Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonliner
It's way to vague.
What is "All Records"?
|
The text of the current bill adds that paragraph to Title 18 Section 2703 which says that when issued a subpoena or warrant you must be able to divulge the following elements of identity:
name; address;
local and long distance telephone connection records, or records of session times and durations;
length of service (including start date) and types of service utilized;
telephone or instrument number or other subscriber number or identity, including any temporarily assigned network address; and
means and source of payment for such service (including any credit card or bank account number)
So, while I certainly agree it would be onerous to extend such requirements down to the private home network level I don't agree it is vague what you are required to keep.
The requirement to provide this information on warrant or subpoena for this exact same class of networks
is already in law. All this new addition is specify that these records be kept for 2 years.
So this prompts me to ask, if this new law would apply to my home network then doesn't the existing law already apply to it and is there any case law suggesting that it has been enforced in this way beyond a single advocate in the linked article saying it would?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Moonliner
Assuming you don't buy the "Save The Children" line, who stands to benefit from this?
|
While you can disagree with the effectiveness in saving the children, since all of the other elements in the bill involve increasing the penalties for internet-based child sexual exploitation I see no reason to assume that the honest intention of the rule is making it easier to track down such people when acts such criminal acts are identified.
But yes, in addition to that, if the records are made to exist they would be of benefit to pursuing information on any crime (and possibly civil lawsuit) that involves internet activity.
Jazzbear
My point wasn't that they couldn't track your internet usage. But rather that they couldn't track it just from the data requirements in this law and that the data requirements in this law do require a warrant (which you suggested it did not).
ETA: To be clearer, the government may well believe it can do such without a warrant and there is evidence that has done so
but this proposed law is not further evidence of it.
Finally, as I said above, if this law applies to home networks I most certainly would oppose it. But I'll oppose it for what it really does not what jumped to conclusions say it does. And I'll wait until it gets out of committee before even worrying that much about it since stupid bills are submitted all the time just to die.