WA Brown wrote:
I am only replying once to this. This kind of attitude surprises me.
Being a Linux group, I would think that privacy and freedom are
tremendous concern to you. I appreciate any warnings of something
that will affect me! This has everything to do with Linux. Do you
think its ok for some government stooge to remotely start your webcam
and microphone and watch your daughter get dressed in her bedroom? Or
watch you and you wife in private moments? Or come and arrest your son
because he stumbled on an "UN-PC" site? I think this will affect
Linux,Mac,Microsoft and anybody that has a computer.
This attitude is from someone that has already unsubscribed from this
list previously for the same kind of garbage in the past. Privacy and
freedom are important to me but that has little to do with my enjoyment
of Linux. My linux enjoyment comes more from the technical challenge
then from the fact that no one but me knows how or what I am doing. As
someone that is and will be on the FBI's watch list (mostly do to what I
was exposed to while in the US Army), my privacy concerns are less of a
worry about the government and more about someone that is looking to
trojan a system of mine.
The time that the gov't will bust down doors looking for some that is un
PC is a ways off and I have a feeling that in the next few years, the
political landscape may start to shift to the surprise and joy of many,
or so I can hope.
Again, I still firmly believe that this is not the forum for this type
of discussion... go hit alt.politics.paranoid and talk about it there.
(quote)
Other then a direct copy (likely copyright infringement)
and along with a link there is no other comments in either post.
I do this so anybody that read this will know exactly what was said
and where it came from. It is self-explanitory so why would you need a
comment? I suppose you pay for all your programs,music and drive 55mph?
Again, you missed the point. Did you have permission from Wired to
reprint or repost that article? Can you say that if you don't then you
likely placed yourself and possibly the LUG in jeopardy of legal action.
A link would have been more then sufficient along with comments on what
your thoughts on the policy was, and possibly keeping it in topic by
posting how it would relate to linux.
Please can we keep this garbage off of the list?
If you think its garbage to notify you of something that will affect
your safety and freedoms then don't reply to this kind of message.
Offtopic political linking and reposting without commentary or reasoning
is garbage/SPAM. I am not an ostrich by an means, but just cause I am
paranoid, doesn't mean that they are out to get me. Let's be realistic,
what do you do that would interest the government enough for them to spy
on you? I know why they would want to watch me... but I know that in
the end, it wouldn't be worth it to them (and I would like to keep by
clearance up).
Matthew
WA Brown
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Lavigne"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Triangle Linux Users Group discussion list" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: [TriLUG] FBI director wants ISPs to track users
OK, only going to reply to one of these but can we keep the political
BS and talking heads off the linux list? I understand that this has
privacy concerns but what do either of the threads posted have to do
with linux? Other then a direct copy (likely copyright infringement)
and along with a link there is no other comments in either post.
Please can we keep this garbage off of the list?
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] was added to the killfile>
Matthew
enjoying the spoils of moving back to NY
WA Brown wrote:
http://news.com.com/FBI+director+wants+ISPs+to+track+users/2100-7348_3-6126877.html?tag=nefd.top
FBI director wants ISPs to track users
Robert Mueller becomes latest Bush administration official to call
for ISPs to store customers' data.
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: October 17, 2006, 4:18 PM PDT
TalkBack E-mail Print del.icio.us Digg this
FBI Director Robert Mueller on Tuesday called on Internet service
providers to record their customers' online activities, a move that
anticipates a fierce debate over privacy and law enforcement in
Washington next year.
"Terrorists coordinate their plans cloaked in the anonymity of the
Internet, as do violent sexual predators prowling chat rooms,"
Mueller said in a speech at the International Association of Chiefs
of Police conference in Boston.
"All too often, we find that before we can catch these offenders,
Internet service providers have unwittingly deleted the very records
that would help us identify these offenders and protect future
victims," Mueller said. "We must find a balance between the
legitimate need for privacy and law enforcement's clear need for
access."
The speech to the law enforcement group, which approved a resolution
on the topic earlier in the day, echoes other calls from Bush
administration officials to force private firms to record
information about customers. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, for
instance, told Congress last month that "this is a national problem
that requires federal legislation."
Justice Department officials admit privately that data retention
legislation is controversial enough that there wasn't time to ease
it through the U.S. Congress before politicians left to campaign for
re-election. Instead, the idea is expected to surface in early 2007,
and one Democratic politician has already promised legislation.
Law enforcement groups claim that by the time they contact Internet
service providers, customers' records may have been deleted in the
routine course of business. Industry representatives, however, say
that if police respond to tips promptly instead of dawdling, it
would be difficult to imagine any investigation that would be
imperiled.
It's not clear exactly what a data retention law would require. One
proposal would go beyond Internet providers and require registrars,
the companies that sell domain names, to maintain records too. And
during private meetings with industry officials, FBI and Justice
Department representatives have cited the desirability of also
forcing search engines to keep logs--a proposal that could gain
additional law enforcement support after AOL showed how useful such
records could be in investigations.
A representative of the International Association of Chiefs of
Police said he was not able to provide a copy of the resolution.
Preservation vs. retention
At the moment, Internet service providers typically discard any log
file that's no longer required for business reasons such as network
monitoring, fraud prevention or billing disputes. Companies do,
however, alter that general rule when contacted by police performing
an investigation--a practice called data preservation.
A 1996 federal law called the Electronic Communication Transactional
Records Act regulates data preservation. It requires Internet
providers to retain any "record" in their possession for 90 days
"upon the request of a governmental entity."
Because Internet addresses remain a relatively scarce commodity,
ISPs tend to allocate them to customers from a pool based on whether
a computer is in use at the time. (Two standard techniques used are
the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol and Point-to-Point Protocol
over Ethernet.)
In addition, Internet providers are required by another federal law
to report child pornography sightings to the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, which is in turn charged with
forwarding that report to the appropriate police agency.
When adopting its data retention rules, the European Parliament
approved U.K.-backed requirements saying that communications
providers in its 25 member countries--several of which had enacted
their own data retention laws already--must retain customer data for
a minimum of six months and a maximum of two years.
The Europe-wide requirement applies to a wide variety of "traffic"
and "location" data, including: the identities of the customers'
correspondents; the date, time and duration of phone calls, VoIP
(voice over Internet Protocol) calls or e-mail messages; and the
location of the device used for the communications. But the
"content" of the communications is not supposed to be retained. The
rules are expected to take effect in 2008.
--
TriLUG mailing list :
http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/
TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
--
TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/
TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
