Bill Would Require ISPs, Wi-Fi Users To Keep Logs

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bill Would Require ISPs, Wi-Fi Users To Keep Logs

Posted by kdawson on Friday February 20, 2009 @01:44AM from the boon-for-disk-makers dept.

suraj.sun notes CNet reporting on bills filed in the US House and Senate that would require all ISPs and operators of Wi-Fi hotspots — including home users — to maintain access logs for 2 years to aid in law enforcement. The bills were filed by Republicans, but the article notes that the idea of forcing data retention has been popular on both sides of the aisle over the years. "Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that... 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. ... Each [bill] contains the same language: 'A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least two years all records or other information pertaining to the identity of a user of a temporarily assigned network address the service assigns to that user [i.e., DHCP].'"

26 of 857 comments (clear)

Yeah right by jaeson · 2009-02-20 01:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

Home users are really gonna do this. Oh and they will all patch their machines too.
1. Re:Yeah right by aadvancedGIR · 2009-02-20 01:59 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  That's the very idea, they will never tell you do do it or how they expect your logs to be autenticated, so everyone will be on the wrong side of the law and the days some cops will be pissed that he didn't find any weapon, drug or libertarian literature while reading your house, that will be one more of the many reasons he could arrest you anyway.
2. Re:Yeah right by Jafafa+Hots · 2009-02-20 02:30 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Cops are not allowed to enter a home without a warrant or probable cause (they heard a scream inside). Anything they find will be expunged.
  I have mod points, how do I mod this "naive?"
  
  --
  This space available.
3. Re:Yeah right by mdm-adph · 2009-02-20 03:50 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  A lot of states' Domestic Terrorism websites say that -- it was part of a package deal or something given out by the DHS, story broke about a year or two ago.
  You know, we act facetious on here when we joke about "freedom and liberty is dead" and all that, but the fact remains that we're living in a very scary place when "quoting the Constitution" is considered grounds for suspicion of being a terrorist...
  
  --
  It is by my will alone my thoughts acquire motion; it is by the juice of the coffee bean that the thoughts acquire speed
Stimulus Storage? by certain+death · 2009-02-20 01:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

Does that mean we will receive a stipend for storage in order to keep said logs for two years? If the government is going to require me to keep them, then they need to enable me with at least 3 terabytes of storage!

--
"My immediate reaction is "WTF? What kind of moron doesn't make things 64-bit safe to begin with?" Linus
Yea... by jellomizer · 2009-02-20 01:48 · Score: 5, Interesting

Most people don't know how to turn on WEP or WPA encryption on their wireless routers let along find how to turn on logging and setting a backup routine to keep years of data. Heck most people/governments/companies cant keep years of data on their own PC.
I wonder how many of these lawmakers are in compliance of this purposed law.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
1. Re:Yea... by elrous0 · 2009-02-20 02:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The first rule of a police state is that EVERYONE is breaking the law. You just pass laws that are impossible or unreasonable to follow and then when you want to come down on someone, you just hit them with a bunch of bullshit charges. So if federal law enforcement kicks down your door on some bogus child porn charge and doesn't find any child porn, they can save face, rather than just admit their mistake, by busting you on all the *other* stuff they found (your marijuana stash, your bootleg mp3's, and now the fact that you weren't keeping 2 years of archived data, and so on).
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
2. Re:Yea... by drinkypoo · 2009-02-20 02:27 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  The first rule of a police state is that EVERYONE is breaking the law.
  As tedious as it is, Atlas Shrugged has something to teach us. Don't bother to read the book though, all you need to know is in the following quote:
  
  "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against--then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
  Sometimes I feel like a bot whose only real purpose is to paste this quote. But as it is a leading force in American society that people seem to have mostly forgotten, I believe it bears some heavy repetition.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This is almost an ipv6 mandate. by tjstork · 2009-02-20 01:51 · Score: 5, Interesting

The unintended consequence of this is that every user on a system is going to get a fixed ipv6 ip and ipv4 traffic would be gradually phased out. Why bother with the administrative burden of issuing an IP address via dhcp and tracking it, when, you could have an ipv6 theoretically assigned to a customer for the life of a device.

--
This is my sig.
naturally... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-20 01:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

they just *had* to get the children involved in this somehow.. the full title of the legislation is:
Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act
1. Re:naturally... by VShael · 2009-02-20 01:58 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act
  Internet SAFETY Act...
  Well, you can't really blame them. They have a pathological need to make their bills acronym friendly.
  No doubt some dickwad came up with the "Internet SAFETY Act" and gave it to some peon to work out what SAFETY should stand for.
Infinite storage by Gothmolly · 2009-02-20 01:52 · Score: 5, Funny

I discovered that if I log my wifi router to /dev/null, it works really fast and never seems to fill up, how excellent!

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Here's my log by Anonymous Coward · 2009-02-20 01:52 · Score: 5, Funny

Rorschach's log, Feb 20th, 1985
8:50 AM:
Internet connection activated by the scum of this city. Repugnant person scouring 4chan. May be a furry. Must investigate.
9:27 AM:
Wifi user connected to Google Docs. Probably writing communist pamphlet. His web document is shouting to Google's server "save me." I pull internet connection and icmp back "no".
9:45 AM:
Somebody killed one of my servers tonight. Server logs say "slashdot". Might be planning something big.
etc...
Just how much use is..... by Chaoscrypt · 2009-02-20 01:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

10.10.10.10 Assigned to 01:23:45:67:89:01 20090220135000
Going to be when the 1st bit is a setting made by me and the MAC address is easily Spoofable.
What next - everyone must register the MAC addresses of all their network kit and sanctions if you change it ?
More idiocy from people that dont understand how stuff works.
Not a partisan issue by PeeAitchPee · 2009-02-20 01:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Republicans want this "in the interest of national security" so they can stop the terr-rists.
The Democrats want this so they can save the children from all of that evil kiddie porn, and also so the **AA can better control the media you consume, kill P2P and net neutrality, and bill you for it appropriately.
They both want stuff like this so they can control the citizens better.
Where's the party who doesn't want any of this shit and thinks the government has much, much more important stuff on its plate right now?
1. Re:Not a partisan issue by zarkill · 2009-02-20 02:18 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Legitimate question: why is the Libertarian party so marginalized in America? Their platform basically represents everything that most Americans will claim to believe in, so why do they have so little support? Is it them? Are they just bad at marketing themselves to the American Public? Are they so idealistic as to be completely impractical? Is it that Americans are actually pretty hypocritical? They say they love freedom and liberty, but then when they realize how much responsibility it takes they say to the government "ew, you take care of everything".
  If it's the case that the Libertarian Party is essentially too uncompromising on ideals in order to function in the real world, isn't there a middle ground somewhere? Some party that says "yes, we really do love liberty, and we recognize that it requires responsibility, but here are some concessions that we recognize must be made for the real world". Who is that party? Is that kind of thinking what gets us Democrats and Republicans?
  I've just never understood why "Libertarian" has become such a joke of a thing to be, when it essentially encompasses everything that Americans are "supposed" to cherish.
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs by jetsci · 2009-02-20 01:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

What happens when some user with a haphazard setup suffers major data loss due to poor backup patterns? I doubt they'll be subject to jail time. Unless the (American) government provides a reliable way of storing this information for the required period.

--
Bored at work? Play Game!
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs by commodore64_love · 2009-02-20 02:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Anybody who values liberty should be willing to spend some time in jail, rather than submit to an unconstitutional tyrannical law.
I say "unconstitutional" because it is illegal for congress to order me, in my private home, to keep logs. Their authority ends at the interstate border. In regards to my private Wifi service, the only authority I have to obey is my home state legislature, since I operate completely and wholly within the state.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs by Silicon+Jedi · 2009-02-20 02:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

Remember that post about geeks thinking they are lawyers?
Tit for Tat by GrantRobertson · 2009-02-20 02:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

I'll support this as soon as they pass legislation requiring all legislators to record and video all conversations they have - 24 hours a day - in order to make sure they don't do any backroom dealing not in the public's best interest.
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs by link-error · 2009-02-20 02:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Whitehouse can't even find their own frickin emails. They want every Dick and Jane to keep 2 year logs? Bush didn't go to jail, but Jane probably will.

--
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs by BrokenHalo · 2009-02-20 02:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

Regardless of whether geeks=lawyers or not, the simple fact is that most home wifi boxes aren't equipped to keep logs on this kind of scale.

The Homeland Security agent can demand until he turns black in the face, but demanding isn't getting. Simple answer: No. Tough shit.
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs by icannotthinkofaname · 2009-02-20 02:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Only as long as you let them legislate whatever they want. That's the basis of the whole system. Do you hate what the government is doing? Really? Do you hate it enough to do something about it? Or are you just gonna sit at your computer and complain about it on /.?

--
Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
Re:Good Joke by Spazztastic · 2009-02-20 03:12 · Score: 5, Funny

If your backups "just happen" to get microwaved or otherwise destroyed, you'll quite likely be getting charged with destruction of evidence.
I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of my degausser warming up.

--
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs by commodore64_love · 2009-02-20 03:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Good question. I'm fairly certain the original intent of the Constitution was Not to invade private homes. They had interstate commerce in the 1780s (letters, pamphlets) but never intended that Congress should require Thom or George or Ben or James to keep a log of every letter they ever mailed.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democrats

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:Good Joke by kimvette · 2009-02-20 04:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

To correct your summary:
People who keep reelecting incumbents who legislate nanny-state laws are the problem.

--
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50