Again, Again, Again: Republicans Are EVIL
Feb. 12th, 2007 01:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
filkertomAt least Republican politicians. Rights, laws, nothing that represents what we think of as America means jack shit to them. If you support these people, you support evil.
Newest flavor:
Oh, and excuse my pointing out the blatantly obvious, again, but I am getting sick to the teeth of these ratbastards who keep complaining how government gets in your way, government is too big, government takes all your money in taxes, blah blah fucking blah, and then propose immense freakin' military budgets and ever-more-intrusive surveillance of us, the people they are supposed to be responsible to. They want us to cut health care services, environmental protections, education, and every other damn thing, but pay more and more and more for them to spy on us. (Hint for the clue-impaired: That would make government, uh, bigger. Much, much bigger.)
(Nicked from Crooks and Liars.)
Newest flavor:
A bill introduced last week by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) is beginning to raise eyebrows.Sorry, but my tolerance-and-trying-to-be-nice-or-at-least-not-go-too-ballistic quotient just got blasted into orbit. How DARE these fuckers call themselves Americans!? How DARE they!?[It] would require ISPs to record all users' surfing activity, IM conversations and email traffic indefinitely.The bill, dubbed the Safety Act by sponsor Lamar Smith, a Republican congressman from Texas, would impose fines and a prison term of one year on ISPs which failed to keep full records.
This is a terrifying development and it must be stopped before it gains any significant momentum. Background, Action items and contact information below....
Oh, and excuse my pointing out the blatantly obvious, again, but I am getting sick to the teeth of these ratbastards who keep complaining how government gets in your way, government is too big, government takes all your money in taxes, blah blah fucking blah, and then propose immense freakin' military budgets and ever-more-intrusive surveillance of us, the people they are supposed to be responsible to. They want us to cut health care services, environmental protections, education, and every other damn thing, but pay more and more and more for them to spy on us. (Hint for the clue-impaired: That would make government, uh, bigger. Much, much bigger.)
(Nicked from Crooks and Liars.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-12 06:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-12 07:16 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-12 07:20 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-12 07:25 pm (UTC)http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.837:
The relevant section appears to be -
SEC. 6. RECORD RETENTION REQUIREMENTS FOR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS.
(a) Regulations- Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Attorney General shall issue regulations governing the retention of records by Internet Service Providers. Such regulations shall, at a minimum, require retention of records, such as the name and address of the subscriber or registered user to whom an Internet Protocol address, user identification or telephone number was assigned, in order to permit compliance with court orders that may require production of such information.
I suspect he could stretch "at a minimum" for the retention rules quite some distance. That would have to be clarified, modified or removed. Or is there another section of this bill that I'm missing / misinterpreting?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-12 07:32 pm (UTC)If all they wanted was the explicitly described minimum there, all they'd need to keep would be the current list of subscribers.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-12 07:40 pm (UTC)The minimum requirement according to what I read is that an ISP would have to be able to produce records saying "IP address X was in use by subscriber account Y on date and time Z."
Anything beyond that is speculation.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-12 07:51 pm (UTC)Each of these is inaccurate.
If you know that "foofooraw4235" is the on-line alias of, let's say, "Dick 'Tater' Chainy" [sic], then suddenly anything that "Dick" has done using this alias that has left traces in publically accessible locations (blog comments, newsgroup postings, etc.) is now linked to him. Pseudonymity is a big part of what makes the Internet work as it does today. You may argue (although considering that your LJ does not publically list your name, I'd be surprised) that this would be an improvement, but the point is that being able to link pseudonums to real names is not "useless for surveillance purposes".
I also do not believe that this information is a matter of public record. Certainly the ISP associated with an IP address is so (this is what "whois" tells you) but as someone who works in the anti-spam arena, I guarantee that the identity of a _person_ who uses a given email address, or connects with a given ISP, is _not_ public knowledge. Otherwise spam (and several other infestations) would be considerably less problematic to deal with. (Yes, I know, botnets: different problem.)
In any case I think that
See, I Just Can't Figure Out Why This Isn't Blazingly Obvious
Date: 2007-02-12 09:14 pm (UTC)Okay, maybe you don't understand the way that legalese is played these days, a game whose rules you can find by perusing pretty much any news item involving the war in Iraq, Scooter Libby, or most every other thing involving government or the punditry.
"Stretching" is what they FUCKING DO.
The law is worded very, very vaguely. For instance:I don't think it would be difficult at all to read the part that I put in bold, above, as saying that pretty much any ISP, by allowing a child pornographer access to the internet, could be held liable just because they were how he got online.
The part you mention above, Sec. C, is a similar record. Do all ISPs have to produce their user rolls on demand? How about hotels/motels, etc., that have very short term sign-ups? Or Panera Bread and McDonald's? Truck stops? If you host a game of Unreal Tournament, and everybody logs on through your provider, do they all count as customers? Oh, and leave us not forget pop-up ads, many of which people have no control over at all.
And, here's the big thing, in advance of your saying something like, "Well, they're not doing child porn"...
HOW DO THEY KNOW, UNLESS THEY MONITOR YOUR COMMUNICATIONS? UNLESS THEY MONITOR EVERYONE'S COMMUNICATIONS?
Besides just the fuckin' spying on us part, how big a division of each and every ISP do you think will be necessary to keep track of that?
Re: See, I Just Can't Figure Out Why This Isn't Blazingly Obvious
Date: 2007-02-12 09:38 pm (UTC)I doubt this bill will ever make it, but I intend to voice my objection to it anyway. If nothing else, asking ISP's to archive every single communication is unrealistic at best.
And, here's the big thing, in advance of your saying something like, "Well, they're not doing child porn"...
Tom, if you think I'd ever use the "well, if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear" argument, or any variation thereof, you really have me pegged wrong. I may be more conservative than you are (albeit disenchanted with both major parties these days), but I'm not an idiot. I was questioning your interpretation of this bill, not defending it. There is a difference.
Re: See, I Just Can't Figure Out Why This Isn't Blazingly Obvious
Date: 2007-02-12 10:00 pm (UTC)Re: See, I Just Can't Figure Out Why This Isn't Blazingly Obvious
Date: 2007-02-13 12:58 am (UTC)Re: See, I Just Can't Figure Out Why This Isn't Blazingly Obvious
Date: 2007-02-13 07:19 am (UTC)The phrase "has reason to believe facilitates access to" Pretty much means that they will get in trouble just because an internet predator could use an ISP to do his thing.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-13 04:40 am (UTC)It's "retention of records."
Because that phrase is not specifically defined anywhere, you, and more to the point they, can define "retention of records" to mean pretty much anything.
They don't *have* to stretch. The broad, wide, huge definition is already built right in.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-12 08:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-13 06:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-12 09:14 pm (UTC)It may not go *on* being impractical, of course, so it's not a fail-safe to rely on.
Even scaled back, it's aiming at a couple of unAmerican and quite likely illegal precedents. Link it to easy government access, and of course you have a much bigger squabble than warrantless wiretapping was.
It's also interfering in the internal business structure of an entire industry, with no justified reason or excuse for so doing, and completely against any tradition of that traditionally small-government political party. If they want to lose yet more of their paranoid members to the Libertarian vote, by all means, keep going like this.
Finally, can you imagine AOL trying to respond to the storage costs of doing this folly, even scalled down in various ways?
Hmm. Maybe somebody could tell them?
Maybe even suggest they could go mildly hinting that ticking off gigantic media conglomerates is not in your best interests as a politician, even if you're from Texas?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-12 09:50 pm (UTC)How much idiocy can you pack into a single bill? And why am I not surprised that this originated in...Texas?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-13 12:31 am (UTC)Texas is also the home of Steve Jackson, and numerous other geeks who not know know this bill is impractical but are equally outraged at Smith's arrogance.
Okay, so most of us are in Travis County, but still. We're not all idiots.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-13 12:59 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-13 01:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-13 12:55 pm (UTC)Texas politicians, however? It's open season.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-13 01:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-13 01:06 am (UTC)I respectfully request that everyone else do the same. This bill is bad for America, and will not help stop child exploitation.
This just sort of ran through my head, and I had to share.
Date: 2007-02-13 03:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-13 07:34 am (UTC)basically every post, IM, email or other bit of data would be backed up at every ISP along the traceroute... I agree with nagasvoice. The tech costs alone would be astronomical.
The interwebs do not look favorably to being fucked with. And anonymous is an amazingly powerful force, if he ever gets organized.
A bit too narrowly focused
Date: 2007-02-13 07:12 pm (UTC)You are perfectly correct to hate Republicans. You should hate Democrats, too.
If you support *politicians*, you support evil. It's that nature of the beast. This is why there is a Bill of Rights, not to enumerate privileges granted by the government to the lowly masses, but to fence the government in. Note the phrasing. It is not "The government grants the right to.." but "Congress shall make no law." (Should have stopped there. Badum-BUM.)
It is very rare for any politician to take a stand for freedom, especially when someone screams "Child abusers!" or "War on terrorism!" Both sides are quite happy to dance on the burning ashes of the Constitution if they think it will get them votes, or, more importantly, deny their opponents a "soft on (whatever)" campaign attack ad. In private, politicians admit they vote for legislation they know is ineffective or unconstitutional, solely as a political maneuver, and trust the courts to clean up their mess.
So, we can debate which is worse: "Small government" (snicker) Republicans who hypocritically want the government bloated to spy on every aspect of our private lives (and who have increased government spending in real dollars more than those icons of tax&spend, FDR and LBJ, ever dreamed of), or the Democrats who consistently want to "protect" us from ourselves by banning, regulating, or controlling anything which might in any way be harmful to anyone at any time.
Pox, houses, etc.
Re: A bit too narrowly focused
Date: 2007-02-14 01:31 pm (UTC)That said, I submit that the percentage of Evil Shit attempted, perpetrated, and advocated by Repubs is much, much higher than that by Dems. And I think there's more than enough evidence to bear me out.
And regulation is a much longer conversation than I have time for this morning -- maybe when I get back home. 'Cause it's a very good and interesting point, with lots and lots of ramifications. My way-too-short form: Some regulation, for the sake of safety, is vital. And some companies don't want any regulation, because (gasp!) it cuts into their bottom-line profit. Phuque dat, sez I -- safety over profit... within certain limits.
To be continued. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-14 04:55 am (UTC)GOOD!
Date: 2007-02-16 06:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-02-20 03:52 pm (UTC)I was doing the math. If it were possible to capture all the server logs, an ISP might end up with billions of log entries a year; maybe tens of billions, so not more than a few terabytes a year. That would be a pain in the behind, but hypothetically possible. But since the ISP is only a third party, a common carrier for the packets, the only way they could do this would be to capture every single packet to and from every single user, ever. That cranks up the amount of required disk space by a factor of four or five. You'd need gigabytes of storage for every user. Running a little stock or weather widget on your desktop? That will generate thousands of packets a day. The equipment cost of this would be hundreds of dollars per user per year, which presumably users would be paying for.