Bill Would Require ISPs, Wi-Fi Users To Keep Logs 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].'"
Good Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
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, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, then introduce the term as Media Access Control address, or even refrain from ever using the TLA.
I would explain it like something like this:
"In addition, the only information that can be logged is the Media Access Control address, an address that each computer network card is assigned. However, the Media Access Control address can very easily be forged, with no proof of such forgery ever taking place, making such logs useless for tracking down a criminal, or possibly even incriminating an innocent pers
Find Your Senators and Reps here - (Score:4, Informative)
1. Follow the links
2. Cut and paste the above post
3. Slap your name on it
4. ??
5. Profit! We as a nation will profit from having one less retarded bill rammed through.
Re:Good Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
And somewhere in the background, you can hear the Trusted Computing machine starting up...
Re:Good Joke (Score:5, Funny)
And somewhere in the background, you can hear the Trusted Computing machine starting up...
Thank god it's running windows - we've still got a while before it finishes booting!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Law or no law, if my router doesn't capture it I am not capturing it. I don't know how to do it, nor will I pay someone to do it.
Actually, I'd sorta like to know how to do this. We've had a couple of wifi gadgets in our house, and none seems to have any (documented) way to collect such data. Right now we have an Apple Airport. I've asked around a bit, googled, etc, but I haven't found any way to make it tell any of our computers who's connected or how much data they're sending. I'd like to be able to mo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
To correct your summary:
People who keep reelecting incumbents who legislate nanny-state laws are the problem.
Re:Good Joke (Score:5, Funny)
If your backups "just happen" to get microwaved or otherwise destroyed, you'll quite likely be getting charged with destruction of evidence.
I'm sorry, could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over the sound of my degausser warming up.
Re:Good Joke (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, because both democrats and republicans happen to agree that logging is needed.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While superficially I agree with you, I'm still intend on writing my Rep and Senators and plan to include points made by this article. Who knows, it could be a Democrat proposing such a thing next time.
Re:Good Joke (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good Joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps we should have another party devoted to things like preserving an individuals Liberties.
And maybe when we do it this time, we could make a party that's interested in personal liberties without having a hard-on for economic policy that would return us all to Social Darwinism and the Guilded Age.
Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Home users are really gonna do this. Oh and they will all patch their machines too.
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Funny)
That's the very idea, they will never tell you do do it or how they expect your logs to be autenticated, so everyone will be on the wrong side of the law and the days some cops will be pissed that he didn't find any weapon, drug or libertarian literature while reading your house, that will be one more of the many reasons he could arrest you anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this modded "+5 Funny"? It should be "+5 Insightful".
People are already breaking one law or another. Let's see, the most common laws I see being broken without a thought:
- Speeding
- copyright infringement on the internet
- jay walking
- marijuana use
- (NEW)average user with a wireless network, unsecured or secured.
We're all criminals.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Funny)
For starters, don't post anywhere on this article.
-
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You see, that applies in criminal cases but not civil, and not in all situations at all.
If you allow them to step in your house at all, they can basically arrest you for anything they want at that point AND take you to court for anything they find.
This is completely legal, and for valid and legitimate reasons too. so don't think they're going to just let that go.
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
"Probable cause" is a lot more flexible than you might think.
>"...they heard a scream inside"
Better watch your TV with headphones then.
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Funny)
He means the Constitution.
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Interesting)
You jest, but the PA State website says one of the signs of domestic terrorists is a copy of the Constitution, or quotes of the Founders.
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of states' Domestic Terrorism websites say that -- it was part of a package deal or something given out by the DHS, story broke about a year or two ago.
You know, we act facetious on here when we joke about "freedom and liberty is dead" and all that, but the fact remains that we're living in a very scary place when "quoting the Constitution" is considered grounds for suspicion of being a terrorist...
Re:Yeah right (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, we act facetious on here when we joke about "freedom and liberty is dead" and all that, but the fact remains that we're living in a very scary place when "quoting the Constitution" is considered grounds for suspicion of being a terrorist...
Well, it sounds pretty terrible until you consider that fetishized worship of the Constitution (or more accurately some very out-there interpretations of it) is a HUGE part of the right-wing subculture that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols belonged to and the one Eric Rudolph belonged to. There's a difference between having a lot of respect for the Constitution and basically treating it like you would a religious document for a cult.
Remember, the survivalist / gun show / militia crowd is the only fanatical US-native subculture that has pulled off a major act of mass murder in the states. There came a point in McVeigh's life where he believed so strongly in his interpretation of the Constitution and so strongly in how wrong the government was that he killed or injured nearly a 1000 people. I mean, geez, I really hate to support what they're saying about people who gather quotes from the the founders and refer to the Constitution a lot, but it's not like they're wrong about some of the most dangerous forms of domestic terrorists.
Re:Yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pornography is not illegal according to the U.S. supreme court, unless the participant can be verified to be under 18.
Nudity is not illegal regardless of age, again according to the U.S. S.C. which is why nude photos of children are sold in public stores.
I have nothing to hide or fear.
Stimulus Storage? (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Yea... (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people don't know how to turn on WEP or WPA encryption on their wireless routers let along find how to turn on logging and setting a backup routine to keep years of data. Heck most people/governments/companies cant keep years of data on their own PC.
I wonder how many of these lawmakers are in compliance of this purposed law.
Re:Yea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yea... (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yea... (Score:5, Funny)
Hi.
Re:Yea... (Score:5, Insightful)
The first rule of a police state is that EVERYONE is breaking the law.
As tedious as it is, Atlas Shrugged has something to teach us. Don't bother to read the book though, all you need to know is in the following quote [wordpress.com]:
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:4, Insightful)
The worst thing about this in the real world is that I just don't think that the bad intentions that your quote implies are actually there for the most part. Most of these legislators are just seeking solutions to the problems that exist in society at the command of their constituents (voters and special interests).
These constituents are the people who get upset about having a national biometric database for identification purposes, but demand nationalized health care.
Sure, we don't have a National Database(tm) in some government building, but they do have to have to have access to all of your medical records in order to deal with your claims. In the end, the result is the same: the government has your biometric data, but they can't even really be efficient about it, because of your rights. That situation won't stop the abuses, but it will impede the system it is there to support.
To put it more briefly, many of the very things that we protest about in terms of individual freedoms being lost are things that we'll be more than happy to trade for the government running some service for us or protecting us from every possible threat.
You know, people constantly point to corporations running the local store, the local police and various other services as a corrupt practice. But what about when the government runs everything... because we demanded that they do by demanding more and more laws and programs? They have a monopoly on force, and you get everything from them. That would be bad enough if the government was actually responsive to the citizenry, but we all know that the government is run by the people who can stick their faces in front of the legislators and executives enough.
So, I have very little patience with people who get upset with the government for getting in their faces about stuff like this, but at the same time demand their safety nets and stimulus packages. The consistent message that we are sending the government these days is "fix our problems for us".
The only solution to the issue is not more laws, but fewer and clearer laws. Fewer programs and less expecting of people like Congress and the President to "create jobs" or "protect our children". The government should not become an omnipresent service organization.
Re:Yea... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
This is almost an ipv6 mandate. (Score:5, Interesting)
The unintended consequence of this is that every user on a system is going to get a fixed ipv6 ip and ipv4 traffic would be gradually phased out. Why bother with the administrative burden of issuing an IP address via dhcp and tracking it, when, you could have an ipv6 theoretically assigned to a customer for the life of a device.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
naturally... (Score:5, Insightful)
they just *had* to get the children involved in this somehow.. the full title of the legislation is:
Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act
Re:naturally... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can we pass a law that prevents lawmakers from coming up with bills that have contrived acronyms in them?
Sure! We'll call it "The No Acronym Memes in Bipartisan Legislation Act"
Or Nambla.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:naturally... (Score:4, Insightful)
Today's children are tomorrow's adults. If we create a police state where everyone is a criminal, then we have ruined our children's lives and done a poor job as parents.
Infinite storage (Score:5, Funny)
I discovered that if I log my wifi router to /dev/null, it works really fast and never seems to fill up, how excellent!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If they ever request logs from you, just give them a printout of /dev/urandom and call it a day!
Here's my log (Score:5, Funny)
Rorschach's log, Feb 20th, 1985
8:50 AM:
Internet connection activated by the scum of this city. Repugnant person scouring 4chan. May be a furry. Must investigate.
9:27 AM:
Wifi user connected to Google Docs. Probably writing communist pamphlet. His web document is shouting to Google's server "save me." I pull internet connection and icmp back "no".
9:45 AM:
Somebody killed one of my servers tonight. Server logs say "slashdot". Might be planning something big.
etc...
If the average AOL "me too" type user (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Next thing the gov't could do is to set up a centralized syslog server. Then they'd announce something like, "Well, if you can't keep logs for 2 years, just enter 'syslog.gov' into the syslog portion on your routers. Sure, we might see a few 'extra' unnecessary pieces of log files, but we PROMISE to ignore them." OR better yet, REQUIRE (by default), that router manufacturers include it by default in their firmwares.
Sounds like the US is already turning into more and more of a police state every time I hear
Just how much use is..... (Score:5, Insightful)
10.10.10.10 Assigned to 01:23:45:67:89:01 20090220135000
Going to be when the 1st bit is a setting made by me and the MAC address is easily Spoofable.
What next - everyone must register the MAC addresses of all their network kit and sanctions if you change it ?
More idiocy from people that dont understand how stuff works.
Not a partisan issue (Score:5, Insightful)
The Republicans want this "in the interest of national security" so they can stop the terr-rists.
The Democrats want this so they can save the children from all of that evil kiddie porn, and also so the **AA can better control the media you consume, kill P2P and net neutrality, and bill you for it appropriately.
They both want stuff like this so they can control the citizens better.
Where's the party who doesn't want any of this shit and thinks the government has much, much more important stuff on its plate right now?
Re:Not a partisan issue (Score:4, Funny)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
Legitimate question: why is the Libertarian party so marginalized in America? Their platform basically represents everything that most Americans will claim to believe in, so why do they have so little support? Is it them? Are they just bad at marketing themselves to the American Public? Are they so idealistic as to be completely impractical? Is it that Americans are actually pretty hypocritical? They say they love freedom and liberty, but then when they realize how much responsibility it takes they say to the government "ew, you take care of everything".
If it's the case that the Libertarian Party is essentially too uncompromising on ideals in order to function in the real world, isn't there a middle ground somewhere? Some party that says "yes, we really do love liberty, and we recognize that it requires responsibility, but here are some concessions that we recognize must be made for the real world". Who is that party? Is that kind of thinking what gets us Democrats and Republicans?
I've just never understood why "Libertarian" has become such a joke of a thing to be, when it essentially encompasses everything that Americans are "supposed" to cherish.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree.
During the last presidential election, I had to actively seek out TV programs where the libertarian candidate got a chance to speak, whereas I was constantly bombarded by "barack obama this" and "john mccain that".
I think the controlled media has more to do with it than anything else. Just look at how much tv time ron paul received in comparison to the millions of people who were supporting his campaign.
Libertarians were compromised (Score:4, Interesting)
they self destructed. The problem is that the news media takes great joy in showing us the pot smoking side of the party and the anti-war wing looked straight out of the sixties.
That and much of what they propose is totally against the entitlement state we have now the press has to go find the kooks and make America believe that Libertarian stands for "white selfish racist pig"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The government's job is about maintaining and growing power over the citizens.
A party opposed to that (in theory) is not going to be welcome at the table, so they have to be removed. You can't do that by convincing citizens that more power over them is better than less power over them, so you have to do what any weak organization does which is start lying about the other guy.
The reason they are margenalized is because of propoganda, which tries to constantly equate libertarians as either people hiding in t
Re:Not a partisan issue (Score:4, Insightful)
why is the Libertarian party so marginalized in America?
Maybe because they hold a lot of beliefs that mainstream americans don't identify with? Like say privatizing nearly everything, including roads, the fire department, the police department, etc?
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.
I don't know about you.. but I don't cherish salmonella in my peanut butter, Melamine in my milk, lead in my kids toys, arsenic in my shrimp, or salmonella in my peppers. Blind faith in the "free market" and "small goverment" is one thing Libertarians have been screaming their heads off for years. So far that seems to have gotten us poison in our food supply, the mortgage crisis, and blackouts in California.
Don't get me wrong.. This bill is idiotic and won't accomplish anything but pain. But simply going to the other extreme and saying "government control is bad bad bad!" is just as idiotic. How about we agree that "bad government control is bad", and then just fight about what "bad" is rather than treating control or no control as absolutes?
precisely because most Americans don't agree (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:precisely because most Americans don't agree (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
I guess that's the sort of thing I'm looking for. I just wonder why nothing has yet filled that need, if the Libertarian party has diverted so far from that completely reasonable path. If the answer is "no one really wants that", then I suppose that answers the question about Americans and the things they really cherish, as opposed to what they claim to cherish.
Re:precisely because most Americans don't agree (Score:4, Insightful)
The core of American thought is pragmatic. The libertarians hold positions on individual freedom that are close to old American traditions, but they hold to them idealistically - as matters of "purified" ideology - rather than pragmatically. So, for instance, they want the government to back off from any control, but because they want the "pure" form of this, they don't even want government to restrain corporations which themselves are similar in power and wealth to many of the national governments elsewhere on this planet.
A pragmatic approach to liberty is to play the power centers off against each other, so that the individual has some chance of slipping between them. But the idealistic approach of the American libertarians merely hobbles government powers - which coincidentally explains why major funding for the libertarian institutions such as Cato comes from large corporations and those who control them.
Libertarianism in short is the ultimate scam, a coordinated attempt at the theft of individual liberty on behalf of large corporate powers - the same powers which then turn around and control much of the very government their libertarian front groups are pretending to help us protect ourselves from. This isn't to slight individual libertarians. Many of them are bright and well-meaning. But, like Madoff investors, they're dupes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Duverger's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law [wikipedia.org]
Re:Not a partisan issue (Score:4, Insightful)
Most Americans don't even KNOW about the Libertarian party. Many who have heard of it, don't have an accurate idea of what it is. Go ahead, start telling people you know that you are a Libertarian. I've been told I'm wasting my vote, a notion reinforced by TV. I've gotten dumbfounded stares. I've even had a guy respond with "So you're extremely Liberal?"
Some days it just doesn't pay to chew through the restraints.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The US Libertarian party is marginalized here because they are very socially conservative
I wasn't aware that the legalization of drugs was a socially conservative position. Other than abortion, which Paul and Barr seemed to be against (does the party itself have a position on this?), what socially conservative positions would you identify with the libertarians?
Why this won't work. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Tit for Tat (Score:5, Interesting)
*lol* Yeah right... (Score:3, Insightful)
Blown out of proportion.....again (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, so everyone thinks that this is going to be a big deal. How many of you have actually read Title 18 section 2703 (you should also read chapters 119 and 121 in their entirety as the include definitions)?
from Title 18, Chapter 121, Section 2711:
(2) the term "remote computing service" means the provision to the public of computer storage or processing services by means of an electronic communications system;
now, I don't know about you, but my WiFi router is not for the PUBLIC. Of course IANAL, but it appears that I do not operate a "remote computing service" nor am I a provider of an "electronic communication service". I provide no service to anyone outside of my family.
So, I fail to see the trouble here. They want ISPs, and WiFi hotspots (ie: Restaurants, Coffee Shops, etc.) to retain records. Note how it does not say you must OBTAIN information from your customers, just retain what information you have.
One other thing that I have not seen mentioned yet. MAC addresses are not guaranteed to be unique, only unique on a particular LAN. There is no guarantee that no two wireless devices that ever connect to your WiFi will not have the same MAC address. This coupled with the fact that there is no way to track a MAC address to a particular person....
Really, why do we even bother.
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, because jail is fun.
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody who values liberty should be willing to spend some time in jail, rather than submit to an unconstitutional tyrannical law.
I say "unconstitutional" because it is illegal for congress to order me, in my private home, to keep logs. Their authority ends at the interstate border. In regards to my private Wifi service, the only authority I have to obey is my home state legislature, since I operate completely and wholly within the state.
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:5, Insightful)
The Homeland Security agent can demand until he turns black in the face, but demanding isn't getting. Simple answer: No. Tough shit.
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:5, Interesting)
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"
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:4, Funny)
What, the Amish use WiFi now ??
* goes check if his hotspot has reflectors
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
While my first thought was also to bemoan the death of the interstate commerce clause, the truth is, everything you do is considered interstate commerce under our screwed-up constitutional jurisprudence. If you grown wheat on your own farm, make bread with it in your own home on said farm, and use it slop your own pigs on said farm, you have engaged in interstate commerce. So says the Supreme Court to uphold the New Deal (which is what your grandparents called a stimulus package). It was beyond a stretch
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
Good question. I'm fairly certain the original intent of the Constitution was Not to invade private homes. They had interstate commerce in the 1780s (letters, pamphlets) but never intended that Congress should require Thom or George or Ben or James to keep a log of every letter they ever mailed.
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the
probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democrats
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"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?
I think this applies here.
http://www.veiled-chameleon.com/weblog/archives/000166.html
[Clarence Thomas] said that the women's marijuana was never bought or sold, never crossed state lines and had no "demonstrable" effect on the national market for marijuana: "If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything," including "quilting bees, clothes drives and potluck suppers." Thus "the federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers."
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:5, Insightful)
Only as long as you let them legislate whatever they want. That's the basis of the whole system. Do you hate what the government is doing? Really? Do you hate it enough to do something about it? Or are you just gonna sit at your computer and complain about it on /.?
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:5, Insightful)
Only as long as you let them legislate whatever they want. That's the basis of the whole system. Do you hate what the government is doing? Really? Do you hate it enough to do something about it? Or are you just gonna sit at your computer and complain about it on /.?
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!
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. And this group of 'guys' with various and sundry firearms is going to do exactly what? Enfilade the police? Create a defensive perimeter? Do you think that some $random_gun_toting_mob is going to be able to do anything other than general rape and pillage?
.50 caliber guns. It's organization, organization, planning and execution. You're better off hoarding old cell phones or CB radios and learning how to make explosives. The kid in the basement with a mesh network OLPC and some crypto is going to me more useful than a half drunk, firearm toting, out of shape guy.
There is quite a bit more to warfare, even guerrilla warfare, then having
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:5, Insightful)
Without liberty, you may not have a life or a future, dude.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, don't generate fake logs.
Instead, you dedicate an old junk-box computer whose job is nothing more than to use a random MAC, connect to the AP, grab an IP, and disconnect, over and over, forever. There's nothing illegal about that.
When the feds ask, you will now have a compressed log of several TB to hand them. Good luck!
Frustration isn't a crime.
Re:Generate your own 'fake' logs (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree. The router that we have does not have the capability of keeping logs, as far as I know. Even if it does, it does not make it easy, and I have no intention of figuring out how to make it keep logs. In any event, I am sure that there are some routers that are completely incapable of keeping logs, and those would have to be replaced in order to comply with the law. Who will pay for this? Last time I checked, the government can't suddenly force everybody to pay money for something. IANAL, of course, so what do I know?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there is that pesky ol' Second Amendment. But don't worry, they are working on that as well...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the Founders of this country printed their pamphlets anonymously. And not because of the war (it was over), but because it gave them the opportunity to share their actual thoughts without getting lynched by other politicians. For example Thomas Jefferson shared his ideal of "freedom of religion" anonymously, because he feared the backlash from the then-powerful State Church.
Anonymity protects free speech. Anonymity is the enemy of power-hungry men, and the friend of the People's liberty.