On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 01:41:51PM -0700, Alan wrote: > >Let's start with USA PATRIOT, which requires that ISPs know who is > >connecting to them and be able to produce that information if a court > >orders that they do so. Information as to who had what IP address and > >when being stored by ISPs and turned over to law enforcement officers as > >ordered by the court predates even widespread dialup internet access. > > Neither the Patriot Act, nor the ECPA _compel_ ISP's to keep such > records. In fact, the ECPA limits data that must be produced( and > preserved) to information in the "possession" of the ISP at the time the > subpeona is produced.
That is correct. Most ISPs maintain basic connection logs and the like for policy and law enforcement for a period of about a week. If LEOs request logs a week and a day following an incident, there likely will be none, and there is simply nothing to be done. > It's unclear (law-wise) if the PATRIOT act can be construed to require > an ISP to reconfigure the network to make collection of additional data > possible. That's a question for the lawyers. It's not unclear to me, but I believe that the government is potentially out to get me at any point in which I may appear to be a potential threat to anything and anyone. Because I don't believe it is actually possible to be completely nonthreatening to everyone without inviting suspicion on those grounds alone, I simply assume that there's a reasonable probability that my communication is watched by someone with some interest in its contents at any and all times. This is a healthy attitude, I think. The network is a hostile place, and there are people more dangerous than government spooks out there. > >And if you do something illegal in the library, expect a couple of DPS > >officers to show up with a network operations guy in tow. > > The odds of that happening are slim to none. I could easily log onto a > shared computer (not even bothering to use my laptop) and download > kiddie porn, send spam, or commit large-scale copyright infringement > with no one noticing. > Open wireless is no different than open computer labs. Except that open labs generally have a person on hand to supervise the equipment. Granted undergrad student slave labour doesn't result in very good supervision, but at least nobody can hold the university liable for failing to take some precaution against illegal activity by members of the general public. You can't say that about someone sitting off-campus in a car with a high-gain 2.4GHz antenna. > >But you are asking for it to be free. > > If you'll notice the context, we were talking about restrictions on > usage, specifically blocked ports. We're talking about university wireless being unavailable to non-students. It's not a case of blocked ports as it is of redirecting all traffic to a webserver which requires you to authenticate using a university-provided account available only to students and faculty. > How much of > >your taxes do you think go to cover my internet access? Do you know how > >much of the University's budget comes from state monies? Government > >monies in general? It's a pretty low percentage, really. > > > In 2003 - 70 million, or roughly 17% comes from the state. Since grants > and gifts are lumped together, it's hard to say about Federal money. > How much of that goes specifically towards computing, I haven't a clue. > I don't have a copy of the Computing Center budget handy. I'd guess very little does. Most of that would go to operate facilities and pay faculty. Arguably you could say that student financial aid contributes to this, but that is a subsidy for students, not the institution itself. Given that the school budget, based on your figures, is more than 400 million, and that there were 20,000 students in that year paying 100 each in technology fees, the school had 2 million in student fees alone. I don't know what it costs to provide the OC-somethingridiculous equivalent we have here on campus, but I'd guess that we probably contribute enough to the technology budget to suggest that students probably absorb nearly all of the associated cost. > >The library is subsidized. Wireless access isn't. Besides, last I heard, > >you couldn't commit credit card fraud by reading a library book (unless > >the library has started to carry books far more controversial than I'd > >ever imagined, of course.) > > A red herring. Like I said above, I can easily do that with many of the > unsecured ethernet ports on campus. Wireless is no different(except that > I could maybe conduct my mythical credit card fraud while driving > through at 40mph). This is possibly true. It is the stated reason why Lane does not provide such ethernet ports to any student. The issue remains that if such activity happens, it can be traced to a particular network port. For a one-off activity, you probably won't be caught, certainly, but continued or prolonged usage for bad purposes is likely to be detected sooner or later. With open wifi, it still can be detected, but nothing can be done about it. Hence the restriction to university accounts. That these are only available to people who are students and have paid their fees isn't something I worry about. > However, as part of the registration process above(Proof of Oregon > residency etc.), I would be issued an email address to log-on to the > wireless network. > That's as much information as they have on J. Random Student conducting > illegal activities. They have your name, address, social security number, possibly your ODL number, and contact phone numbers. Even so, you still have not given me a good reason why you should get for free something I pay $100 a term for. _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
