The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
The "Protecting Children From Online Pornographers Act" aka "We're still watching"
Posts
I mean extra costs on an industry that is already often working with very low margins (or at least claim they do).
Any money they can make I am sure they will, just look at DNS server redirects.
beat'd
And let's not forget TV viewing habits. We know pedophiles use TV, and that's wrong. We must know what they're watching at all times too. So for the sake of us all, we must also monitor and record what you watch and how long. Let's not forget to add something into the law about DVRs and the like.
Oh snap. Cars too. You know who the most dangerous people on the roads are? Yup. Child pornographers. To make sure they're not recording while driving, we'll be monitoring your driving habits too. It's the only way to be sure.
And you know what else. Money. In order to weasel out people who might be doing such awful acts, we need to monitor all your financial accounts and spending habits. Suddenly buy a camera, well, we'll know you're probably being converted into child pornography. Tsk tsk.
Already happening here.
The Swedish minister of justice expressed "concerns" about not being able to track phones that were turned off. So expect a law about that too, I suppose.
It doesn't say that at all. Did you read the bill? The only thing that comes remotely close to that is:
Oh no! My ISP knows my IP address!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I did read the bill, and thats what i remember it saying. I read it before I posted the thread! I'll have to find where it says it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Here fucking here.
Anyone involved in embellishing or judging the sexual attractiveness of a 4-year-old needs to be put away for a long, long time.
If the ISP keeps a log of your IP, that does not intrinsically contain any information about what sites you've been visiting.
The ISP may also log traffic, and a traffic log combined with an IP log would let them track you, but that's larger in scope.
Whether the government has access to that IP log without a subpoena or warrant is also a separate issue. I don't know what the current law on that is. My gut feeling is that they still need a subpoena or warrant to get that IP tracking log from the ISP, but there may be some other law that abrogates that need.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Specifically: "the temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account"
To me this sounds like "storing the websites you visit". I am not a tech guy when it comes to ISP, so can someone explain how I am wrong?
Besides, using only logic here, if the goal is to prevent children being exposed to child and regular pornography, doesn't this require that internet usage is tracked on some form? Now I don't think the porn is the reason for this bill, it is just good old citizen control, but going with the narrative to sell this bill, you need to have some form of control of traffic to be able to do what the bill is said to do. right?
Your Internet Service Provider temporarily assigns you an address one time - when you log on - and then periodically after that on some specified interval (probably 24 hours).
It doesn't assign you an address every time you visit any website, nor does the address that it assign contain any information about the websites you visit.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This is important because, from a law enforcement perspective, the person who had IP 64.184.97.44 on August 9th 2011 may not have had that IP on $Day_Crime_Was_Committed. That language seems aimed at ensuring ISPs keep track of whose account had which IP on which day for the last 18 months. It does not dictate that the ISP must keep track of every IP your IP connected to on every day for the last 18 months.
That's horrible. I guess, what else would you expect from a country that values socialism over freedom. :P
I'm actually fine with this, actually. I do think that ISPs should keep a log of IP addresses assigned to users for law enforcement purposes. (I'm not sure how much it will help because this law specifically exempts wifi which means I guess if you want to trade child porn/MP3s/hack the Pentagon you just need to do it from a coffee shop. But, hey, in principle it's not a turrible idea.)
I think any such log should be treated as private information, which means that the ISP has a general responsibility to keep it secure, and they shouldn't have to give it to anybody without a subpoena or warrant. And that's a bit of a tangential issue.
But keeping a log of IP assignments? Great!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What's that? At an absolute best case this will only put more pedophiles who are downloading child porn in jail, and not actually do anything to stop the guys who are making and distributing this material? I'm shocked.
We invest the majority of our resources going after group 1, hardly any at group 2, and desperately pretend that group 3 doesn't exist
And a PDF of the published journal article: http://www.ahealthymind.org/ans/library/right%20OFC%20pedophile.pdf
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
& @Feral agreed on all points. There's a vast gulf between "making sure an ISP keeps track of who has what IP assigned on what day/time" and "making sure an ISP keeps track of every website visited by every account holder."
Made up of multimillion dollar server units. With cooling. And security. And maintenance. And redundant generators. On private land.
That doesn't seem very consistent with a free market philosophy.
Nah. They'll just continue to jack up their prices.
Most ISPs already log this information, though I doubt very many keep the logs for more 30 days.
I think you're vastly overestimating the amount of storage something like this takes; I'd be surprised if you'd even need dedicated hardware for this purpose for all but the hugest ISPs.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Depending on how long they store it, you could be looking at several megabytes of data per user.
The whole point of the last several posts in the thread is that HR1981 does not mandate ISPs to store URLs, the full contents of messages, downloads, or uploads.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Australia has been fighting this for a while.
This is from a while ago -
AND we are still fighting against it.
Here in Euroland the ISPs are expected to pass the buck on to their customers.
A companies profits being used to, in any way, benefit their customers?
HAHAHA
Euroland? More like Wonderland!
Dohohohohoh.
[/depressed sarcasm]
Exactly, the law requires DHCP logs. That's it.
Extrapolating from our small company (not an ISP), I estimate for 1 million devices with a 7 day lease, that's about 180 GB every 18 months . The storage isn't the problem, it's the multiple-redundant backups you'd have to deploy to prevent any loss of data.
For comparision, firewall logs (for url monitoring, etc, but not actual traffic content) could use 50 GB per client over 18 months.
I did a back of the napkin calculation assuming 1kb per lease (which is a lot of data; for comparison my LAN's DHCP server logs about 75-100 bytes per lease) and assuming 1 million leases per day, 18 months of data would be 522GB of uncompressed ASCII logs.
ISPs tend to use shorter lease durations than small LANs, and those lease durations are getting even shorter over time as the IPv4 space gets more congested. 12 hours is pretty typical, but I've heard of some ISPs using lease durations as short as 15m (wtf).
Still, 522GB of data and 1 million transactions per day is not an obscene amount of data for an ISP with a half-million customers.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Though if this bill is about storing IP data for 18 months, why not call it something like "support the police catch hackers" act or something? While still inaccurate I feel like it would go down better.
Because some people will vote against "anti-hacker" legislation in the name of free speech and anonymity.
Protecting children means that only pedophiles will vote against it.
are you saying we don't prosecute as many of the crimes that are underreported and are much harder to prove than "you had a child porn file on your computer"
Because children.
In all seriousness, the IP lease logging section looks like a relatively small part, where the rest of the text is all about punishing childpornswagglers harder.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Nothing that has to do with large media companies can be connected the free market philosophies.