

Don't Let Congress Order Internet Companies to Spy on You - zoowar
https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=497

======
cjboco
Instead of our government trying to spy on us, perhaps we should try to turn
the tables and enact some more laws and rules that lets the citizens spy on
them.

~~~
noarchy
Governments don't like it when it goes the other way.
[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008566,00.ht...](http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2008566,00.html)

------
silentOpen
From <[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1981:>](http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-
bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1981:>);

`(h) Retention of Certain Records- A provider of an electronic communication
service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least 18
months the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each
account, unless that address is transmitted by radio communication (as defined
in section 3 of the Communications Act of 1934).'. (b) Sense of Congress- It
is the sense of Congress that records retained pursuant to section 2703(h) of
title 18, United States Code, should be stored securely to protect customer
privacy and prevent against breaches of the records.

So while I don't like the slipperiness of this slope (or the logic of the
argument), the May 25, 2011 text only appears to specify non-radio-transmitted
connection records as retained. This means wi-fi, phone, satellite are "safe"
where "safe" = "not yet".

As I read it, the authors then make a wish that these records be stored
"securely" where "securely" = "no one will ever be liable for a breach".

We seriously need an attribution and karma system for Congress.

~~~
DavidSJ
And how does your ISP know whether you're using wifi?

~~~
silentOpen
This bill is "only" retaining connection records for every wireline
connection. The cell phone oligopoly already know everything (and cooperate)
and commonly available consumer internet access is governed by onerous terms
of service. Why does my cable company need to know my SSN?

The "but only if the user address assignment is over publicly open radio"
concession is for the cafe owner with free wifi or public government-operated
access points. I guess free wifi will be the only libre internet access.

It appears that the lawmakers who drafted this legislation do not understand
the (in)feasibility of their language or understand all too well the
consequences of implementation.

An elected representative is a public servant. Being a representative requires
sacrifice. When will we ask our representatives to sacrifice their privacy of
communication so that they may represent the people's will more perfectly?

Who is pulling the strings? Are they inside or outside of government?

------
ineedtosleep
Out of curiosity, do these messages ever do anything other than potentially
fill up a government official's spam filter? Not trying to troll here, just
genuinely curious about these letters' impact.

~~~
bsiemon
My understanding is that one of the jobs of congressional staffers involves
sorting and analyzing these sorts of messages.

------
joshmlewis
You can go here to also vote and put your word in plus see others comments,
<https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/hr1981>

I do work for them before someone mentions it but it's a cool platform.

------
willidiots
I'm against anything involving more information gathering, but I'm curious -
can anyone explain how this differs from existing CALEA requirements?

~~~
JoshTriplett
Almost nothing to do with each other. CALEA requires telephone services to
support wiretaps. This would require ISPs, businesses, wifi access points, and
anything else sitting between you and the internet to keep a log of dynamic IP
addresses and other such connection information.

~~~
palish
I thought they had to keep logs of dynamic IP addresses already. I know for a
fact that coffee shops are required to keep such logs (due to Sept 11th ---
discovered this during a phone conversation with a local coffee shop's "router
provider").

~~~
runningdogx
Did you ask the router provider to cite the law requiring them to keep logs?

~~~
palish
No... I may as well explain what happened, to put it into context. I was about
19 at the time, and sort of naive. I was trying to figure out why the local
coffee shop needed to pay so much money for their internet service. One of the
recurring costs was support for their router, which seemed kind of crazy to me
at the time (being a tech geek).

This was after I had just discovered and fixed a security vulnerability in
that router --- I had brought my girlfriend's MacBook to the shop, and noticed
I could connect to their payment processing computer (due to the router being
misconfigured). That computer had a text file filled with hundreds of full
plaintext credit card numbers.

So anyway, I went to the owner and put in some time to help him fix this, and
that's how I wound up in a position to question "why the heck does this router
cost so much per month?"

I was toying with the idea of just replacing the whole thing with an
inexpensive Linksys or something. (I realize how bad of an idea it is now ---
but hey, I was 19.) So I wound up on the phone with one of the sales guys from
the router company. He started rattling off (good) justifications for their
router: per-customer bandwidth limiting, etc. Among those reasons was "and
after Sept 11th, coffee shops are required to comply with <some impressive-
sounding regulation name>, which requires them to keep logs of which computers
are using their internet, and when".

I don't remember anything beyond that, sorry.

------
known
With the proliferation of Internet and Cell phones people can make informed
decisions and directly vote on Bills/Laws in Congress.

