Ummm... read the story carefully.    The FBI and AG Gonzalez DO want content recorded.    People have proposed regulation... that is very unclear and imprecise about what is actually required.  
 
The problem is that the people involved in writing the laws are clueless about network operations.... and utterly unconcerned about the Constitution.
 
 
 
 
North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 7:08 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?

Many of you seem to be of the belief that the proposed bill requires you to keep records of the content of subscribers.  Simply put, that is NOT THE CASE.  While I do not know the specific details of the various proposals, I do know that none of them are expecting ISPs to keep copies of content accessed.
 
The proposed bills are requiring that ISPs keep track of what subscriber used what IP address(es).  One version of the bill wants this data retained for one year; another version for two years.  For ISPs using RADIUS for accounting or making static IP assignments, this is pretty easy to do.  I don't know what requirements, if any, are being proposed for subscribers placed behind a NAT firewall shared by many subscribers.
 
I understand that WISPA is an organization still in its infancy, and they don't currently have the resources to "lobby" congress.  But there IS an organization speaking to congress on your bahalf on this issue: The United States Internet Industry Association.
 
As a former member of the board of directors, I can assure you that this is a small, but vocal organization, and they are representing YOUR interests.  Data retention requirements have been on USIIA's radar for quite some time.  On Feburary 17, 2005 (last year) the board of directors adopted this policy as USIIA's official position on data retention: http://www.usiia.org/legis/dataret.html
 
If you'd like to support an organization that does speak to congress and is representing your interests, you might consider giving USIIA your financial.  For the record, their board receives no compensation.  The only paid employee is David McClure, their full-time President and CEO (and "lobbyist", but he doesn't go by that title).
 
Dave
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Pete Davis
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 2:34 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?

If/when the feds require it, I guess the way to do it would be to run Ethereal in fully promiscuous mode on a mirrored port on a switch and streaming it to server over the FBI's T1 to their server. When the Federal government installs their T1 to my NOC, I would be willing to upload it to them over their network resources to their server for them to to keep on file for 2 years to never look at, otherwise, I don't have any way to insure that the data hasn't been tampered with if it stays in my file room. The government requiring me to keep two years records of all network traffic seems unreasonable. If I were a defense attorney defending a client whose evidence against him was stored by some local ISP dinks on their servers for 24 months, I would certainly question the chain of the evidence, and likely get it thrown out.

Here is an example of how this could go wrong: If I am an ISP operator (I am actually) and I have a vendetta against a client (I don't, or at least not one I want to discuss here) and I am in charge of keeping network logs of all of that client's traffic, I could easily forge the records to make it look like he had committed a horrific crime, like reproducing the transcript of the commentary of a game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, and make it look like it came from his IP address. I don't know how that record, 24 months old, and sitting in my tape locker could ever be held as compelling evidence against him, unless there was already an investigation, where these records still probably couldn't make or break a case.

I suppose that the thinking is, that if the subscriber is guilty of child porn, and they can prove what site he downloaded from and sent it to, they could go after that web host for hosting the smut. Either way, putting it off to the local ISP to keep records seems far fetched.

Pete Davis
NoDial.net

Mac Dearman wrote:
You have enough clients that it would bankrupt you to build a server to log
your HTTP & SMTP traffic? I don't think it would be that difficult or
expensive, but agree that it would be a major PITA! I am pretty sure we will
never be faced with this as the majority of us aren't reliable enough to
even set this up nor responsible enough to keep up with it reliably for two
years.

Mac Dearman

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 12:34 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?

Common sense tells you that the big boys will lobby to force the last mile
provider to log it all, so as to bankrupt the competition.




North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mac Dearman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 10:21 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?


  
I wouldn't imagine that this responsibility would fall on us WISPs, but to
our upstream providers like BellSouth...etc. Why would they want to deal
with the 20,000 piss ants of the world when all they have to do is back up
stream two hops and catch all the traffic? Common sense tells me this will
not fall on us!


Mac




-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Mark Koskenmaki
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 1:19 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: [WISPA] Why's WISPA silent about this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060601/ts_nm/security_internet_usa_dc

Why aren't we fighting tooth and nail to stop this kinda stuff?

Or, is this issue like certain others, where WISPA founders take contrary
positions to the rest of the members and side with big brother and
    
encourage
  
the feds to dig into and regulate our business, in some apparent hope of
ingratiating themselves with the regulators?

AT LEAST could we have the leadership tell us what THEY think of this?

North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to:  mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to:  purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
--
  
-

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
    

  


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
-- 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to