Bill proposes ISPs, Wi-Fi Keep Logs for Police

[RoyGBiv]

Despite the headline, the language of the bill combined with the legal definition of electronic communications devices using DHCP means if you use a router at home, you get to keep logs too.

And of course, it's all being passed off as a "protect the children" law, which is absolute crap.

Bill proposes ISPs, Wi-Fi keep logs for police
by Declan McCullagh

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.

The legislation, which echoes a measure proposed by one of their Democratic colleagues three years ago, 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.

"While the Internet has generated many positive changes in the way we communicate and do business, its limitless nature offers anonymity that has opened the door to criminals looking to harm innocent children," U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said at a press conference on Thursday. "Keeping our children safe requires cooperation on the local, state, federal, and family level."

...

<The bill's language> sweeps in not just public Wi-Fi access points, but password-protected ones too, and applies to individuals, small businesses, large corporations, libraries, schools, universities, and even government agencies. Voice over IP services may be covered too.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10168114-38.html

[LoZoccolo]

1. You can spoof the MAC address that the wi-fi router would keep track of easily.

I think you can even just go into the control panel in Windows Vista and just enter a new one, but I don't have time to look it up.

[RoyGBiv]

2. Certainly ...

And, seeing as how a log is nothing but a text file, one can either edit it manually or just create a script that runs at regular intervals and "scrubs" the log.

It's a completely useless idea. The only intent is to break down privacy protections and allow government agencies to invade both public and private system space to look for whatever they want.

[Xithras]

8. It's a shot at people using AP's to skirt the law.

I think the proposed remedy is stupid, but there have been numerous pedophilia cases where charges were dropped simply because the person ran an open AP and it was impossible to confirm who actually downloaded the material. There have been some allegations that pedophiles and internet predators are now leaving their AP's open ON PURPOSE to exploit this and dodge prosecution if they get caught.

I don't know what the solution is, but I don't see how they hope to implement this. My AP (open, coincidentally, because I can't get WEP to work correctly with my Wii) doesn't have the capability of logging connections, and I certainly don't have the money to run out and buy a new one. And what about the millions of DSL and Cable modem users using AP's provided by their service provider? Is Congress going to force them to spend billions of dollars to ship new hardware to their customers, and hundreds of millions more to pay service technicians to go out and to service calls to everyone's home?

[RoyGBiv]

10. I understand that problem ...

However, I believe this is simply an excuse.

The first rule when you're trying to chisel away at privacy or free speech protections is to claim the issue is intended to protect something, usually children. The same tactic was used writ large in pushing through the Patriot Act only then the concern was the entire civilized world, as those who supported that atrocity with such vehemence saw it. It's all built around a kernel of truth. Yes, the Internet has become a vehicle for those who abuse children to network, share their filth with each other, and target new victims. Yes, some terrorists want to blow up the world.

It's a very old game. Very few individuals in positions of power are willing to point to the lie in the cover. The minute someone opposes a bill like this one, the proponents have the ability to claim the opponent sides "with the child molesters" or "hates America."

By the time the general public sees through it, if they ever do, the damage has already been done.

[Pavulon]

6. MAC is generally burned in to hardware

a manufacturer is given a range and each device has a unique mac. You can forge a mac address or even an entire conversation with free tools.

You can use a VM (running on host with builtin nic off) using a phone or wifi device usb attached. Everything is then destroyed after you no longer need it.

Do not know if the actual mac is burned in hardware rom chip or can be altered by a firmware change.

[Tesha]

17. Here's an entirely-typical MAC device.

It's got a factory-blasted 48 bit ID and 1 Kbit of write-once ROM.
How the OEM uses that storage is, of course, up to them.

http://www.maxim-ic.com/quick_view2.cfm/qv_pk/2924

Serial EEPROM is also very common and whether or not that can
be "In application programmed" is again up to the OEM.

Tesha

[liberal N proud]

3. Someone needs to make sure they all see this list

DUer L0oniX's Journal has a list of GOPers who have been caught with their pants down per say many caught due to their communications I am sure.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/L0oniX/7


Thank L0oniX for keeping track.

[RoyGBiv]

5. Sadly ...

This bill will have broad bipartisan support. No filibusters here.

It's a "sexy" bill because it does nothing, costs nothing to the government on the surface (but will be cost prohibitive for libraries, proposed free access points, home users, etc.), and can be wrapped up in the whole "protect the children" angle that makes the public so gooshy gooey.

[madokie]

7. You're scaring me Roy

One thing about it I have a shitpot full of the different linux distros downloaded and burned to disc that I can play with if I have to give up my connection as this bill I'm sure would lead me to do. Probably enough to keep me entertained for the rest of my days. :-)

But in all seriousness though would or could there be life after the internet, you know on the back side? On second thought I'm not sure I could do that

[RoyGBiv]

9. I'd say I don't mean to ...

... but I'd be lying.

What disturbs me about things like this is that by and large people don't pay attention to them.

We've had this fight before, back in the 90s when Clinton was President, and it was a close run thing back then. If not for a massive PR campaign and the state of the Internet at the time still being managed and maintained by a dominant class of certified take-no-shit geeks and nerds who positively freaked out at the original terms of various bills being proposed, it would have gone through then. The issue at the time was, essentially, whether an ISP as a pass-thru service was responsible for the content that "passed through" to end-users. What the government wanted, under the guise of "protecting the children," was for ISPs to be required to monitor the content that passed through their lines and pro-actively report illegal or "potentially illegal" content to law enforcement. In other words, the government wanted to get around the 4th Amendment by passing the responsibility for spying on people to the companies that provided the services that could be spied on.

Sound familiar?

This is the same thing in a different, even more draconian form, but the Internet infrastructure today is dominated by a business class, many of whom do not even understand the technology they administer, much less care about it as a free speech or privacy issue. Already we have ISPs actively agreeing to police their content through agreements with RIAA, the BSA, and MPAA, acting as "cops" for other large corporations. Few care about that either because it gets wrapped up in the guise of making sure artists are paid for their work, which, again, is utter crap.

The reality here, I imagine, is that no home user in their right mind is going to install anything that allows them to maintain logs for two years, and the government doesn't expect them to. That's not the point. The point is, similar to the laws in some states requiring marijuana dealers to apply for a tax number, to provide another avenue for prosecution in the event some organization or law enforcement agency does determine you are a person of interest. They may have no evidence that you've actually done anything, but they can ask for your logs, and once you don't have them, they do have you on something and can then go looking around for whatever they want.

[madokie]

11. We can never let our guard down

Its like some have no other purpose is life except to keep trying to figure out a way to fuck us but good. I hate republicons and that is a fact.

[Baikonour]

16. I wish more people knew about Craig J. Spence and Lawrence E. King.

Very interesting how Spence ended up "suicided" once he started spilling the beans about the child sex parties at the White House.

Despicable.

[Pavulon]

4. Pretty dumb

there are so many ways around this. Adding consumers to that list is extra dumb. Yeah I am going to keep logs from my shitty access point at the house. Maybe I should be required to have iron mountain pick up a archive copy for offsite once a day.

[frylock]

13. lol!

no shoot. i suppose we'll all have to warehouse our data now.

[niyad]

12. isn't it amazing that the party of "less government" sees NO problem with keeping tabs on

all the citizens "for the sake of the children" or whatever crap they are spewing today. don't police states do things like this? china, perhaps?

[MadHound]

14. Given the track, and prison record of conservatives, Republicans and the RW fundies,

Is this really a good bill for the 'Pugs to be pushing? I think not:shrug:

[Still Sensible]

15. It's just a SET UP! Most widely used GOP trick of recent

years. They would love to get a vote to the floor of the house or senate on this for the sole purpose of setting up their TV ad flights for 2010.

This is how they get those "Did you know my SOB opponent voted against protecting children?"

These kind of straw man bills have become a political constant. Democrats do not use this tactic nearly as much as republicans do, probably because we tend to play "fairer" than they do.

On this particular bill, the fact is that the police are able to get plenty of cooperation today--through the subpoena and warrant system in place--and have a pretty good record of catching pedophiles and child pornographers. Obviously the only thing this particular proposal would do is insure that records are kept longer.