Representative Sensenbrenner (R-WI) framed the bill in terms of its benefits versus its intrusions: he was adamant that the bill, including but not limited to the data retention provisions, posed ‘numerous risks.” Data retention would undermine both data security and personal privacy protection – it would establish surveillance of all internet users without any suspicion.  And the danger is not just from invasion, but from unauthorized uses of the retained data.  The policy of policy data minimization, which assures user safety by ensuring data is not available for hackers to steal, runs counter to this bill.  On the other side of the scale, Rep. Sensenbrenner was “not convinced it will contribute in any meaningful way to prosecuting child pornography,” leaving the bill with multiple downsides and no certain benefits.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said that though she, as a mother, would condone death penalty for those who would sexually exploit a child, she still opposes this bill because it is “massively overbroad.”  It would tell Americans that ISPs will keep track of every website they visit for at least a year and make them available to the federal government without a warrant.  She even compared the bill to putting a camera in every bathroom in America.

Speaking on behalf of herself and from a statement by Rep.  John Conyers Jr (D-MI),  Lofgren proceeded to point out that the bill’s complete removal of liability for those who retain this data would reduce incentives to keep it safe from intrusion – “to lower the bar for…