Your right to privacy? Fail.

[Pirate Bill]

They can have my router when they pry it from my cold dead hands.

Incidentally, I am currently logging all my network traffic. It logs which external IP address is connecting with which internal IP address and how much data is being transferred. I do this so I can "spy" on my own network. (Mainly to track bandwidth use and raise redflags for anything weird or suspicious...and because I can and I was curious. )

[Ghoulish Delight]

Where in there does that say anything about the end user being the one required to keep records? Aren't they talking about the ISP's keeping records of who THEIR DHCP servers are assigning addresses to?

[Jazzman]

Originally Posted by Alex

...the requirement is that a provider of IP addresses keep records of who was in possession of that IP address...

Which, in reality, is tracking of internet activity. With the right software, all they need is your IP to track down everything you've done. Everything you do leaves a digital footprint, so it's only a matter of a little effort to track that footprint all over cyberspace. To me, that's the same as using my phone number to tap in and listen to my conversations.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Jazzman

To me, that's the same as using my phone number to tap in and listen to my conversations.

Which they can do if they get a warrant. And for the government to USE the data, they still need a warrant.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Where in there does that say anything about the end user being the one required to keep records? Aren't they talking about the ISP's keeping records of who THEIR DHCP servers are assigning addresses to?

provider of an electronic communication service

Covers (in the opinion of many interested parties not just me) just about everything. If you pay the ISP and CP shares the connection YOU are a provider of electronic communication service.

[Alex]

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?

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.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by BDBopper

Looks like the taxing gas millage idea was a trial balloon and at least publicly it has popped.

It was on the plan to up California's gas tax by $0.12 per gallon as part of the way to cover the $41 billion deficit. Thankfully that was killed.

We did however get a 1% sales tax increase. Which means 9.25% in LA County and 8.75% in Orange County (those are the only two I know off the top of my head).