Constitution's designation of the president as commander-in-chief.

...

Although administration officials are adamant that no authorization is required, some have begun to argue internally that it might be desirable as a matter of politics and statesmanship.

"The legal question and the practical question may be very different," one administration official said. "There is a view that while there is not a legal necessity to seek anything further, as a matter of statesmanship and politics and practicality, it's necessary -- or at a minimum, strongly advisable -- to do it."

...

When you hear the "left wing zealots" say Bush may be our last President, think about more than one meaning, not just the obvious one. It is patently absurd that Iraq poses any threat to the United States.

[ Originally from Hijexx, comments edited for brevity and stridency-removal. --Rek ]

Bush Aides Say Iraq War Needs No Hill Vote