 djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Wireless..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·VOIPo
·PHONE POWER
| No way. Storing logs of every IP that every user hits for two years is simply too much data to store.
I would think the FBI would mainly be interested in DHCP logs (IP+Time = User).
--
AT&T U-Hearse
Your funeral. Delivered.
|
|
 woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | If this is implemented, wouldn't it be easy to mask or go around, or would that be deemed unlawful?
--
BlooMe |
|
| reply to djrobx
Imagine the overhead... I'm thinking with all the scanning, there would be a performance hit somewhere if you count every single connection and put it into a database etc...so yeah you're right, it would have to be extremely basic info they want like IP/Time and a user. |
|
 knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | said by BBBanditRuR:Imagine the overhead... I'm thinking with all the scanning, there would be a performance hit somewhere if you count every single connection and put it into a database etc...so yeah you're right, it would have to be extremely basic info they want like IP/Time and a user. With a hub, the overhead would be non-existent really. You just record everything 24/7 and then sort out the stuff you need.
You are right though, this server that is recording and processing everything would need massive hard drive space and have to be running 24/7 without *any* downtime. Yeah right, that just means you need two servers then and then somewhere to keep backups of the data in case one of them dies.
It's like trying to tape every cable channel 24/7 on a computer. It's possible, but it's going to be very expensive and time wasting.
--
Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data |
|
 rtcyFACTS only pleasePremium
join:1999-10-16
Norwalk, CA | reply to woody7
said by woody7:If this is implemented, wouldn't it be easy to mask or go around, or would that be deemed unlawful? it's SAD how you ask that question, clearly showing no idea what your constitution allows you.
fuck the FBI and homeland security. we have freedoms and they can't use the fact that they screwed up and allowed what happenned to be the excuse to shred the constitution.
they new 7 years before they boys flew a plane into the buildings and NEVER did a damn thing about it. now WE have to the pay the price for ever? FUCK EM. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by rtcy:f*ck the FBI and homeland security. we have freedoms and they can't use the fact that they screwed up and allowed what happened to be the excuse to shred the constitution. IMO, the problem is that we've already established that access to historic communication data is useful.
For example, law enforcement has been able to go to telcos to get communication records (point-to-point connection information, identifying who you've contacted, and who's contacted you). Most citizens believe that's useful.
Now we've had an improvements in technology which don't yield the same "forensic tools." That's a shift in the balance of power between individual and society.
On the one hand, your rights have been massively improved. You have instant, more affordable, richer (file-transfer and video) and global communications. The ability to publish your own news to the entire world (and to read everyone else's).
Those are huge improvements if you view the world through a lens of "us versus Big Brother." Nobody imagined this just 30 years ago.
But, it also puts the legitimate interests of society (to investigate crime) at a disadvantage.
I don't believe it's fair to focus entirely on how the government is trying to gain more control. The "why" is an important element. And, relative to how much power we've received, it's not much control.
To me, the choice is between ISP's maintaining the historic data for forensic use (under the legal controls which already exist for the release of telco customer/communication data). Or, let the NSA continue with its data mining (because it's the only entity with enough resources to hold that much data).
Mark |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to djrobx
said by djrobx:Storing logs of every IP that every user hits for two years is simply too much data to store. I would think the FBI would mainly be interested in DHCP logs (IP+Time = User). With metered billing, your paying for HD storage at the ISP's data center for data retention. |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to djrobx
said by djrobx:Storing logs of every IP that every user hits for two years is simply too much data to store. I would think the FBI would mainly be interested in DHCP logs (IP+Time = User). Which the ISP is already creating and storing (otherwise they would not be able to route the packets to your modem). There is very little extra data to log when a new IPN is assigned since the IPN assigned to you tends to stay constant for long periods of time (my dynamic IPN has been "mine" for at least 9 months). Thus the extra records to show historical assignments that differ from the current assignment is minimal. |
|
woody7Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to rtcy
said by rtcy:said by woody7:If this is implemented, wouldn't it be easy to mask or go around, or would that be deemed unlawful? it's SAD how you ask that question, clearly showing no idea what your constitution allows you. It was more of a rhetorical question, I by no means am a constitutional lawyer, but am not totally ignorant, as I carry a pocket copy in my pocket at school when I need to reference it. But it is quite condescending of you to state about how little about me you actually know. 
--
BlooMe |
|
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA | reply to amigo_boy
You make a great argument,but time has shown again and again that when people are givin more power over something it is abused to a point where nothing good is going to come out of it. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by camaro92:... time has shown again and again that when people are givin more power over something it is abused to a point where nothing good is going to come out of it. You don't know that. You only know of the failures, not every success which may have arisen from the NSA's data-mining process (or warrantless surveillance between 9/11 and 2006).
I wouldn't expect them to announce every lead they got, and how it was handled. (Conveniently finding "immigration problems" and deported the person. Or, denied re-entry when the immigrant left the country on vacation.).
Personally, I'd rather have it above board, controlled like existing telco records. Not the government maintaining a database that is without any oversight.
IMO, it's going to be one of the other.
Mark |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to amigo_boy
"Most citizens believe that's useful." Maybe. Maybe not.
"On the one hand, your rights have been massively improved. You have instant, more affordable, richer (file-transfer and video) and global communications. The ability to publish your own news to the entire world (and to read everyone else's).
Those are huge improvements if you view the world through a lens of "us versus Big Brother." Nobody imagined this just 30 years ago." What marvelous newsspeak. Orwell did 
Here's a thought - from »dictionary.reference.com/browse/web?&qsrc=
"Web" 6. something that snares or entangles; a trap: innocent travelers caught in the web of international terrorism. |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:.... your rights have been massively improved. You have instant, more affordable, richer (file-transfer and video) and global communications. The ability to publish your own news to the entire world (and to read everyone else's).
Those are huge improvements if you view the world through a lens of "us versus Big Brother." Nobody imagined this just 30 years ago.
[/BQUOTE :Only you would view it as such. Our rights have not improved. Our rights were ALWAYS there to begin with but the quick and convenient way of communicating was not. More easily communicating DOES NOT EQUAL more rights. You can look to China as a clear example of the silliness in what you say. If we were restricted from expressing ourselves (like China) and the internet then allowed us to express ourselves more and the government allowed it and made laws to support/protect it, then and only then would our rights improve. I don't think anyone here would argue the rights of the citizens of China have improved one bit. Their government still tries to prevent them from gaining any rights in communicating. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by Skippy25:Our rights have not improved. I think anyone except the most extreme activist can see that our rights are improved as technology improves.
Your right to freedom of movement is enhanced by advances in air travel, allowing even the poorest person to be able to travel the world. (Unimaginable even 40 years ago).
But, with expanded or enhanced individual power comes greater challenges for social interests (such as preventing planes from being crashed into skyscrapers).
Medical advances are another example. What better improvement of your rights than to extend your life so you can exercise your rights longer? Nobody in the 1900s would have expected MRIs and CAT scans. Not even basic medicine like viagra (enhancing your right of "freedom of association").
But, with those advances can social challenges to protect against drug abuse, medical quacks, or counterfeit drugs.
said by Skippy25: Our rights were ALWAYS there to begin with but the quick and convenient way of communicating was not. Rights are always balanced by social interests. Read about Civic Republicanism, or Locke's "state of nature" and how individuals give up (allow suspension or reduction of exercise of) rights in return for the benefits that come from society.
For example, in a state of nature you have the right to hunt down someone who does you wrong and avenge yourself. When you entered the "social contract," you gave up that right for a more orderly social process of law enforcement, trial and punishment/correction/restitution.
If you don't believe your rights are balanced by society's needs, try getting on your roof at 3AM and broadcasting your political views through a loudhorn. You'll find out real fast (unless you live on a farm) how far your "perfect right to free speech" extends.
Conversely, if your neighbors were having a party at 3AM (exercising their perfect right to "freedom of association") you'd realize pretty quickly how you benefit from society's balancing of rights (as you call the police to have the party broken up).
It's impossible to have a discussion about challenges (like the article we're all responding to) when we can't even find common terms about the individual and society.
Mark |
|
chimera
join:2009-06-09
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Comcast
| You make some good points, but again we need to remember that this is all about the balancing act. I hold by my belief that deep packet inspection goes too far when done without a warrant. I consider it akin to a police officer checking every car that passes on a road at every time and (with logging) recording every piece of content in the car at the time. It both slows traffic down (creating problems) and increases cost (creating problems).
A pure IP based log might be doable, but I don't know what sort of restrictions might be run into because of this. Moving forward with IPv6 each log entry would need to hold both the time and two 128-bit IP addresses which could also become a serious impediment to performance. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by chimera:I hold by my belief that deep packet inspection goes too far when done without a warrant. I think I agree with that (unless there are extenuating circumstances such as the period after 9/11 and before passage of the Patriot Act in 2006 to better accommodate changed circumstances.).
The topic which seems to be under discussion isn't deep-packet inspection. Just maintaining the kind of point-to-point records that exist as historical data (for forensic purposes) at telcos. Who you received email from, who you sent it to. Who you contacted with IM or VoIP.
That's information which is part of the delivery portion of the protocol. Not examining content.
To me, that's a similar to what telcos have captured for decades regarding telephony. I don't think it violates a principle.
Mark |
|
| He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
-B. Franklin
I'm sure you've heard of him.
Maybe next they should start putting microphones in all our rooms at home and video recording devices while we're at it.
Ever read the book 1984 |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by AnonymousL :
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
1. You misquoted Franklin. The real quote is: ""Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
It's important to note Franklin's use of qualifiers which you conveniently omitted. They indicate that he believed there could be unessential liberties, and permanent safety.
2. The quote is from 1755, republished in 1775.
It's hard to know what Franklin believed 20 years later.
For example, Franklin was in London just 6 years before the revolution and criticized Wilkes and his supporters as deserving punishment for "ungratefully abusing ... the best king any nation was ever blessed with."
Wilkes was incredibly popular but was imprisoned for criticizing the king and his lackeys. He was elected to the House of Commons three times from prison, and his supporters rioted for his cause. Franklin criticized them just 5 years before colonists would be in the same position (and Wiles supporting the colonials!).
In other words, Franklin isn't famous for his consistency. He can be quoted for just about any proposition.
3. If liberty was more important than security, the founding generation would have kept the relatively libertarian Articles of Confederation from 1776. Instead, they ditched it after just 12 years -- in favor of the relatively massive federal constitution of 1789.
Adding even more context to the 1755 quote, Franklin was a *Federalist*. He supported the new constitution, larger government. He opposed the anti-federalists who used libertarian rhetoric the way Franklin is quoted today!
4. The real irony about the 1789 shift to relatively *massive* government is that the leading precipitating factor was Shay's Rebellion.
A group of men who opposed growing taxes, using revolutionary rhetoric from just a decade earlier. The public was appalled. They demanded a stronger government to deal with such uprisings.
In other words: the founding generation was willing to trade liberty for security. And, Franklin championed their cause, opposing libertarians who wanted less government and greater state sovereignty (with less chance for oppression).
The founding generation did the same thing every generation since them has done: found ways to use government more intelligently and effectively. Balancing individual rights with societal needs.
The founding generation couldn't even foresee their needs just 12 years after the revolution. Yet, 220 years later we're told they'd oppose us doing the same thing they did?
Mark |
|
camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA Reviews:
·Comcast
| reply to amigo_boy
Isn't it fun to have lively conversation without picking on each other in here,it's seems in certain section's in here all there is bitching at each other nothing constructive,but anyways back to topic i totally agree on the win part there is no point to brag because it gives them more info but all i am saying is that i don't want my private conversion with my wife being "analyzed for intelligence " by some snot nosed kid in a NSA or whatever data mining facility getting his jolly's off with his buddy's,way to much power,but anyways how's the weather there i have family up north in Scottsdale love it out there,plus with snow on it's way tomorrow i hate it after x-mas no thank you. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | said by camaro92:all i am saying is that i don't want my private conversion with my wife being "analyzed for intelligence " by some snot nosed kid in a NSA or whatever data mining facility getting his jolly's off with his buddy's,way to much power I agree. My concern is that American politics seem to gravitate to two extremes, 1) government can fix any problem (without any concern for unintended consequences), or 2) government can't do anything right (with those people proving their point by seeming to support ineffective legislation they know will fail.).
I believe the vast majority of Americans want a sensible balance between safety and liberty. It just seems like we take the long road to get there.
It's like the 1968 Gun Control Act. After MLK was assassinated with a long gun, Americans wanted better gun control. Congress passed an act to regulate handguns. A few months later, after Robert Kennedy was assassinated with a handgun, Congress amended the act to regulate long guns.
It's just the way we seem to always do things.
said by camaro92:but anyways how's the weather there i have family up north in Scottsdale love it out there,plus with snow on it's way tomorrow i hate it after x-mas no thank you. 67 today. All the windows and doors open. I got a fly in the house because of it. I hate that when it happens. 
Mark |
|
