dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
Sonic.Net CEO Opposes New Retention Laws
Insists Longer Retention Creates Security, Privacy Issues
by Karl Bode 09:52AM Thursday Aug 04 2011
For much of the last decade the U.S. government has been trying to force data retention requirements on ISPs, most frequently under the banner of fighting child pornography. New bills seem to pop up every year or so, though privacy advocates have traditionally beaten such efforts back. Mandatory ISP data retention was something you'll recall was a priority for the Bush/Gonzales Justice Department, and (much like warrantless wiretapping) is now being championed by the Obama Administration Justice Department.


The latest effort is H.R. 1981: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011 (pdf), a bill that would require ISPs retain user data for 18 months. While groups like The National Sheriffs' Association are throwing their support behind the bill, Dane Jasper, CEO of independent ISP Sonic.net, blogs that his company isn't particularly impressed by the new measure. Jasper notes that Sonic currently retains IP allocation logs for just two weeks, and that retaining them longer creates an "attractive nuisance" by creating privacy and security concerns for users.

Jasper also argues that current laws are adequate:
quote:
Do the wheels of justice – or investigation – move too slowly, and should data be retained for a long time to allow for legitimate investigation? No, there are already tools in place that law enforcement can easily use to ask ISPs to preserve log information of real online criminals. The 1996 Electronic Communication Transactional Records Act allows law enforcement to require an ISP to keep data for 90 days upon law enforcement request, giving time for a legitimate search warrant to be reviewed by a judge and issued. But, keeping data on every online user for a full year presents far too much potential for abuse.
The House Judiciary Committee has passed the new law, which as you might expect is seeing heated opposition from privacy groups, who agree with Jasper's thoughts that the requirements will be abused by government and open the door to new privacy risks for consumers.

view:
topics flat nest 
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

Even the name doesn't make sense unless they are planning to use the logs to punish websites and ISPs for delivering "obscene" content which could be seen by children

Rancid

@charter.com

Re: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

This is Republican trickster nomenclature. It is like the Clear Skies Act of 2003.

Veloslave
Geek For God
Premium
join:2003-07-11
Martinez, CA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast
·PHONE POWER

Re: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

said by Rancid :

This is Republican trickster nomenclature. It is like the Clear Skies Act of 2003.

This NOT a party thing... it is politics. The government IN GENERAL (both parties) want certain levels of control or ability to spy on the populace.

Bravo to Dane for taking a stand and trying to keep privacy real and reliable on the internet. The Net is still young and it is important efforts and responses like these that need our full attention. The net is still growing like a weed... today's actions will last a long time. Either contact your representative or you will not have a single toe to stand on when the snooping begins.

Thank you Dane for doing the right thing!

C'mon people... quit letting the government wag the dog...

When you let them divide yourselves from others... they win. Don't play the game their way with blah blah blah dems this and repubs that... that is what they want, they want divisiveness and in-fighting so it takes the light off of the subject... which is, WE ARE ALL GETTING SCREWED!

Let's all play nice like the peers and friends we are and stop BS legislation like this. United we stand, divided we fall.
--
Mom was right.... I NEED fiber!

mod_wastrel
iamwhatiam

join:2008-03-28
kudos:1
When in doubt (of being re-elected), pass any law you can (which you think might help get you another vote on its name alone).
gorehound

join:2009-06-19
Portland, ME
Republicans and sold-out Democrats up to no good.Only a few in Congress got half a brain and would oppose this.
It is a Lie !!!

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

"Republican" this, "Republican" that. About time you folks asked for what you really want: Outlaw the Republican party, and imprison anybody who holds a remotely Republican viewpoint.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
slynerve

join:2011-04-11

Re: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

said by NormanS:

"Republican" this, "Republican" that. About time you folks asked for what you really want: Outlaw the Republican party, and imprison anybody who holds a remotely Republican viewpoint.

If your viewpoint is morally reprehensible and generated by two fictional books - The Bible and Atlas Shrugged - then yes, people are going to complain about you.

P.S.: I believe in God but I will not tolerate the Bible, so please don't think that's me being a snarky athiest.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12

Re: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

Oh, great. Now we not only have political chauvinism, but religious chauvinism. Time to lock this thread.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
slynerve

join:2011-04-11

Re: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

said by NormanS:

Oh, great. Now we not only have political chauvinism, but religious chauvinism. Time to lock this thread.

That's a nice persecution complex you got going there.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

said by slynerve:

said by NormanS:

Oh, great. Now we not only have political chauvinism, but religious chauvinism. Time to lock this thread.

That's a nice persecution complex you got going there.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!
slynerve

join:2011-04-11

Re: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

said by NormanS:

said by slynerve:

said by NormanS:

Oh, great. Now we not only have political chauvinism, but religious chauvinism. Time to lock this thread.

That's a nice persecution complex you got going there.

Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!

Oh, really? How exactly are they out to get you? Can you list five ways that "liberals" have negatively affected your life/the life of your loved ones? Because I can sure as hell list more than five ways Republicans have negatively impacted me and those close to me in very direct ways.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

said by slynerve:

Oh, really? How exactly are they out to get you? Can you list five ways that "liberals" have negatively affected your life/the life of your loved ones? Because I can sure as hell list more than five ways Republicans have negatively impacted me and those close to me in very direct ways.

Seems that I have struck a nerve.

1. California gun control (approaching a point of confiscation).
2. California sales taxes (approaching confiscatory percentages).
3. California land parcel fees (end runs around Proposition 13).
4. California land use restrictions (beyond normal zoning requirements).
5. California court ruling requiring home schooling parent to have teaching credentials.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
slynerve

join:2011-04-11

Re: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

You're damn right you touched a nerve.

You sit there and complain about trivial personal freedom fluff that are essentially non-issues to anyone who actually pays attention to someone other than themselves.

The following are Republican policies and practices that have directly affected me and my loved ones and severly altered our lives.

1: My transsexual cousin cannot marry the man she's been in a commited relationship since she graduated high school four years ago because she had the misfortune of being born a man. She's already been denied hospital visitations and other "rights" normal people take for granted.

2: My fiance and I are in a committed, loving relationship. We have sex. Should an accident ever happen - and sometimes they do - Republicans are trying to foist a child we'd not be ready for upon us. Same if she ever gets raped. We want children, but not in our mid-20's. It should be our decision, and more importantly, it should be HERS. Abortion is not birth control and nobody uses it like that. Nobody except the most callous of people goes into such a huge decision with no thought of what they're doing. I've volunteered at Planned Parenthood with her and I've seen the emotional turmoil this causes firsthand, and thus know the "abortion being used as birth control!" line is completely mythical.

3: The defunding of Planned Parenthood strips away another resource the lower-middle class like my fiance and I can use to stay in good health.

4: My grandmother worked her whole for Social Security and Medicaid. Now she's struggling to find an employer who will hire a woman in her 70's AND provide benefits for her and my grandfather, who cannot work due both a healed broken back and lack of cartilage in his knees from years of labor as an electrician. Now Republicans want to gut these programs or change them for the worse, effectively forcinng her out of retirement.

5: The Republican push to strip the DNR of need money to provide clean drinking water puts my life and my fiance's in danger, plain and simple.

These are actually real life concerns. Sorry if I have no sympathy because you can't own an assault rifle.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

Re: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

said by slynerve:

These are actually real life concerns. Sorry if I have no sympathy because you can't own an assault rifle.

Your opinions. They are no more important to me than my "trivial" concerns.

1. I was not aware that transsexuals couldn't marry.

quote:
... in 1998, a trial court in Orange County, California affirmed
the validity of a marriage involving a trans sexual man. The case arose
when the wife sought to invalidate the marriage in order to deprive her
husband of his parental rights vis-a-vis the couple’s child, who was born
through alternative insemination. Fortunately, the trial court rejected the
wife’s argument that the transgendered husband should be considered
legally female and refused to nullify the marriage.

»ws.copernic.com/clickserver/_ice···Url=true

Apparently not an issue, here, in California. And, in Texas, of all places, apparently transsexuals who are homosexual can marry (though I did not actually follow that link).

2. They apparently have not succeeded in California.

3. And I recall when the United Way defunded BSA; a large part of the reason I don't contribute to them any more.

4. I am not a "protected minority", and find that, as an over-50 non-minority, jobs are hard to come by. Who put special treatment of "protected minorities" in effect? Not the Republicans.

5. A search on "DNR water" was inconclusive, so I don't have a clue what that is about. I can find references to a number of states, but California is not one of them.

Everything you mention in your list is applicable under "personal liberties", and either just as trivial as my list, or just as important.

And I don't see how I should have any more sympathy for you than you have for me.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
slynerve

join:2011-04-11

Re: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

Simple: I'm not from California. Members of my family are - Needles and San Diego, repectively. None of that applies to me or the people I'm talking about.

Well, maybe: my uncle in Needles has more guns than I can count and has no problem with the gun laws. I often go shooting with him when I visit. The only differences I've noticed between there and here are smaller magazines and the lack of fully automatic weapons. As far as I can tell, there's no roving bands confiscating guns. He has an entire arsenal he came by legally.

You've addressed a few points in my post, but one thing stands out: protected minorities. Sorry, but this comes off as vaugely racist. You imply that because they are "protected minorities" they don't work and instead live off the government teat. You are wrong.

If you've ever spent time with people on government aid, you'd know that no one likes being on it. Sure, everyone hears stories about welfare queens, but have you ever met one? I've been around poor people on government aid my whole life, and not one of them didn't jump at the chance to live on their own two feet.

It's another strawman used by anti-tax groups to bash wasteful government spending that doesn't exist.

I may be young but I've seen a lot of the world, and I don't like it one bit.

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

1 edit

Re: Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act

said by slynerve:

You've addressed a few points in my post, but one thing stands out: protected minorities. Sorry, but this comes off as vaugely racist. You imply that because they are "protected minorities" they don't work and instead live off the government teat. You are wrong.

That damned "racist" chestnut, again. I am not speaking of welfare.

I may be young but I've seen a lot of the world, and I don't like it one bit.

Neither do I. And it appears this debate is more about whose oxen are being gored than anything else.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Tomek
Premium
join:2002-01-30
Valley Stream, NY
said by slynerve:

You've addressed a few points in my post, but one thing stands out: protected minorities. Sorry, but this comes off as vaugely racist. You imply that because they are "protected minorities" they don't work and instead live off the government teat. You are wrong.

I hate the whole idea of "protected minorities". Once you single out any of those groups, now that is racist. Equal opportunity is right, affirmative action is not.

The list goes on.....
--
Semper Fi

DataRiker
Premium
join:2002-05-19
00000

Dane Jasper

Somebody give this guy an award for being awesome.

Seriously.

Rancid

@charter.com

Re: Dane Jasper

Sonic.net is one of those ISPs that didn't vanish when the Death Star tried to take over. Sacramento, San Fran, Oakland, Santa Rosa, CA. No caps either and Fiber is being run. I'm interested in buying property on their pipeline just to use it.

caesarv

join:1999-08-02
Santa Rosa, CA

1 edit

Re: Dane Jasper

Dane Rocks! I really do consider myself very fortunate to be to be a Sonic.net customer. I have been with Sonic for many years and use them for both personal and business use. I have watched Dane progress from a baby (well sorta--I work with a woman who used to babysit him), through the early days of Sonoma Interconnect, DSL, Fusion, and now fiber.

Now if we could just get Dane to run for president!

NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:12
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
said by Rancid :

Sonic.net is one of those ISPs that didn't vanish when the Death Star tried to take over. Sacramento, San Fran, Oakland, Santa Rosa, CA. No caps either and Fiber is being run. I'm interested in buying property on their pipeline just to use it.

The "Deathstar" taking over? The "Deathstar" was history when the bottom fell out from under the independent ISPs. Not only did they not try to take over, they got taken over; Ma Bell was eaten by one of her own Babies!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Nice name for the bill to throw people off..

Because it is more than likely that it should be called the "Protecting the Entertainment Industry's obsolete business model act"

child porn is just a typica coverup from congress critters because they know it will sell a bill they want.

Actually MAFIAA aside I wonder what hidden goodies this bill has, usually something that feels like a slamdunk to pass has something in it to profit someone and do nothing for America.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27

It's for the children!!!

Seriously, this guy is right.

All we need is nefarious interlopers getting/modifying the logs of ISP retention and posting to bittorents for all to view...

(in other words, why should ISPs invest in logging/security costs for the government..where is their compenstation).

Next up, a PCFIPA Use fee on your bills...

Let me ask, would 18 months of logs have save missing children?
I still am not seeing all the airplane-bombing-attempts halted by the billions wasted on Airport scanners! And how about THAT data that got out with images of innocent, clothesless travelers!
--
Splat
Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

Re: It's for the children!!!

ISP logs will never catch them because they use methods to reduce ability to be tracked already. undercover work is what usually catches the producers of it.

and from what I hear its mentally rough work too because the agents actually have to look at the stuff while building their evidence pile.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports

David
I start new work on
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
kudos:101
Reviews:
·DIRECTV
·AT&T Midwest
·magicjack.com
·Google Voice

Re: It's for the children!!!

said by Kearnstd:

and from what I hear its mentally rough work too because the agents actually have to look at the stuff while building their evidence pile.

YOu want to hear about mentally rough work sometime. Ask my mother, when you have to ask a 4 year old or a 2 yr old boy/girl certain questions that should never come up.

dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4

Child Porn

Yet something else done under the guise of protection of kiddie porn when we all know its REALLY for the MAFIAAs benefit. meh.
--
Oh YES! let me drop everything i'm doing regardless of who it affects to deal with your petty little problem!