As usual, Scriv has defined this well.  I always want to tell BB to take a long walk on a short dock.  However, This is an important issue, public addresses, private uses.  Well said Scriv.
Ron Wallace
Hahnron, Inc.
220 S. Jackson Dt.
Addison, MI 49220

Phone: (517)547-8410
Mobile: (517)605-4542
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Scrivner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 07:02 PM
>To: 'WISPA General List'
>Subject: Re: [WISPA] WHY?
>
>Sam Tetherow wrote:
>
>> Given what the article cites I don't see it being a severe burden on a
>> small ISP. All that I see mentioned in the article is the ability to
>> track what IP belongs to what customer over a period of time. If you
>> can't track that on your network, how do you manage to troubleshoot
>> problems or deal with security concerns such as a virus/trojan or
>> other inappropriate/malicious behavior on your network?
>
>I think most people here track who has what address. Otherwise how could
>you possibly run your network? What they likely do not do is keep logs
>of who had what address three years ago. Or when IP address "A" changed
>to IP address "B" for customer "1" or "2". Without that legacy data the
>IP information provided could be inaccurate. In fact the only way it
>could be 100% accurate is if the request was in real time - ie. FBI
>calls ISP and asks who is using X.X.X.X IP address right now.
>
>This never happens so the issue is how long should we have to keep this
>log information? Should we have to keep it at all? Should we simply use
>DNS to assign names to addresses for all users which are kept up to date
>then by us? (Names of customers as "A" records for all IPs) Then the
>person can be identified by DNS name in real time and leave the rest to
>Uncle Sam. After all we do not need to be telling Uncle Sam how to use
>DNS right? A sound argument by many could be made that a user of a
>"public" IP address should involve "public" disclosure via DNS of who a
>user of an address is. Please note I am not saying this is the way it
>should be necessarily. Only that this may well be a way to produce the
>needed result of government to track wrongdoers and the ISPs to not have
>to maintain lengthy log files of who had what address when.
>
>>
>> That being said I don't want anyone to construe that I am for this
>> legislation in ANY form. If the government wants to know what my
>> subscribers are doing, they can get a court order and I will gladly
>> log the customer covered under the court order for the period
>> described by the court order.
>
>The question on that topic is not whether or not a court should be able
>to access information. I think that is obvious. The real question is
>what should we be obligated to make available (email, web sites browsed,
>chats, etc.) We cannot really do much to help the government see where
>people go. I do not think that should be our job or any of our business
>as ISPs.
>
>>
>> This needs to be fought not on a technical basis, but on a rights
>> basis. The technical issues can solved over time and then where would
>> we be.
>
>Let's look at a rights basis then. Should people who use a "public"
>Internet be able to be anonymous via the connection of their ISP? If
>this "right" is taken away (right of personal anonymity online) then I
>think we need to make sure every person knows this when it happens so
>the "thought police" do not start throwing people in jail for what they
>read and think. Many argue that we have this problem already with some
>of the pornography cases where people have been put in prison for what
>they saw on the Internet. I agree that these are important issues to
>address. Rights does need to be the basis. Technology is not as
>important as rights.
>Scriv
>
>>
>> Sam Tetherow
>> Sandhills Wireless
>>
>> Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
>>
>>> Why? Because it will severely burden smaller ISP's that lack the
>>> network
>>> infrastructure to do this.
>>>
>>> Is WISPA lobbying against this? It will be nearly impossible for
>>> most of
>>> us in the wireless business to do this, without major restructuring,
>>> or a
>>> huge expense that we can't afford.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "George Rogato"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:05 AM
>>> Subject: [WISPA] WHY?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6108279.html?part=rss&tag=6108279&subj=news
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Why would Qwest want ISP's to have to retain this data?
>>>>
>>>> George
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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