Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

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

Posted by kdawson on Fri Feb 20, 2009 08:44 AM
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].'"
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Good Joke (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spazztastic (814296) <spazztastic@gmail. c o m> on Friday February 20 2009, @08:46AM (#26928015) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Golias (176380) on Friday February 20 2009, @09:24AM (#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.

    • Re:Good Joke (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Joce640k (829181) on Friday February 20 2009, @09:36AM (#26928765) Homepage

      Did anybody point out that text files are easy to edit? Lines can be altered, removed or even added to them!

      • Re:Good Joke (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Spazztastic (814296) <spazztastic@gmail. c o m> on Friday February 20 2009, @09:37AM (#26928807) Homepage

        Did anybody point out that text files are easy to edit? Lines can be altered, removed or even added to them!

        Not only that, unless if they are continually pushed to a secure location you could alter them the second that you receive a notice from law enforcement to provide them with logs. They wouldn't know any better if it's authentic or not.

      • Re:Good Joke (Score:5, Insightful)

        by cbiltcliffe (186293) on Friday February 20 2009, @10:04AM (#26929303) Homepage Journal

        No kidding. So the average home user now is required to set up a Syslog server on their computer and keep it running 24/7, or turn off their WAP when not using it.

        But if you turn it off, they'll probably bitch about the missing sections in the logs, that have "obviously been deleted" to cover up illegal activities. Then they'll make an example of you.

        To summarize the summary of the summary: People are a problem.

        • Re:Good Joke (Score:5, Insightful)

          by powerlord (28156) on Friday February 20 2009, @11:57AM (#26931123) Journal

          The key here is that Democrats have wanted this too. Neither party is the party of civil liberties.

          Perhaps we should have another party devoted to things like preserving an individuals Liberties.

          Maybe we can call them Libertarians or something.

          Too bad there isn't such a party for people to support.

  • Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jaeson (563206) on Friday February 20 2009, @08:47AM (#26928023) Homepage

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

    • by aadvancedGIR (959466) on Friday February 20 2009, @08:59AM (#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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bwcbwc (601780) on Friday February 20 2009, @09:33AM (#26928715)
      Exactly. So in effect this just becomes an excuse to hold just about anyone in jail while they search through your house for porn or whatever. As a home user, I would argue that I'm not providing a service, so I'm not subject to the requirement. If I were a small-business owner I'd be screaming at congress to get a life.
  • Stimulus Storage? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by certain death (947081) on Friday February 20 2009, @08:48AM (#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... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jellomizer (103300) on Friday February 20 2009, @08:48AM (#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.

    • Re:Yea... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by elrous0 (869638) * on Friday February 20 2009, @09:05AM (#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... (Score:5, Funny)

        by paganizer (566360) <thegrove1.hotmail@com> on Friday February 20 2009, @09:26AM (#26928599) Homepage Journal

        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... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Friday February 20 2009, @09:27AM (#26928619) Homepage Journal

        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... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by bwcbwc (601780) on Friday February 20 2009, @09:38AM (#26928811)

        that's what happened to the MIT girl at Logan airport. Instead of admitting they had f-ed up, they charged her with bringing a hoax bomb into the airport. A lot of home routers don't have the capacity to hold 2 years worth of data and don't have the capabillity to offload old log files to another machine, unless you violate the DMCA to hack into the file system.

        That brings up another aspect: is this really an anti-terrorism/hacking law or is it really just an RIAA/MPAA tool to give them the info they need to sue the pants off of people?

  • by tjstork (137384) <tbandrowsky@might y w a re.com> on Friday February 20 2009, @08:51AM (#26928071) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • naturally... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 20 2009, @08:52AM (#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... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jellomizer (103300) on Friday February 20 2009, @08:56AM (#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... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by VShael (62735) on Friday February 20 2009, @08:58AM (#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.

  • by Gothmolly (148874) on Friday February 20 2009, @08:52AM (#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!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 20 2009, @08:52AM (#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...

  • by VShael (62735) on Friday February 20 2009, @08:54AM (#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?

  • by Chaoscrypt (1476283) on Friday February 20 2009, @08:54AM (#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.

  • by PeeAitchPee (712652) on Friday February 20 2009, @08:58AM (#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?

      • by zarkill (1100367) on Friday February 20 2009, @09:18AM (#26928459) Homepage

        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.

        • The Libertarian party supports some principles that, broadly speaking, Americans believe in. More or less, these are classical liberal principles, in the mold of Thomas Jefferson. However, few people support their particular hardline interpretation, which tends to emphasize the anarcho-capitalist aspects, play down Jeffersonian elements that don't fit into that (e.g. Jefferson's view that governments should restrict the power of large corporations), and make few exceptions for any reason. Abolishing free public education, for example, is not a popular position. Neither is privatizing the road system. Some for of social safety nets are also popular---people don't want them abused (e.g. the stereotypical "welfare queens"), but neither do they want them to be totally absent. People also want regulation of private enterprise when its activities can cause negative externalities, such as systemic risks to economies (like banks, where further deregulation, the Libertarian position, is currently extremely unpopular). I could go on for a while.

          Now if someone started a political party with positions more similar to those of the editorial line of The Economist newsmagazine, I could see voting for them. That is, support free-market economies with regulation and/or costing of negative externalities (pollution, systemic risks, etc.), a moderate social safety net, and liberal positions on social and civil liberties issues.

  • Tit for Tat (Score:5, Interesting)

    by GrantRobertson (973370) <GrantSR.gmail@com> on Friday February 20 2009, @09:41AM (#26928875) Homepage Journal
    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.
    • by lucifig (255388) on Friday February 20 2009, @08:47AM (#26928025)

      Yeah, because jail is fun.

      • by jetsci (1470207) on Friday February 20 2009, @08:59AM (#26928185) Homepage Journal
        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.
      • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Friday February 20 2009, @09:02AM (#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.

        • by Silicon Jedi (878120) on Friday February 20 2009, @09:09AM (#26928341)
          Remember that post about geeks thinking they are lawyers?
          • by BrokenHalo (565198) on Friday February 20 2009, @09:46AM (#26928927)
            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.
            • by somethingwicked (260651) on Friday February 20 2009, @10:02AM (#26929269)

              Yeah, the buggies the Amish use don't have headlights. The govt makes them put reflectors on their buggies, that the Amish hate.

              I can assure you, if this goes into effect (And just to be clear, I hate this idea), you won't get away with "My equipment is not capable of meeting your requirements"

            • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Friday February 20 2009, @10:17AM (#26929505)

              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

              • by icannotthinkofaname (1480543) on Friday February 20 2009, @09:56AM (#26929135) Journal

                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 /.?

                • by BarryJacobsen (526926) on Friday February 20 2009, @10:46AM (#26929953) Homepage

                  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 /.?

                  I'd do something about it sooner, but there's a waiting period on purchasing firearms! A well-armed populace is the best defense against tyranny!

          • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Friday February 20 2009, @10:06AM (#26929329)

            I disagree. It has been well-known since the start that liberty is not free. Thomas Jefferson said the people must, from time to time, revolt and shed blood. (Or spend time in jail.) People must be willing to stand-up for their freedom, not just buckle under, and if that means spending a little time in jail because you refuse to comply with an unconstitutional law, so be it.

            And to answer your other question, I don't keep logs and never will.
            Fuck them.