Your ISP could be Big Brother
August 2, 2011 1:17 PM Subscribe
It seems your Internet Service Provider may have the ability to retain up to 12 months' worth of personal information about what you do on the Internet. They may have the ability to observe what websites you visit, as well as what information you post to the Internet.
This post was deleted for the following reason: One wee write-up on this isn't great and it seems like it's not totally clear what the actual context/implications/changes involved are. Maybe someone can do more substantial post? -- cortex
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
posted by entropicamericana at 1:21 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by entropicamericana at 1:21 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
I don't care who knows I LOVE METAFILTER!
posted by punkfloyd at 1:22 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by punkfloyd at 1:22 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
...and there's no way to make your online activity opaque to the ISP?
posted by clockzero at 1:26 PM on August 2, 2011
posted by clockzero at 1:26 PM on August 2, 2011
There is, but unless I'm a complete idiot at setting up TOR, it's slow, a pain in the ass and severely limited in scope.
posted by griphus at 1:27 PM on August 2, 2011
posted by griphus at 1:27 PM on August 2, 2011
Another analysis states that this is only in relation to IP address assignment, not monitoring the traffic streams and recording destinations (which would be much harder). I tend to trust the EFF though. Does anyone know for certain?
posted by pashdown at 1:27 PM on August 2, 2011
posted by pashdown at 1:27 PM on August 2, 2011
Simple traffic sniffing could be prevented if websites/servers would adopt HTTPS. Using IPsec would be even better.
posted by Exad at 1:29 PM on August 2, 2011
posted by Exad at 1:29 PM on August 2, 2011
jcreigh, I was just going to point out the same thing. Am I missing something?
posted by muddgirl at 1:29 PM on August 2, 2011
posted by muddgirl at 1:29 PM on August 2, 2011
So as long as I put my DHCP and Radius servers on WiFi connections my customers are exempted from this bill? Excellent.
posted by pashdown at 1:32 PM on August 2, 2011
posted by pashdown at 1:32 PM on August 2, 2011
With that radio communication clause in there it seems like they're hedging against cases where people are able to pirate WiFi to pirate software, is that correct?
I had a situation about a year ago where an idiot roomie's girlfriend had no idea how BT worked and came onto the house network (which was in my name) and automatically started seeding Inception to a few thousand people. My ISP sent me a letter that basically said "we're watching you." I talked to free legal counsel, and they said that despite it not being me who had done the illegal uploading, I was still on the hook for it, as it was my name on the bill. Nothing ever came of it, of course, but it was a scary incident that has me even more wary of piracy than I was in the past.
It seems weird that it'd be one way in that instance and another in this one.
posted by codacorolla at 1:36 PM on August 2, 2011
I had a situation about a year ago where an idiot roomie's girlfriend had no idea how BT worked and came onto the house network (which was in my name) and automatically started seeding Inception to a few thousand people. My ISP sent me a letter that basically said "we're watching you." I talked to free legal counsel, and they said that despite it not being me who had done the illegal uploading, I was still on the hook for it, as it was my name on the bill. Nothing ever came of it, of course, but it was a scary incident that has me even more wary of piracy than I was in the past.
It seems weird that it'd be one way in that instance and another in this one.
posted by codacorolla at 1:36 PM on August 2, 2011
Good luck. I'm behind seven proxies.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:37 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:37 PM on August 2, 2011 [2 favorites]
Up to 12 months? That's a whole lotta youtube cat videos they'd have to sort through...
posted by MaryDellamorte at 1:42 PM on August 2, 2011
posted by MaryDellamorte at 1:42 PM on August 2, 2011
I believe the EFF is just concerned with the privacy issues
My confusion comes from the jump between
posted by muddgirl at 1:45 PM on August 2, 2011
My confusion comes from the jump between
Mandatory data retention proposals force ISPs and telecom providers to keep records of their IP address allocations for certain period of time.and, from the same page
These requirements compel ISPs and telcos to create large databases of information about who communicates with whom via Internet or phone, the duration of the exchange, and the users’ location.I don't see how the second paragraph follows from the first. How does logging what IP addresses are assigned to me also reveal who I communicate with and for how long?
posted by muddgirl at 1:45 PM on August 2, 2011
I shall take this opportunity to compose an open letter to the persons/shadowy government agency responsible for monitoring my life, internet traffic, and general activities.
"Dear Big Brother,
At the next evil empire picnic, please tell your predecessors' families that I'm am so very sorry about all the boredom-caused suicides.
please friend me on facebook... I'm lonely.
That is all."
posted by Debaser626 at 1:45 PM on August 2, 2011
"Dear Big Brother,
At the next evil empire picnic, please tell your predecessors' families that I'm am so very sorry about all the boredom-caused suicides.
please friend me on facebook... I'm lonely.
That is all."
posted by Debaser626 at 1:45 PM on August 2, 2011
The news would be that they now must
I guess someone needs to watch this. What actually happened was that a republican-majority subcommittee voted mostly along party lines (5 dems were for, 3 republicans were against) to send the bill to the house floor. It still has to pass not only the House, but also the democratic-majority senate before the president can sign it into law. Maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't, but either way we've got some time before the sky is falling.
posted by dersins at 1:45 PM on August 2, 2011
I guess someone needs to watch this. What actually happened was that a republican-majority subcommittee voted mostly along party lines (5 dems were for, 3 republicans were against) to send the bill to the house floor. It still has to pass not only the House, but also the democratic-majority senate before the president can sign it into law. Maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't, but either way we've got some time before the sky is falling.
posted by dersins at 1:45 PM on August 2, 2011
Analog leaders in a digital world. (I think there's a song in there somewhere.)
The lawmakers are, by and large, old coots who wouldn't know a bit from a byte from an ice cream sandwich. They don't get it and they probably won't ever get it. So they are easy pickings for the corporations and law enforcement and media pimps to just come in and hand them pre-written solutions to the "problems" with the internet.
Just another area where the masses are getting fucked sideways. We'll have to wait until the next generation of lawmakers is ensconced before we get anything fair or reasonable. Probably be too late then, though, 'cause then the argument will be about "precedent".
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:46 PM on August 2, 2011
The lawmakers are, by and large, old coots who wouldn't know a bit from a byte from an ice cream sandwich. They don't get it and they probably won't ever get it. So they are easy pickings for the corporations and law enforcement and media pimps to just come in and hand them pre-written solutions to the "problems" with the internet.
Just another area where the masses are getting fucked sideways. We'll have to wait until the next generation of lawmakers is ensconced before we get anything fair or reasonable. Probably be too late then, though, 'cause then the argument will be about "precedent".
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:46 PM on August 2, 2011
Yeah, unless there's another part of the legislation I'm not seeing, the text of this FPP seems factually incorrect and misleading.
I love an anti-luddocracy counter-orwellian screed as much as the next mefite but I don't think our ducks are in a row here.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 1:46 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
I love an anti-luddocracy counter-orwellian screed as much as the next mefite but I don't think our ducks are in a row here.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 1:46 PM on August 2, 2011 [1 favorite]
This post is only relevant for US residents; therefore, the lede is a little misleading.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:47 PM on August 2, 2011
posted by KokuRyu at 1:47 PM on August 2, 2011
« Older Ooh, that smell. Can't you smell that smell? | Pleasanton Cooks Up A New Bicycle Safety Method Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Stagger Lee at 1:20 PM on August 2, 2011 [3 favorites]