Legislation and its effects in our world

Wed Feb 25 16:26:37 UTC 2009

I agree - Although this isn't legal advice and I'm not a lawyer:

It amends 18 U.S.C. §2703 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 <fred at 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 at 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>