Beta
×

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!

FBI Pushing For 2-Year Retention of Web Traffic Logs

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 4 years ago | from the build-a-better-proxy dept.

Privacy 256

suraj.sun writes to tell us that the FBI is pushing to have ISPs keep detailed records of what web sites customers have visited for up to two years. Claiming a desire to combat "child pornography and other serious crimes," the FBI and others are pressing for increased data retention, which they have been doing since as early as 2006. "If logs of Web sites visited began to be kept, they would be available only to local, state, and federal police with legal authorization such as a subpoena or search warrant. What remains unclear are the details of what the FBI is proposing. The possibilities include requiring an Internet provider to log the Internet protocol (IP) address of a Web site visited, or the domain name such as cnet.com, a host name such as news.cnet.com, or the actual URL such as http://reviews.cnet.com/Music/2001-6450_7-0.html. While the first three categories could be logged without doing deep packet inspection, the fourth category would require it. That could run up against opposition in Congress, which lambasted the concept in a series of hearings in 2008, causing the demise of a company, NebuAd, which pioneered it inside the United States."

cancel ×

256 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Won't someone please think of the children (5, Insightful)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039468)

Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year?

It's getting so old.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (5, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039520)

I think the government should no longer be able to tax me, to help combat child pornography and other serious crimes.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (5, Interesting)

ircmaxell (1117387) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039538)

Welcome to the world of politics...

Seriously though, what happens when you don't use the dns provider of the ISP (either running your own, or using a 3pd DNS provider)? Would that make anyone running their own DNS server (or an alternate third party) a suspicious person? They would only be able to log IP addresses then, and given the proliferation of mass shared hosts, how is this helpful? If a child porn site was on a godaddy server, and you go to another site on the same server, would you have to prove you went to the other site? More guilty until proven innocent...

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039606)

In that case you would need deep packet inspection to get the URL as the summary states. If you don't have that then I assume yes you would not be able to prove anything.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039734)

And what about https? Or would it be mandatory for ISP's to do man-in-the-middle attack so they can store the data?

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (3, Insightful)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039846)

"Won't Get Fooled Again"

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (2, Funny)

ShaunC (203807) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040092)

Funny Pete Townshend should come to mind when someone brings up CP.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (4, Insightful)

Philip K Dickhead (906971) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040214)

If child molestation is actually your concern, how come we don't see Bradley tanks knocking down Catholic churches?
~ Bill Hicks, 1993, referencing the Waco siege

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (3, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040090)

Deep packet inspection can be a very, very resource intensive thing. I seriously doubt that any such laws will be likely to require deep packet inspection. For one, it would put quite a few smaller ISPs out of business for good.

I have a feeling I know why the FBI wants this. It used to be that all the traffic passed through telco routers owned by Verizon and AT&T. Nowadays, most traffic is being handled by companies like Level3 or UUNet. They had it easy with the telcos, who always had a close relationship with government regulators. Businesses like Level 3, Google, etc., are far less likely to be cooperative.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (4, Informative)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040284)

"Businesses like Level 3, Google, etc., are far less likely to be cooperative.:

Wrong about google. Google has said that they don't need a subpoena, just a belief that the cops *could* get a subpoena, and they'll roll over on you.

And google has a LOT of data on you.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (4, Insightful)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039880)

Seriously though, what happens when you don't use the dns provider of the ISP (either running your own, or using a 3pd DNS provider)?

I'm using Google's open DNS, but the ISP could still figure out where I was going. Which means the FBI can track anyone who doesn't know how to use TOR. And I'm guessing one of those three letter agencies figured out a man-in-middle type attack for that. So I guess that means you'll have to do the really nasty surfing at McDonald's, Starbucks or some other unsecured wi-fi connection.

Whew, that was tough. I'm sure some of you could come up with even better alternatives. And to put people through that meager effort they're going to require your ISP to keep massive volumes of individually identifiable information for two years.

Time for the FBI to face up to the fact they're only going to catch the stupid ones.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (2, Insightful)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039646)

When the bread has gotten stale enough, the government will open up a new loaf. This decade and the last were child porn, the decades before were drugs, the decades before those were communism. Hitler was not a phenomenon. He just knew how to keep the loaf fresher than most governments do.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039836)

No, he just didn't get the chance for his loaf to go stale. He was in power for what? 12 years?

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31039870)

That gave me an idea for an album cover! This [wikipedia.org] [WARNING. Possibly NSFW: article includes an image of an album cover featuring a prepubescent girl, naked, in a vaguely suggestive pose.] isn't enough anymore. We need a picture of a naked child, drawn, not a photo of a real child, smoking pot, holding a stick of dynamite in one hand, and picture of Stalin in the other. The album title? How about "Censor This!"

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (2, Insightful)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039648)

The logs should be kept only for those willing to pay for it. This is an unrealistic legal requirement that the ISPs have the right to refuse.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (3, Funny)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039676)

That and terrorism. TERRORISM!!! What about TERRORPORN! Naked children with BOMBS! Won't someone please think of the photographs?

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31039978)

Won't someone please think of the photographs?

In the UK they are the terrorists.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/police_search_illegal/ [theregister.co.uk]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/11/police_quiz_itn_reporter/ [theregister.co.uk]
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/26/kent_police_tall_explanation/ [theregister.co.uk]

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (4, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039706)

No, but we're nowhere near the end of abuse of kiddie porn as a justification for invasion of privacy. I'm just waiting to see someone propose a law that requires children be photographed naked annually with the pictures stored in a national database so that they can more rapidly identify the victims of abuse. From a logical perspective, it's completely valid. From an ethical perspective, it's completely appalling.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31039740)

Because crying "kiddie porn" makes an easy kill. Ask any defense attorney and they'll advise accepting a plea. Parents on juries are not rational people, and the fact that your 'puter has a virus/trojan/IE that was used to hijack your system is irrelevant.

The elected prosecutor gets another campaign bullet for "protecting" kids from those bad computer users. We're so smart. Is it any wonder Asia is taking over?

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (2, Informative)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039850)

Don't kid yourself, Most of Asia (and by that I mean China) is just as quick to "think of the children" as America.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (5, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039742)

Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year?

Yes, because it works so well. Just try passing "The Invasion of Privacy Act of 2010" and you'll get laughed off the Senate floor. Present the exact same bill, only change the title to "Child Protection Against Predators Act of 2010" and it'll pass easily. If you can link your bill to child porn, then everyone who even dares to say a word against it is instantly labeled as a supporter of the sexual abuse of children. This is because whenever you say anything about child porn or child predators, the entire electorate completely loses the ability to think rationally and responds in a completely emotionally reactionary way. Emotionally reactionary people are extremely easy to manipulate.

It's sort of funny how so many people who decry the loss of civil liberties in the name of "socialism" will gladly give up their civil liberties in the name of "protecting children".

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040074)

'protecting the children' serves as an easy marker for locating incompetent politicians. Or, at least those interested in saving their ass when put against the wall. Public scrutiny is seldom known to contain rational thought, so going against any legislation that intends to 'protect the children', is a little bit like suicide, or Russian roulette.

Sadly, such legislation actually does nothing to stop 'child abuse', and environments where 'child pornography' are created. Legislating for 'child pornography' online, is merely after the fact. Much like most other crime legislation.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (1)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039890)

so old it has now come of age...

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (3, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040008)

The people downloading "kitty porn" for free are doing nothing to encourage the creation of more of it. Go after the money trail instead -- the people that deserve to go to jail are the people that are paying for it, and I don't believe tracing the flow of funds requires monitoring every single internet connection. Also, laws are publicly recorded -- as soon as you announce you're going to start doing this, anybody that knows they are breaking a law is just going to start encrypting their connections and going through anonymous proxies, meaning that this technology is only effective against people who don't think they are doing anything wrong!

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (-1, Troll)

bonch (38532) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040054)

Hey, now, don't forget "net neutrality." With ISPs required to keep logs on everybody, and the government regulating Internet traffic, we could finally live safely in a warez-free, threat-free environment. Thanks, big government.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040154)

That's OK, then they can use their other catch all excuse: terrorism.

Re:Won't someone please think of the children (3, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040240)

Seriously is child pornography going to be trotted out for EVERY encroachment on privacy that we have to endure year after year? No, not every encroachment. The wars on terrorism, drugs, and gangs, will be trotted out for many other encroachments. "Terrorism" is already used to restrict your right to anonymous travel. Fighting gangs was used as an excuse for random checkpoints in California. And drugs... will, approximately half the people in jail in the US are there on drug related charges -- trust me, being in jail is a HUGE encroachment on your privacy!

Think of the kids (2, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039482)

Claiming a desire to combat "child pornography and other serious crimes" the FBI and others are pushing for increased data retention, which they have been doing since as early as 2006.

ahh the old think of the kids line. It always works and people never have the guts to say that some things don't simply protect kids.

Horrible humor (4, Funny)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039726)

ahh the old think of the kids line. It always works and people never have the guts to say that some things don't simply protect kids.

Isn't that the problem with child pornography, that people are 'thinking of the kids'....?

Re:Horrible humor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040152)

Y'know, that Dakota Fanning rape scene [wikipedia.org] wasn't nearly as good as I'd imagined it...

Re:Think of the kids (3, Interesting)

ottothecow (600101) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039758)

The thing is...for how much they go after the child pornography viewers...is it really that much of a problem?

It is much more rare that I see stories about the actual pornographers being caught and while the viewers are certainly depraved (and you can argue that by consuming the child porn, they encourage those who make it), aren't the pornographers the ones we would rather catch? It wouldn't surprise me if the amount of children actually being forced into child porn is VERY small since the already existing library of images probably contains enough to keep the perverts trading for a long time.

If that is true...then this definitely is an excuse to encroach on peoples rights and use the old "think of the children" excuse because if this much effort was really being put in to catching so few potential criminals...it would be a huge waste compared to what those officers could be doing elsewhere.

Re:Think of the kids (4, Funny)

BarryJacobsen (526926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039920)

The thing is...for how much they go after the child pornography viewers...is it really that much of a problem?

It is much more rare that I see stories about the actual pornographers being caught and while the viewers are certainly depraved (and you can argue that by consuming the child porn, they encourage those who make it), aren't the pornographers the ones we would rather catch? It wouldn't surprise me if the amount of children actually being forced into child porn is VERY small since the already existing library of images probably contains enough to keep the perverts trading for a long time.

If that is true...then this definitely is an excuse to encroach on peoples rights and use the old "think of the children" excuse because if this much effort was really being put in to catching so few potential criminals...it would be a huge waste compared to what those officers could be doing elsewhere.

Agreed that the producers are much more of a problem. To that end, wouldn't a much better law be that all digital cameras have embedded 3g that transmits all taken images to the FBI directly?

Re:Think of the kids (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040142)

If you make film and developing supplies illegal, only criminals will have film and developing supplies.

Re:Think of the kids (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040316)

You'd also have to make every copy of Photoshop transmit every image created to the FBI -- remember, images of "The Simpsons" cartoon kids in sexual positions is ALSO considered "child pornography"!

Re:Think of the kids (1)

irondonkey (1137243) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040370)

Quit giving them ideas!

The problem is jurisdiction, smarts, and privacy (2, Interesting)

davidwr (791652) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040436)

1) It's easier to catch dumb people than smart ones. People who run anything larger than home-made porn are probably going out of their way not to be caught.

2) If the media is right, a large percentage of circulating child porn is produced outside the United
States. In some countries 16- or 17-year-olds can, or could until recently, be porn stars. Such pictures are illegal in America.

3) When someone is busted for "made at home" child porn, the media won't publish his name to protect the kids. They may even suppress the story or bury it as a blurb in another article.

The feds can do something about #1. As for #2, only international crackdowns will help here. As for #3, it's probably a good thing this doesn't make the papers.

Re:Think of the kids (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040168)

Yes I will think of the goats. Being exploited in so many ways.

Evidence Already? (5, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039498)

Will the FBI give us some evidence already that mandatory retained data has been essential to actually solving some significant fraction of crimes, or some convincing evidence that its lack is the only reason some significant fraction goes unsolved?

Without that evidence, their insistence on invading our privacy instead of protecting it as they're instructed by the Constitution that gives them their powers should just be laughed at.

Re:Evidence Already? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31039762)

The only evidence they need is the millions in tax dollars this will require, and the precedent this will set for the next expansion of power and revenue.

At the top of the power pyramid, as long as the money passes through your hands, you win.

Re:Evidence Already? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039824)

They can argue that keeping their methods secret increases their chances of catching criminals.

Its a beautiful world we live in where the FBI can ask for more power without having to prove that it won't be abused.

Re:Evidence Already? (4, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040022)

That isn't an argument. That's a contradiction.

That's why we have to demand evidence. The more we let the police have power without evidence, the more our police state abuses our rights instead of protecting them. A faithy police state is precisely what the Qaeda wants. And exactly the opposite of the government our Constitution creates.

Re:Evidence Already? (1)

epiphani (254981) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039872)

Fun thing is, the summary is wrong too.

Hostnames require DPI, thanks to http/1.1 - you can have (and do have) hosting companies out there with hundreds of thousands of hosts on a single IP address.

If they keep IP addresses or hostnames only, your likely to get lumped into all kinds of bad searches.

Re:Evidence Already? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040444)

Hmmm, let's take a look at this.
In the 1920s Al Capone was, in every way imaginable, the top criminal in the mid-western United States. It is reasonable to say that Mr. Capone's activities and businesses were responsible for, or at least connected to, over 50% of the crime in the mid-western states in the last half of that decade. The FBI at that time was a weak organization compared to the powers the organization wields these days. Still the FBI was powerful and it was backed by the full goodwill and monies of the government of the U.S. But with all of the crimes Mr. Capone and his organizations and businesses, partners and friends and acquaintances, all across the mid-west were involved in what did the FBI finally jail him for?
Tax evasion.
Now let's apply this lesson to today's FBI. What are they really looking for on the web? Tax fraud? Money laundering? Interstate liquor transport? What one law can these agents convict someone of with absolutely no chance that a jury will fail to convict based on even nominal evidence?
Child Pornography.
And what better crime to punish. Currently people convicted of even looking at child porn are branded as sex offenders and are required to register with local law enforcement whenever they move. The FBI then gets to keep track of these guys forever and not pay a dime for it. Want to know where criminal 12345 is? Check the sex offender DB or just call the local PD. They are required to know. And it gets worse every day. And even better, you can convict someone of looking at child porn even if the person in the pictures is eighty years old as long as they were under eighteen when the photo was snapped. And they want to extend it to cartoons, computer graphics, and written stories. All child porn.
Don't kid yourself. child porn is a big thing for the FBI -- just not for the reasons you think.

For God's sake.. (0, Redundant)

CohibaVancouver (864662) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039528)

Think of the *children*!

Re:For God's sake.. (2, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040172)

If we could just get some people to stop thinking of the children, there wouldn't be so much child porn in the first place!

Skewed rulings (2, Interesting)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039536)

Why only require it here? Why not make the local hot dog stand on the street keep records of who bought their food for the last two years? Because it's inconvenient and it's not effective. If laws are put in place to do this, then people will find a way around it. Any form of p2p transfer will easily let people gain access to those images without touching the loggers. Criminals are smart, stop treating them as fools and punishing the common masses because of it.

Re:Skewed rulings (1)

mmee9421 (1724156) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039874)

Reading through your view, its kinda funny but also kinda true. Keep logs of everything which we are doing already anyway which includes local hot stands keeping logs- coming near you soon. I think everyone already knows that even your footprints or so called DNA can be traced online. If you are using the system for anything dodgy, then you should and will be caught its only a matter of time ticking. So let cut this crap and let those that govern do their work as it so fits else there will be lawlessness in traffics. Except for those that always keep refining their tools and adhering to new sources.. then i got no comment on that.

TOR (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039546)

TOR is your friend. Run a tor exit node (and unsecured wifi) to provide plausibly deniability and help others keep their privacy.

Re:TOR (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039750)

Also, you get to have your front door replaced when the police smash their way into your house at 3 o'clock in the morning, trash your whole house looking for hard drives and DVDs, and arrest you in front of your wife and kids and hold you in the local police cells, before asking you loads of stupid questions about which sites "you" visited. Sure, some people are up for that. Are you? After all, it will "help others keep their privacy".

Re:TOR (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039922)

So run the server in another state in colo run the server there, and proxy all of your traffic through it.

Thats what I do...well partially. I am not actually paranoid enough to proxy all my traffic through it, and I mostly run a tor node because I get 600 GB/transfer included in my agreement and I, personally, use about 2 GB of it.... may as well put it to good use eh?

-Steve

Re:TOR (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31039984)

Said police better have a warrant, or I'll kill lots of them.

Re:TOR (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040292)

Plausible deniability only works for the rich and powerful.

For the common man it is just yet another reason that they can get a warrant. They will find something to hang you with if they want to, even if they have to plant it themselves.

How many PB? (2, Interesting)

InvisibleSoul (882722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039548)

Two years worth of logs for every single page visit for every single user? The ISPs, especially the larger ones, are going to need some serious storage arrays for that.

Re:How many PB? (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039774)

Even better when people start using a program that for example does random searches on Google and does a request to every search result.

Re:How many PB? (2, Informative)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039928)

Even better when people start using a program that for example does random searches on Google and does a request to every search result.

What if one of those results happens to be an illegal Web page? Maybe you should call this program the Auto-Incriminator.

Chaff traffic may defeat human observers, but I doubt grep will bat an eye. And your ISP will pass the costs of tracking your chaff traffic on to you.

Re:How many PB? (1)

dropadrop (1057046) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040194)

Not just the ISP's. My employers main product has over 1 1/2 billion page impressions a month, needless to say we don't store (most) logs related to them for very long...

This just in: (5, Insightful)

honestmonkey (819408) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039558)

All stores and restaurants will have to keep logs of every customer that comes in, whether they buy anything or not, including full video of them while they were in the store. Microphones must be set up at every table in the restaurant to record all dinner conversation. All of this data must be kept for ever and a day, and available to anyone who appears to be in law enforcement. Why is real life any different than the web?

Re:This just in: (1)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039640)

yeah I mean, some people could have been discussing what kids they molested recently over dinner.

It would be unconscionable to miss this valuable peace of information in bringing them to justice.

Re:This just in: (1)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040076)

Combine GPS with Google Maps (which includes details of millions of businesses) along with back-doors built into most, if not practically all, cell phones and the government can practically do this now on a selective basis.

And it's quite conceivable, that in such a situation, the government could utilize all cell phones in the near vicinity to eavesdrop too, so even if the target's phone was not responding / not picking up all the conversation / image detail, one or more other cell phones nearby possibly could.

Ron

dns? (1)

zerointeger (1587877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039596)

Why not just have the root DNS and sub DNS servers offload their requests? That way you can pick up the schemers [wikipedia.org] Oh wait... DNSSEC was invented

Lollipop, Lollipop (3, Funny)

adipocere (201135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039616)

We should log lollipop purchases, so we can crack down on those guys in big white vans with FREE CANDY on the side.

Re:Lollipop, Lollipop (2, Funny)

CTalkobt (81900) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039996)

We should log lollipop purchases, so we can crack down on those guys in big white vans with FREE CANDY on the side.

You mean the white vans that have been following me with those guys in white coats actually pass out lollipops?

And here I thought it was because they were out to get me...

Re:Lollipop, Lollipop (2, Insightful)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040364)

Or, you could require all windowless vans to be registered with the state -- oh wait, they already are! And it's not much help in tracking down predators due to the SHEER VOLUME OF DATA one must go through... anybody expect tracking all internet access to actually be useful, given it generates several orders of magnitude more data?

Re:Lollipop, Lollipop (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040468)

We should log lollipop purchases, so we can crack down on those guys in big white vans with FREE CANDY on the side.

Why? They haven't arrested Santa Claus, and we KNOW how perverted he is

  1. Santa Clause haunts the shopping mall trying to get little kids to sit on his lap;
  2. Santa Clause promises them all sorts of fun stuff;
  3. Santa Clause says he's going to sneak in when everyone's asleep;
  4. Santa Clause dresses funny;
  5. Santa Clause's first name is an anagram for SATAN!
  6. Santa Clause's full name is an anagram for USE ANAL ACTS!!!

What more evidence do you need?

Before someone says it (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31039620)

This goes beyond the data retention laws in the EU, and even those are under a lot of public pressure and currently being looked at by the highest courts. What you'll see is that your guys will back down from requiring access logs and make ISPs "just" keep a log of the IPs of their customers for two years, like the EU requires, and they'll call it a compromise.

Why torment the internet?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31039638)

After ready the revised law on chaild porography (being an artist and photographer, makes me nervous) why are programs like Southpark, The Simpsons, Sailor Moon, some of the teen programming on Disney, etc still on television?? If they want to arrest someone for these crimes, seems like a good place to start.

Children unfortunatly have nothing to do with this. There are still members of Congress still trying to get the age of consent down to 6 years of age.

If you have not read the revised law yet, please do. A school kid drawing a stickperson 'inappropriately' can now be labeled a sex offender.

This is absolutely rediculous!

Re:Why torment the internet?? (2, Funny)

z-j-y (1056250) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039812)

You left out "Family Guy". That show is child+animal+incest+homo porno. But obviously Americans love it.

somehow i just don't believe this statement ... (4, Insightful)

neonprimetime (528653) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039660)

If logs of Web sites visited began to be kept, they would be available only to local, state, and federal police with legal authorization such as a subpoena or search warrant

Re:somehow i just don't believe this statement ... (2, Insightful)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039912)

What you quoted was not quoted nor cited in the article, just printed - it has no value other than being the opinion and/or understanding of the author of the article.

If the Feds can request phone records using a Post-It note, and web sites continue to say "we will hand over your data to the Feds in the course of investigating a crime", you can bet there will be serious problems *even if they stick to the letter of what you quoted*.

Feds can ask for anything they want, they just can't demand it. Service providers can turn over data voluntarily if their "privacy policy" says they will.

This is nothing but a civil rights abuser asking for more ways to abuse its citizens.

Re:somehow i just don't believe this statement ... (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039988)

Yeah, I mean it's not like they'd invent some special subpoena [wikipedia.org] that doesn't require any sort of judicial oversight.

Re:somehow i just don't believe this statement ... (2, Insightful)

Eldred (693612) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040332)

Last I saw, the FBI was abusing their power, and breaking the law, in retrieving phone records without a warrant. This according to their own internal investigation http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/18/AR2010011803982_pf.html [washingtonpost.com] . Do we really believe they will show respect for privacy and the law in this case?

Deep pocket inspection. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31039662)

I, for one, am against deep pocket inspection.
What I keep in my pockets is my own damn business.

This will be a good idea (5, Insightful)

florescent_beige (608235) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039664)

until someone offers $100,000 to a $15/hr tech to give them two years of Senator X's browsing records. After that, it will have "served its purpose" and will "no longer be in the public's interest".

Re:This will be a good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31039736)

Are you kidding? If this ever does get passed, you can bet your britches that there'll be a neat little clause tucked in somewhere exempting all members of Congress from cyber-surveillance.

got some drives? (1)

unix_geek_512 (810627) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039670)

Send me some drives and I'll be happy to retain my logs for 2 years ;)

You'll have to buy up all the drives on the market in the process.

there is not enough storage in America for this. (3, Insightful)

swschrad (312009) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039748)

and in the event somehow that the devil intervenes to allow this to come true, the feds should pay to store the data. pay the upfront money to build the servers and the additional air conditioning and power, pay the maintenance money to hire techs and buy tape and repair the machines and run a 24x7 watch on the center. and pay all legal, recovery, and processing fees for every single request.

Re:there is not enough storage in America for this (1)

atommota (1024887) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040086)

unfortunately they would have no problem with that when you realize that 'feds should pay' mean they are spending taxpayer's money on it.

Re:there is not enough storage in America for this (1)

Trerro (711448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040144)

This is another good point. I guarantee you if this passes, the ISPs are going to pass on the rather significant bill to do this to their customers. They really can't stay in the business otherwise.

Re:there is not enough storage in America for this (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040184)

And then they can just levy a "datacenter" tax to cover the price!

Re:there is not enough storage in America for this (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040344)

If only that would punish the feds and not the people whose wallets that money comes from....

Just ask Google for their Logs (1)

Alanonfire (1415379) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039772)

The Googlebots have already crawled this post.

Not going to happen anytime soon (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31039780)

As someone that works in the Adult hosting industry, this is going to be poorly received. A lot of our clients are already hurting for money and as such have scaled back their server footprint. We're pushing servers (disk IO) a lot harder than before -- one easy solution we have is to just disable access logs. Writing 1GB+ of log data per hour swamps disks and just adds huge amounts of overhead. Since these logs are of clients browsing through porn ... it'll cost a decent amount of money to actually be able to start logging again AND to store raw log data for two years.

Re:Not going to happen anytime soon (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040336)

The hosting industry would just go somewhere else, and leave the bill to all the ISPs whose meatbag customers can't emigrate as easily.

One of the best ways to hide what you have (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31039792)

Is to scream that you need that capability knowing that you will not get it LEGALLY or out in the open. How many of you really think that FBI does not have that data now, or since US PATRIOT act passed?

Re:One of the best ways to hide what you have (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039986)

The funny thing is, the post right before yours answers this...and the answer is no, they don't have it now:

A lot of our clients are already hurting for money and as such have scaled back their server footprint. We're pushing servers (disk IO) a lot harder than before -- one easy solution we have is to just disable access logs. Writing 1GB+ of log data per hour swamps disks and just adds huge amounts of overhead.

I can think of some other services that I know of with similar issues. I know of one AD domain, for example, where the access logs pile in so fast, that they have to rotate them every 10 minutes or so. (which made ldap troubleshooting a bitch, let me tell you)

-Steve

Good luck if they are not in the US (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039820)

and if they do that I would only expect US based hosts to suffer.

Deep Packet Inspection for URL Not Required... (2, Interesting)

Ron Bennett (14590) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039854)

Deep packet inspection for URL not required, in theory, if the U.S. government mandates both ISPs *and* websites to maintain logs.

That may be how they'll rope websites, and other types of internet services for that matter, into complying with log retention.

Another route, though I've never seen it mentioned in context to log retention laws, is to require web browsers to log the information in tamper-resistant (think DRM) hidden files. MSIE, in a matter of speaking, already does with index.dat files (some suggest their real purpose is, in large part, to help law enforcement), which the regular computer user has no clue of, let alone know how to get rid of, since Windows makes it difficult to delete them.

Ron

Re:Deep Packet Inspection for URL Not Required... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040102)

Deep packet inspection for URL not required, in theory, if the U.S. government mandates both ISPs *and* websites to maintain logs. Somehow, I suspect that the websites actually serving up child pornography might have a problem complying with mandatory record retention laws...

Monitoring is good (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31039878)

I have an even better idea. Let's have all law enforcement officials be required to wear audio and video recording equipment at all times, which are available for all citizens to watch. They do work for us, after all, and I think this would help curb police brutality. I know that most officers are good people, but there are a few bad apples, so we can't be too vigilant.

Host names (3, Informative)

unix1 (1667411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31039924)

Host names cannot be logged without packet inspection unless they assume that a corresponding request against the ISP's DNS services constitutes to "visiting" the resolved host name. You are also free to use DNS servers of your choice that are different from your ISP's. You can run your own DNS server too.

When a client "visits" a URI it:

1. resolves the host name to IP address via a DNS service
2. makes a connection to the said IP address
3. if connection uses SSL, proceeds with the "handshake"
4. sends host name, URI, and other request info via the above connection

ISPs can log #2, but cannot log #4 without packet inspection. It's even more complicated if the connection is encrypted (e.g. https).

The 4th ammendment weeps. (4, Insightful)

Trerro (711448) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040134)

The 4th amendment is supposed to require a warrant to BEGIN surveillance. The law doesn't say "they can tap your phones and record all of your conversations, but they can't actually listen to them until a warrant is issued against you." No, they can't tap until they have the warrant.

This shouldn't be any different.

Then again, we all know the results of the last large-scale warrantless wiretapping incident (no one was punished, and it's likely still occurring), so I guess it is, in fact, not any different.

Other serious crimes--- (3, Insightful)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040204)

like destroying the meaning of privacy for all the users of internet?

"the Internet protocol (IP) address" (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040206)

the Internet protocol (IP) address

Really? Explaining what “IP address” means? Are Cnet reader really that stupid?
Every child knows what that is. Hell, even my grandma knows it from crossword puzzles.

I call “intentional dumbing down of humanity” on that one.

Re:"the Internet protocol (IP) address" (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040362)

It's called dumbening.

Dear F.B.I. By Clicking This Link For Log Info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040210)

you authorize the payment of Euro 100,000,000 to the bank account of Kilgore Trout.

The info for traffic logs can be obtained directly from
the N.S.A. subsidiary Google [slashdot.org]
for all traffic logs. While your dredging for my traffic logs,
would you kindly publish ALL of the e-mail of the world's largest crime syndicate ( BushCo )?

Thanks in advance.

Yours In Astrakhan
KIlgore Trout [youtube.com]

 

Server logs? (1)

ylikone (589264) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040250)

That's what /dev/null is for.

Just make it permanent (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040308)

That way what you do today that is completely legal, can be used against you in 10 years when it isn't legal. Oh, and add location services, based on cell phone records, credit card purchases ( must ban cash ) street corner cameras, etc.

Stop the bus, i want off.

Don't you need to log the data as well? (1)

joeflies (529536) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040318)

What good is it to log a URL without logging what data was at the URL at that point in time. The content at a URL can change dynamically, so it doesn't matter what the URL says unless you actually know what data was actually retrieved at that point in time.

Protect yourself (1)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | more than 4 years ago | (#31040320)

ipredator [ipredator.se]

Use offshore VPN for everything. Because what you're doing today may be frowned upon tomorrow. Or maybe you like reading extremist blogs for the lolz and you apply for a job that needs an FBI background check. Wow, this guy sure likes militias.

The minute this becomes law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31040408)

Is the minute I find some company with no U.S. presence that will provide me with a VPN. Then simply configure my router appropriately. All the ISP can log is a bunch of encrypted traffic to the VPN provider.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>