Your right to privacy? Fail.

[Morrigoon]

OMG, could you imagine the prez visiting porn sites and picking up a virus? Talk about a security breach!

[scaeagles]

I think that may happen with the low tech porn option too - visiting the low tech porn site and picking up a virus.

[Jazzman]

Ugh. They even used the "It's for the children" battle cry.

Nothing makes me want to poke someone in the eye more than when they want to push some retarded belief on me with the "save the children" defense. Idiots...

[Pirate Bill]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

On a totally random aside with no relation to earlier posts in this thread, I wonder how hard it would be to come up with a bit of "security software" for my router that would continuously assign random IP address to all the PC's NAT'ed behind the firewall.

Why would you need to randomize the IPs behind your firewall? Anybody outside your firewall would just see the IP address of the router, not the addresses of each individual computer on the network.

There's DHCP that most routers have built in that can be used to automatically assign an IP address. You can set the expiration period to anything you want, at which time it will assign a new IP. Unfortunately it will tend to assign the same IP address over and over again unless it gets snatched up by another computer between release and renew.

If it's anonymity you want then you need to use proxies to mask your router's IP address. TOR is a pretty simple solution.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Pirate Bill

Why would you need to randomize the IPs behind your firewall? Anybody outside your firewall would just see the IP address of the router, not the addresses of each individual computer on the network.

There's DHCP that most routers have built in that can be used to automatically assign an IP address. You can set the expiration period to anything you want, at which time it will assign a new IP. Unfortunately it will tend to assign the same IP address over and over again unless it gets snatched up by another computer between release and renew.

If it's anonymity you want then you need to use proxies to mask your router's IP address. TOR is a pretty simple solution.

Because the way this new law is written ANYONE running a nat'ed router (which is just about everyone) would be required to keep a log file of what internal IP address was used with what PC. If the router keeps assigning new internal IP's moment to moment.....

[Jazzman]

The thing I'd really like to know is why the same statutes that limit the ability of law enforcement to tap your phone don't apply here too. If they can't listen in to my phone without a warrant, why do these fascists think that it's okay to track my internet activity without one?

[Pirate Bill]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

If the router keeps assigning new internal IP's moment to moment.....

Then it's going to be logging which PC got that IP with each change too. It won't mask behavior. It will just make the logs all that much bigger. It would be easier to just to turn off the log.

I can't see how the government is going to force me to run software that I don't want to run on computers that I own.

[Alex]

If you read the bill they do need a warrant to track your internet activity (though they aren't really tracking that, the requirement is that a provider of IP addresses keep records of who was in possession of that IP address; nothing about what you're doing with it; though if you have records of that as well they can be required as well).

It would require that you keep the records but the relevant section of statute (Title 18, Section 2703) still requires a warrant (if the possessor of said information isn't willing to hand it over) or subpoena for the government to get the information.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Pirate Bill

I can't see how the government is going to force me to run software that I don't want to run on computers that I own.

That's the point. Assuming the law passes and you don't then they can charge you with obstruction or something similar.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Alex

If you read the bill they do need a warrant to track your internet activity (though they aren't really tracking that, the requirement is that a provider of IP addresses keep records of who was in possession of that IP address; nothing about what you're doing with it; though if you have records of that as well they can be required as well).

It would require that you keep the records but the relevant section of statute (Title 18, Section 2703) still requires a warrant (if the possessor of said information isn't willing to hand it over) or subpoena for the government to get the information.

The text of the house bill currently says:

Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(h) Retention of Certain Records and Information- 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.'.

It's way to vague.

What is "All Records"? Would a MAC address work?
Does this in effect outlaw free WiFi?
Does "All Records" mean traffic logs or not?
You can read it several diffrent ways.

Assuming you don't buy the "Save The Children" line, who stands to benefit from this? The RIAA and MPAA who have in the past been roadblocked in some cases by not being able to identify users behind a Nat'ed router.