amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·magicjack.com
 ·EarthLink
| reply to ender7074
Re: No
said by ender7074  :I'm all for national security and catching criminals but this is getting a bit out of hand. Do they have any idea how much infrastructure it would take to keep that much info for 2 years? I think the FBI is overreaching it's power here. It's a conundrum, isn't it? I mentioned this in previous topics critical of the NSA's wholesale reception of internet traffic. If law enforcement is supposed to have access to historic "call records" (like we've established they do with phone records) then the Internet has created a huge gap. I said that those who don't want the government maintaining that historic information would probably complain if ISPs were required to do it. And, now here we are. 
Mark |
|
knightmb
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
 ·Comcast
·Vonage
·Speakeasy
| As an ISP, I can tell you this law would make it as bad as trying to keep a backup of the entire Internet every night. Our ISP is very small and we still push out Gigabits of traffic everyday. Imagine trying to keep all of that for 2 years. I don't think we could buy enough Terabyte drives to meet those needs and thus we've filed a complaint.  |
|
tater_gunz
Shoot to kill
Premium
join:2003-08-22
Toledo, OH
·buckeye cable
| I agree with you 100%. This is just wrong, and it needs to be stopped. I can understand real-time surveillance on a subject when the proper warrants are obtained, but to insist on blanket surveillance of everything your users do and then to demand the information be stored for two years on top of that is just insane.
Every time I read an article like this it makes me want to renounce my citizenship and leave.
- Tate
--
Happiness is an OC-768 in your basement... |
|
Thespis
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX | Where would you go?
What country does less surveillance on its own citizens?
I'm not being argumentative, I honestly can't think of one... |
|
