Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011

1981, stated that, "When investigators develop leads that might result in saving a child or apprehending a pedophile, their efforts should not be frustrated because vital records were destroyed simply because there was no requirement to retain them.

[2] Opponents of the bill, which include Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Library Association,[3] take issue with the violation of privacy that would necessarily occur if government could compel ISPs to render subscriber information.

[4] Kevin Bankston, an EFF staff attorney, stated that "The data retention mandate in this bill would treat every Internet user like a criminal and threaten the online privacy and free speech rights of every American..., ".

1981 would introduce harsher penalties for offenders and make it a crime to financially facilitate the sale, distribution and purchase of child pornography.

[7] The bill would also amend Section 2703 of the Stored Communications Act, requiring ISPs to retain user IP addresses thereby enabling identification of "corresponding customer or subscriber information" listed in subsection (c)(2) of 18 USC 2703,[9] for at least one year.

Use of the data ISPs would be forced to retain under the bill would not be limited to investigations of child pornography, but would be available for law enforcement perusal for any issue, but only with probable cause and a warrant.

The bill also does not provide extra funding to investigate or prosecute additional child pornography related cases.

Brown further reasoned that an Internet Service Provider (ISP) could retain client records for a limited span of time, ranging from a couple hours, days, or weeks, and that a lack of uniformity across ISPs "significantly hinders law enforcement's ability to identify predators when they come across child pornography."

He then provided an actual account of when his county received a cybertip from the NCMEC involving an individual who posted that they were exposing themselves to a toddler.

The only information he claimed law enforcement possessed was the IP address that was accessing a YAHOO Chat room through an nTelos wireless connection.

1981 was framed as a child protection measure at least in part to make it more difficult for members of Congress to reject the bill.

[22] Lamar Smith, however, has defended the data retention requirements present in the bill in stating that, "Some Internet service providers currently retain these [IP] addresses for business purposes.