Topic: Bill proposes ISPs, Wi-Fi keep logs for police

[Pugnate]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/20/internet.records.bill/index.html

Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law that would require all Internet providers and operators of millions of Wi-Fi access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, to keep records about users for two years to aid police investigations.

What really amuses me is that home users are expected to keep two year old wi-fi records.

....riiiiight.

[scottws]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/20/internet.records.bill/index.html

What really amuses me is that home users are expected to keep two year old wi-fi records.

....riiiiight.

The only way this would really work is if all access points were made by manufacturers to store the required logs and it couldn't be disabled.

[Pugnate]

But they'd still be storing on user harddrives right?

[scottws]

But they'd still be storing on user harddrives right?

Well it could be stored in the device's flash memory. 

This law is stupid anyway.  It seems to target DHCP, which just assigns an IP address to a MAC address.  It usually records a hostname too.  But on Linux MAC addresses are easily changed and a default part of the OS.  There are utilities to change the MAC address on Windows.  Hostnames are easy to change on any operating system.  I just don't see what the point of this is.

If they are trying to catch criminals, I imagine criminals are smart enough to change these things up periodically.  MAC addresses and hostnames aren't like DNA and fingerprints.

[Cobra951]

I read about this yesterday.  It is extremely ill advised, and I'd be shocked if it went anywhere in its current form (though I've been shocked plenty before by legislative idiocy).  We'd have to throw out all current routers and replace them with something that can track and store a lot of useless information (DHCP).  Scott makes the point already, so I'll skip details.

The idea behind it, even if implemented sanely, is itself unspeakable bullshit.  In the name of protecting children, they're trying to follow in the footsteps of George Orwell.  To everyone that loves to hate the ACLU, this is exactly what they're for.  I can't see any law like this surviving a challenge from them for long.  Then again, I thought the DMCA would never survive a constitutional challenge either.  I would hope that Obama would veto such a law outright, given he's the most connected president ever.  He should know what's at stake.

[Quemaqua]

He's also a socialist psychopath hungry to further grow government and build its power.  If he opposed it, I imagine it would only be because he felt the populace wasn't ready for it yet.  Okay, maybe this particular thing isn't such a big deal, but expect to see government intrude more and more in this direction, and every step they take means it'll be easier to achieve the next, until they're watching every last thing you do.

But yes, grade A bullshit all around from a party that seems to want to continue to shout at the world that it's irrelevant.  Idiots.

[Cobra951]

I disagree completely with your first statement, and really, there's no point arguing.  It's like putting the KKK's Imperial Wizard in the same room with Malcolm X and then trying to have a logical debate.  (News networks love that shit too.)  Let's just agree to disagree.

From what I read yesterday, this has bipartisan support.  That's wht makes it scary.  It doesn't matter which of the two parties (that are going to rule regardless) you support.  They're for an unwarranted intrusion into the citizenry in the name of a hot-button cause, which I suspect is merely being used as a convenient ruse, like "saving lives".

[Quemaqua]

Exactly.  The only thing you disagree with me on is that Obama is evil, because his shiny smile suckered you in like it did the rest of the country.  I can't blame you.  God knows it would be good for my health to believe that we finally had a leader who wasn't out to find immortality at the cost of his people's lives (it's been a while), but I'm even more afraid of Obama than I was of Bush.  I'm not a Republican and I didn't vote for Bush, remember.  I'm an independent conservative and I don't think we've had anyone worth voting for nearly since I've been alive.

Anyway, disagreements aside; yes, the bipartisan support is scary.  I agree entirely with your last statement.  That's what unsettles me.  I've been trying to tell my mom and other... let's just say less tech-savvy members of the family to watch out for government intrusions into this sort of thing.  It's just another case of government trying to make you fear something so that you'll give up your control of it.

[WindAndConfusion]

I was going to say the things that scottws already said about MAC address spoofing and the like, so instead I'll just say that one of the amendment's primary supporters is also the douchebag who made this completely idiotic campaign commercial.