×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

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

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the boon-for-disk-makers dept.

Privacy 857

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].'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

857 comments

Generate your own 'fake' logs (0)

BrittanyGites (871668) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928011)

Just knock up a utility to generate fake log files with random IP addresses when required.

Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (4, Insightful)

lucifig (255388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928025)

Yeah, because jail is fun.

Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (5, Insightful)

jetsci (1470207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928185)

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.

Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928305)

my hotspot doesn't have dhcp. each client is statically configured. now?

Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (5, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928233)

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.

Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928351)

Weird... because I'm pretty sure if you're browsing the web, you're communicating across state lines... even if you only view sites that keep the routes within state lines you're still subject.

For example, if I built a radio transmitter, but the signal doesn't reach out of my neighborhood, but I'm blocking other devices and maybe transmitting questionable material, I'm pretty sure the FCC (congress controlled) will be at my door when a few neighbors turn in complaints

Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (2, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928571)

"Weird... because I'm pretty sure if you're browsing the web, you're communicating across state lines"

Communicating yet, but, does that actually constitute interstate commerce? I thought that was all the feds were supposed to be able to legislate?

Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (3, Insightful)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928531)

Anybody who values liberty should be willing to spend some time in jail, rather than submit to an unconstitutional tyrannical law.

Translation: the Land Of The Free is dead. You shouldn't even have these thoughts otherwise.

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.

Do you have an ISP? It won't matter once they get to them.

Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928629)

"... anybody who values liberty should be willing to spend some time in jail...."

So you can get butt raped, oh, and have a permanent criminal record that will stain your credibility with every employer you will ever try to deal with for the rest of your life, all for the sake of defending an ideal that you going to prison isn't going to make a whit of difference for because lawmakers aren't about to change the laws just because a few pussy little nerds (who, by the way, are the only people that are remotely likely to care about this) might spend some time in jail for "civil disobedience".

My liberty means plenty to me. My life, and my future, means more.

Get some perspective, dude.

Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (1)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928443)

In a state were bills like that are passed jail is the best place you can be. Aside from the occasional rape and shanking at least you've got your privacy and the rules aren't as stringent as outside.

Oh America ... home of the brave ... land of the fr... wait ... no I think you need to change the lyrics.

Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (1)

LilGuy (150110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928605)

What privacy? You mean never knowing if you're being watched behind that 2-way mirror facing your cell block? You mean having your little tub of belongings searched at any time of the day and for any reason? You mean sharing a cell with 1 or more "buddies" that you can only get away from when you shower... if you're lucky?

Even if you were being sarcastic, jail is never the best place you can be.

Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (2, Insightful)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928649)

How exactly do they expect people to keep access logs?

I can draw up a budget, and system to do the job but someone has to pay for it.

Good Joke (4, Insightful)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928015)

Logging for 2 years? Who is going to pay for the storage costs, backups, etc.? I'm not going to foot the bill for it or get fined because my cheap Linksys router dies after six months of use and I lose my logs.

Re:Good Joke (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928391)

Nevermind that your cheap Linksys router only outputs the logs to an IP address. It's up to you to hook another machine up to the router to actually capture and store those logs (unless you only want the last 25 or so records that the router keeps in memory).

Re:Good Joke (1)

Spazztastic (814296) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928589)

Nevermind that your cheap Linksys router only outputs the logs to an IP address. It's up to you to hook another machine up to the router to actually capture and store those logs (unless you only want the last 25 or so records that the router keeps in memory).

Personally I use pfSense and it pushes logs to a Splunk daemon. The upkeep is still going to be expensive in the long term and it would be a lot for just your average user. I doubt they would even know how to configure their linksys box to push the logs somewhere.

Re:Good Joke (4, Insightful)

Golias (176380) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928569)

Everybody here should write to both of their Senators and their Representative (regardless) and simply provide a link to this /. thread to educate them on all the technical reasons why this bill is very ill-conceived.

In layman's terms most of the reasons boil down to:

1. The required equipment will cost private citizens and small businesses a prohibitive amount of money. Many homes will find themselves spending more on their log archive than they spent on their computers, and small Internet cafe businesses simply be forced to close.

2. It will require expertise which most people simply don't have, forcing everybody to hire IT professionals to manage their home networks. (Ask your congerssperson if they know how to set up such a log without enlisting the help of an expert. Then ask them how a working-class family could ever afford to hire such help simply to use the Internet on their home laptops.)

3. It will utterly fail to achieve the objective of preventing anonymous Internet use. HDCP logs only record MAC addresses, which can easily be forged and sometimes are not even unique.

This bill is about as useful and practical as asking people to keep a filing cabinet full of photographs of every shoe-footprint that ever shows up in their back garden. It richly deserves to be laughed off the floors of Congress, should it ever even get that far.

Yeah right (5, Insightful)

jaeson (563206) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928023)

Home users are really gonna do this. Oh and they will all patch their machines too.

Re:Yeah right (5, Funny)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928195)

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.

Re:Yeah right (1)

aonaran (15651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928451)

"some cops will be pissed that he didn't find any weapon, drug or libertarian literature while reading your house"

Libertarian graffiti? That's something I haven't seen yet.

Re:Yeah right (0, Redundant)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928549)

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.

Stimulus Storage? (5, Interesting)

certain death (947081) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928033)

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!

Yea... (5, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928045)

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.

Backup routine (2, Insightful)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928215)

My first thought was basically how the heck can people even comply with this if they wanted to. Not all wireless routers have means to export logs, and most lose their logs after a reboot, etc.

Even if you have the space and the will to archive the logs, it doesn't mean that the hardware will allow you to do so.

Re:Backup routine (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928347)

Well all you need to do is set up a SCHEDULE Services that will connect to your router via its web interface scrub the HTML for the logs every hour. Save it as a file on your PC then backup that data to a secure location.
A piece of cake for any...
[font size=largest]Red Blooded American[/font]
[font size=large]With Wi-Fi[/font]
[font size=medium]and a PC[/font]
[font size=small]with at least a 2 year degree in computer science[/font]
[font size=smaller]who chose to focus on programming[/font]
[font size=evensmaller]with interests on web technology[/font]
[font size=tiny]and TCP/IP communications[/font]

Re:Backup routine (1)

tripdizzle (1386273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928483)

Well, people here using this website will be able to figure this out, but all of those people still confused about DTV have no chance of ever understanding this. If this becomes law, I am probably the only one with a wireless router in my apartment building that would not be in violation.

Re:Backup routine (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928573)

I myself know I could do this. But it will take some time to get it right. It is not the sort of thing that I do all the time. And time to see how the router handles and keeps logins is different across systems. If it is just Post/Get/Cookies for the login that is rather easy a script with wget will do the trick however if it is complex Ajax call then it will require more digging. It is a lot of work and I would rather just plug into a wire.

Re:Backup routine (1)

aonaran (15651) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928491)

See that's the good thing to come out of this. Now wireless router manufacturers will have to provide those features if they want to sell in the US.

Re:Yea... (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928283)

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).

Re:Yea... (4, Funny)

paganizer (566360) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928599)

There are 3 sorts of responses to this post.
the first type, which I expect to see shortly, is from the "tinfoil hat" contingent; the type that will tell you to take off your tinfoil hat when you post anything about the Echelon system, for example.
The 2nd type is from the "jaded acknowledger's" contingent; usually it takes the form of "No Shit. But what you gonna do?".
The 3rd type is from the "meta" group. Hi.

Re:Yea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928601)

Yep. Making everyone a de facto criminal means the ordinary citizen must either squander his life trying to adhere to all regulations, or be vulnerable. A win win situation for a corrupt elite.

Re:Yea... (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928619)

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 [wordpress.com]:

"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.

Re:Yea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928331)

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.

You need a COFFEE INJECTION!!!

Re:Yea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928449)

Hey its above 94% accuracy.

Re:Yea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928363)

That's the point. Users cannot be trusted to do this and the government will do this for us. They will have unfettered access to all your activity at this point.

Re:Yea... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928603)

>>>I wonder how many of these lawmakers are in compliance of this purposed law.

Probably the same number that pay their taxes (near-zero).

This is almost an ipv6 mandate. (5, Interesting)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928071)

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.

Re:This is almost an ipv6 mandate. (2, Interesting)

CRCulver (715279) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928127)

For things such as LAN routers where the amount of clients who will connect will be relatively small, don't they typically give the same IPv4 address out again and again to the same MAC address?

naturally... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928077)

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

Re:naturally... (4, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928143)

Yea having the parents in jailed/heavily fined because they didn't keep backup logs will really help the children grow up to be useful and productive systems. Because we all know if your parents are in jail and/or living in poverty helps kids grow up to be good citizens.

Re:naturally... (1)

MeMeMeMe (1073430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928525)

Geez... I ran with scissors, ate dirt, played with matches, and still managed to survive. Today's kids just have NO backbone.. pampered snots.....

Re:naturally... (5, Interesting)

VShael (62735) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928179)

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.

Re:naturally... (2, Interesting)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928403)

Same happens in Germany just now, they're introducing an Internet censorship archtitecture by proxy of vetting it "against child pornography" even though the majority of researchers and experts tell them it's useless.

The people have grown tired of that invisible threat of terrorism and since no one is scared enough by that anymore they need something new ... unfortunately most people are uninformed hysterical douchebags that cry "think of the children" and then burn down the house next door because allegedly a pedophile used to live there ten years ago.

I'm starting to get reeeaaaally fed up by all this lying political bullshit.

Re:naturally... (2, Insightful)

Huntr (951770) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928499)

Because what kind of asshole would vote against something that keeps kids safe from the Internet? At least, that's their thinking behind it.

Re:naturally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928567)

maybe they should just ban anyone under 18 to use the internet, and once over 18, they require license to use the internet. ha!

Infinite storage (5, Funny)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928081)

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

Here's my log (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928093)

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...

If the average AOL "me too" type user (4, Insightful)

VShael (62735) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928117)

is too clueless to secure his wireless router, how the heck is he/she/it going to know how to maintain a 2 year log file of every access?

Re:If the average AOL "me too" type user (1)

Psycizo (776693) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928211)

Not to mention the people who have cheap routers that can't keep logs.

Re:If the average AOL "me too" type user (1)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928559)

Not true, most of the cheap routers support exporting to syslog... now getting the avg user, even an avg technical user, to figure out how to setup a syslog server is another story.

Re:If the average AOL "me too" type user (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928463)

It is clearly ridiculous to expect the average idiot to set this up. The most obvious solution would be to force all new routers sold to automatically perform the data retention.

Re:If the average AOL "me too" type user (1)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928543)

Logging will be built in for you by the manufacturer with no "off" switch. The extra storage required will increase the cost of the router, of course, which the manufacturer will happily pass on to its customers -- you. The clueless AOL users you reference don't understand logging, let alone wireless security, but they know they need a blue box with antenna thingies plugged into their cable modem so they can IM their friends from their laptop while watching Idol -- and since the blue box with the antenna thingies is approved for use with the Internet SAFETY Act, they're doing your part to help the kids, right?

It would be funny if it wasn't already preordained and quite purposeful. Politicians aren't nearly as stupid as we call them -- in fact, they're masters of marketing.

what about restricted-access? (2, Interesting)

avm (660) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928119)

Wonder if this measure as proposed would apply to wifi networks restricted/encrypted and thus obviously not intended for public use (cracks or the like notwithstanding).

Re:what about restricted-access? (1)

zappepcs (820751) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928615)

I think that is where the law will fail actually. Private networks are private. Keeping the logs for government inspection amounts to search without warrant, despite the time differential, or as a result of it. The search is to determine what and who was doing which on the Internet through my router. There is no warrant for said search. This law would require me to provide the answer to that question without the warrant.

Currently, If I have logs, and there is a warrant, I can see them wanting me to provide any logs that I might have. Forcing me to provide logs for 2 years is unreasonable search. Do we have to have computer logs for our vehicles for the last two years? Asking for my Internet where-abouts for the previous two years amounts to the same thing: where have you been on the Internet? Oh, but your honor, this man goes to pr0n sites "ALL THE TIME" so you can easily understand this child pr0no6r4phy didn't just get on his computer by accident.

In the past 17 months, your honor, the defendant has downloaded 43GB of data using BitTorrent. We do not show the actual identity of the files but everyone knows that BT is used to pirate music and videos.

Yeah, IANAL but I won't be keeping logs.

Just how much use is..... (5, Insightful)

Chaoscrypt (1476283) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928125)

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.

Re:Just how much use is..... (1)

CompMD (522020) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928551)

Yes, and all Sun SPARC based computers will be outlawed because you can easily change the MAC address from the PROM command line.

And when Sun computers are outlawed, only outlaws will have Suns.

unconstitutional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928155)

perhaps said user committed a crime, he could not be persuaded to hand over logs because that very act would be self incriminating.

exemption as always for those in power... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928167)

Except for Republican Presidential Administrations...just delete and deny everything. No one has the balls to prosecute in that case...

Not a partisan issue (5, Insightful)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928177)

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?

Re:Not a partisan issue (3, Funny)

VShael (62735) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928209)

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?

France?

Re:Not a partisan issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928269)

Libertarians

Re:Not a partisan issue (5, Interesting)

zarkill (1100367) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928459)

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.

That party died from lack of votes (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928401)

You get the party that people vote for, in the US that is the democrats or republikans... or the other way around, hard to tell them apart as a pinko commie hippie from amsterdam.

The simple fact is that democracy is fundementally flawed. It is a popularity contest in which 50% of the voters are below average intelligence. So the US either gets the guy who says he is going to cut taxes or the charmer. Obama is the charmer, bush promised tax cuts, clinton was another charmer, the other bush also promised tax cuts, reagan did both.

It is not just the US, the netherlands we just can't seem to get rid of the CDA, christian democrats. Bak ellende,oops sorry balkende, about as useless as clinton but without the sincerity or charm. For the last decade the country has been at a stand still. One problem is immigrants. 10 years of studies and rapports and nothing actually being done. If you think immigrants are a problem then this is a collosal waste of time and money while nothing has been done about the problem itself and if you don't think immigrants are a problem then this is a collosal waste of time and money that should have been spent on real problems.

Yet you can't shift the responsible party CDA because they have very succesfully settled themselves in the center where they blame everyone to the left or right for the problems and take all the credit for the things that don't go completely wrong.

Same with the US, the presidents are center and blame either the left or the right for their problems and take credit for things that they didn't screw up. So they look good or at least better then any alternative and decade after decade democracy erodes until you nothing gets done anymore except silly plans that are shot down in a matter of weeks.

Re:Not a partisan issue (1)

Tikkun (992269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928585)

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?

The Pirate party, of course. Vote Pirate, vote for a better future! ;)

I think politicians just want to look busy anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928217)

Hey, I've got an idea- let's draft some legislation!

How about we make it MANDATORY for bad people to keep online journals of their misadventures to be kept on a secure FBI server! Then we can slam the [other party] for not taking this issue seriously!

Won't somebody please think of the administrators? (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928225)

Senator John Cornyn, in TFA: "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,"

If your goal is to keep "innocent children" safe, don't let them go down to the playground where the axe murderers, pederasts, and drug addicts hang out.

Innocence imposes isolation. You want the kids to be educated, they lose their innocence.

Anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse... [eff.org] or is this the end of the first amendment?

thinkofthechildren tag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928243)

"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."

thinkofthechildren tag. where is it?

Cornyn is the scum of the earth as far as I'm concerned. Anyone have an email address that we can slashdot alerting him of this fact?

Republican algorithm . (1)

Pebble (99243) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928247)

Yeah? Well I use the Republican email retention algorithm for my records, so errm, sorry about that.

Not an original idea (1)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928277)

They do this (or something very similar) in Italy. All internet access has to have a name attached to it, and a timestamp.

Anti terror legislation, apparently.

Why this won't work. (3, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928315)

Wish I had one of those handy forms, but it boils down to this:

Even if I kept logs, if they can hack my network, they can hack my logs. In fact, it would probably be easier than the initial hack.

Someone contact your representative... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928333)

...and urge them to add an amendment to this bill which would also require all network devices to properly utilize the >a href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3514">Evil Bit.

Obama will sign this... (1, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928373)

It's not just ideology that the whole media loves Obama because he's promising them big bucks by a crack down on file sharing and piracy. Republicans are stupidly trying to curry Hollywoods favor but its just not going to happen. Republicans should instead take a stand for civil liberties while simultaneously extinguishing their enemies and just oppose any sort of DRM. But they are stupid.

Re:Obama will sign this... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928419)

Republicans should instead take a stand for civil liberties while simultaneously extinguishing their enemies

We had something like that in this country already. It was called a Civil War and it wasn't all that enjoyable.

The purpose of this act is to eliminate free, open WiFi access.

At issue is the ability to be anonymous on the internet which is necessary for freedom of speech. This is nothing less than an attack on the first amendment and it should be classified as unconstitutional.

I disagree. (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928509)

At issue is the ability to be anonymous on the internet which is necessary for freedom of speech. This is nothing less than an attack on the first amendment and it should be classified as unconstitutional.

Anonymity is not necessary for free speech. You should be accountable to your fellow man for what you say. Words are actionable things.

Ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928385)

And you (americans) poured scorn on us (british) when our government told us to keep logs of all email (headers) and phone calls for a year or 2 ...

You have my sympathy, but Big Brother is here - or will be soon.

Unfunded Mandate? (1)

DrTime (838124) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928395)

I remember the glory days of the Republican opposition to Bill Clinton where every federal law that imposed a requirement on local governments was termed an unfunded mandate. This is an unfunded mandate on all of us. Besides being just plan stupid.

Is this from the same guy that said the Internet was just a series of pipes? Heck, I don't think my shower keeps track of my water use, should it be doing that too?

Bankers turned out to incompetent crooks, the auto companies just plan fools, and too many Americans are out of work. But, what does congress worry about? Dumb asses.

Just email the logs (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928407)

Just email the logs daily to your local congressman. They have an email retention policy don't they?

Might as well move to China now. (1)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928415)

With laws like this, I might as well have more liberty in most regards in China. In China the government keeps the access logs of everything I do online for me, I can download all the pirated music, software and videos I want and I can get a cheap massage with "happy ending".

Think of the Children... (1)

bleh-of-the-huns (17740) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928425)

This is COPA all over again.. does not matter how you word a law, throw children in there and people start running around like headless chickens.

Children's safety is the parents responsibility, not those people who provide services (deliberatly or accidentally.. aka unsecured access points)

Static IP networks exempt? (1)

midicase (902333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928431)

From TFA:

"but also to the tens of millions of homes with Wi-Fi access points or wired routers that use the standard method of dynamically assigning temporary addresses"

The article seems to infer this is primarily applicable to IP lease data. Doesn't make it any less annoying.

Huh? (1)

stanltaaf (1399353) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928433)

Can anyone explain how this applies to home users? Just password protect your router to not share your wireless and you should be fine... go read the bill. If you disagree with that approach, please correct my thinking: I assert data is not like the water company. Data is not ubiquitous, uniform or equally valuable. To summarize my point, If you have to keep your receipts for 10 years for the IRS, 2 years doesn't seem that bad to an average joe.

Evil Bit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928445)

Someone contact your representative and convince them to add an amendment requiring all networking devices to properly set and check the Evil Bit [ietf.org].

If the Evil Bit is not set for a packet, of course, there's no need to log it.

Funny... (1)

wykell (1323665) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928479)

I've been keeping access logs of my wifi routers for years. Turns out Mickey Mouse has been the only computer to ever access the router, and he has only visited disney.com. Weird.

... but some are more equal than others (1)

swschrad (312009) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928497)

if they want to close down their political opponents and enslave the nation, why not just use the quick and proven method of marching their brownshirts down the streets at 2 am?

A theory (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928503)

Not that I am for this bill in any way shape or form, I just had a theory on how they might do this.

We have servers at our work that perform off-site backups. They do this because a client is installed on the server, and it sends the data to the off-site data center.

Whose to say the government won't require a firmware update, or maybe some kind of "US Government seal of approval" on all wireless routers sold in America that have an updated firmware, or client that sends the logs to an off-site location for backup?

Also if the router goes off-line and is unable to perform the backups, no harm done because if you can't get on the internet, then they are not interested in logs of local activity, only software or digital violations....

Just a thought though....

New Meaning to Open Source (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928535)

Obama Gives a brand new understanding of what he means by supporting Open Source.

You thought it was software.

He was thinking of knowing everything anyone was & is doing on the net.

And you believed him.

Now what?

Uhhhm, hold up - Cheap tactics (1)

meist3r (1061628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928545)

Why the hell does this get introduced as a "Youth" safety act? For the last eight years everything has been justified with abstracted terrorism threat and shit like that and now this isn't fly anymore? Why do they introduce that crap to catch pedophiles but never thought of that when it was about terrorism? Oh wait, they did but no one believes their stupid fucking lies about the threat anymore and so they need to pull something new from their hat. If there are no attacks you can argue against anti-terror but "Think of the children" has no bearing.

How is this supposed to work? (1)

Logical Zebra (1423045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928563)

So now I have to figure out how to get my wireless router to track all MAC addresses that connect to it, and maintain that record for 2 years? How am I supposed to do that? I doubt my router (and most others') have the necessary programming or resources to do this, so I'm assuming that we'll all have to run out and buy brand new routers that have logging capabilities.

Seriously, who comes up with this shit?

My two cents. (1)

rindeee (530084) | more than 5 years ago | (#26928583)

Caveat: I'm a staunch conservative. Thoughts: Is it acceptable if my logging and retention is at the same level of reliability as the Bush administration? If I secure my WiFi, can I assume that there is no service provided and therefor no retention or logging needed, or is this in fact a requirement to self-monitor and self-incriminate should something 'happen'? If I do choose to monitor and keep logs (which I do, 365 days worth on my IPCop box), should I now assume that the Fed stakes their claim to rights to my historical logs? I have an answer to all of this: Kiss my butt. Everyone, conservative, liberal, moderate, whatever, needs to collectively stand up and tell the government not only to kiss off, but go home. Replace every last one of these morons from Obama and Bush's administrations and everyone in between. Clean house. I WILL NOT under any circumstances provide my log files. Period. Feel free to jail me.

"Papies, Tovarisch ?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26928653)

Close to the ear, from behind, in the gentlest, kindliest, sweetest tone possible. Just like the manicured hand on your shoulder, and the slightly more businesslike one under your elbow, on the other side. (ref:"Firefox" - with Clint Eastwood)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...