I agree - Although this isn't legal advice and I'm not a lawyer:
It amends 18 U.S.C. ยง2703 which is entitled "Required Disclosure of
Customer Communications or Records" which refers to providers, not
home users...
Better question:
1) Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communications
between end users and their providers so as to give rise to a 4th
amendment issue? (Might have already been asked and answered...)
On Feb 25, 2009, at 11:12 AM, Sean Hunter wrote:
Sorry to intrude, but it is based on the reading of the law and at
least
according to ars technica's article (
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/are-you-an-electronic-communication-service-provider.ars)
that excludes home routers. That's not to say it couldn't be
reinterpreted
in the future.
Also worth noting is that this is a Republican proposition and both
sides
still seem a bit bitter about the stimulus.
~Sean
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:58 AM, Fred Baker <f...@cisco.com> wrote:
If it's at all like the EU Date Retention provisions, it would be
in the
ISP, not the home router. The Danish want the moral equivalent of a
netflow
trace for each user (log of the kind of information netflow records
for a
session for each TCP/UDP/SCTP session the user initiates or
terminates,
produced on presentation of a warrant or subpoena), but the EU
provisions
are more application layer - when did the user "sign on" to the
wireless
network, and when did "s/he sign off", to whom did they send emails
via the
ISP's servers, and so on?
Without commenting on police states and such, instantiating
legislation is
required in each country signatory to the Cybercrime Treaty. Both
major
parties have been on deck during that discussion...
On Feb 25, 2009, at 7:30 AM, David Stearns wrote:
Hi Jim,
Avoiding the politics of this issue, I suspect that many more home
users
will be affected than corporate or backbone admins. I already log
all
access to my wireless, though currently I don't keep outgoing
access logs
for that long. I suspect that if this were to become law, the
logging
mechanisms in the provided home wireless routers would need a
revamp. Or
at
least their storage method would.
-DS
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 8:06 AM, Jim Willis <jim.h.wil...@gmail.com>
wrote:
After having a brief conversation with a friend of mine over the
weekend
about this new proposed legislation I was horrified to find that
I could
not
dig anything up on it in NANOG. Surely this sort of short minded
legislation
should have been a bit more thought through in its effects on
those that
would have to implement these changes. My major concern is not
just for
myself but for a much broader picture.
"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."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/02/20/internet.records.bill/index.html
I understand and agree that minors should be protected and I
think child
pornography is awful, however I think how the government is going
about
catching these criminals with this new legislation will not
really be any
more efficient than there current methods. Having a log of all
IP's that
come across my or anyone in America's "home" Wi-Fi for two years
is not
going to help "police investigations" but will cause me to have
to go buy
a
more expensive router.
So I'm just wondering, how would this legislation effect some of
you on
the
NANOG list?
-Jim
