[112378] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Legislation and its effects in our world
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ernie Rubi)
Wed Feb 25 11:26:45 2009
From: Ernie Rubi <ernesto@cs.fiu.edu>
To: Sean Hunter <jamesb2147@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <210d4f910902250812r1d5a7b32x2be25c1da4877f63@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:26:37 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I agree - Although this isn't legal advice and I'm not a lawyer:
It amends 18 U.S.C. =A72703 which is entitled "Required Disclosure of =20=
Customer Communications or Records" which refers to providers, not =20
home users...
Better question:
1) Is there a reasonable expectation of privacy in the communications =20=
between end users and their providers so as to give rise to a 4th =20
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 =20
> least
> according to ars technica's article (
> =
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/are-you-an-electronic-comm=
unication-service-provider.ars)
> that excludes home routers. That's not to say it couldn't be =20
> reinterpreted
> in the future.
> Also worth noting is that this is a Republican proposition and both =20=
> 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 =20
>> in the
>> ISP, not the home router. The Danish want the moral equivalent of a =20=
>> netflow
>> trace for each user (log of the kind of information netflow records =20=
>> for a
>> session for each TCP/UDP/SCTP session the user initiates or =20
>> terminates,
>> produced on presentation of a warrant or subpoena), but the EU =20
>> provisions
>> are more application layer - when did the user "sign on" to the =20
>> wireless
>> network, and when did "s/he sign off", to whom did they send emails =20=
>> via the
>> ISP's servers, and so on?
>>
>> Without commenting on police states and such, instantiating =20
>> legislation is
>> required in each country signatory to the Cybercrime Treaty. Both =20
>> 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 =20=
>>> users
>>> will be affected than corporate or backbone admins. I already log =20=
>>> all
>>> access to my wireless, though currently I don't keep outgoing =20
>>> access logs
>>> for that long. I suspect that if this were to become law, the =20
>>> logging
>>> mechanisms in the provided home wireless routers would need a =20
>>> 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 =20
>>> weekend
>>>> about this new proposed legislation I was horrified to find that =20=
>>>> 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 =20
>>>> those that
>>>> would have to implement these changes. My major concern is not =20
>>>> just for
>>>> myself but for a much broader picture.
>>>>
>>>> "Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new =20
>>>> federal law
>>>> that would require all Internet providers and operators of =20
>>>> millions of
>>>> Wi-Fi
>>>> access points, even hotels, local coffee shops, and home users, =20
>>>> 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 =20
>>>> think child
>>>> pornography is awful, however I think how the government is going =20=
>>>> about
>>>> catching these criminals with this new legislation will not =20
>>>> really be any
>>>> more efficient than there current methods. Having a log of all =20
>>>> IP's that
>>>> come across my or anyone in America's "home" Wi-Fi for two years =20=
>>>> is not
>>>> going to help "police investigations" but will cause me to have =20
>>>> to go buy
>>>> a
>>>> more expensive router.
>>>>
>>>> So I'm just wondering, how would this legislation effect some of =20=
>>>> you on
>>>> the
>>>> NANOG list?
>>>>
>>>> -Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
