Re: Legislation and its effects in our world

[Sean Hunter <jamesb2147 () gmail com>]

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 <fred () 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.willis () 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