3 ms·

One thing I'm unclear on is what the definition of "provider of an electronic communication service" is. From the bill text (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bi

by elehack 15y ago

One thing I'm unclear on is what the definition of "provider of an electronic communication service" is. From the bill text (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1981 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1981) and Title 18 definitions section (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=electronic%20communication%20service&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002510----000-.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=...), it seems to be ISP, since they're requiring the "temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account" to be retained. This leads me to believe that the bill basically requires ISPs to keep IP <=> account mappings around, and isn't so egregious as to require e.g. Google to store de-anonymized logs for all account usage for 18 months; the definitions seem to corroborate this. In which case it's questionable, but not near as bad as it could be. Or am I missing something?

onedognight 15y ago
Coffee shops and bookstores also provide "temporarily assigned network addresses". Might they be covered by this as well?
- dangrossman 15y ago
  > Of course, as Chris Soghoian points out, the bill exempts WiFi providers, so it's woefully ineffective at stopping child porn, since anyone who wanted to do that just needs to go to Starbucks.
owenmarshall 15y ago
The bill further limits administrative subpoenas to the US Marshal service that are investigating child pornography cases. I think the argument people have is that the US Marshal service could abuse this mechanism to blindly issue reams of subpoenas and see what sticks. The law should protect against that by requiring good cause to obtain the subpoena. Whether or not it does is the sticking point.
- tsotha 15y ago
  The system works pretty well in normal criminal cases. If the defense can show the subpoena was issued illegally the government can't use any evidence gathered as a result. It's a pretty big embarrassment for the cops and the DA, and doubly so if the suspect walks.

by elehack 15y ago

onedognight 15y ago

Coffee shops and bookstores also provide "temporarily assigned network addresses". Might they be covered by this as well?

dangrossman 15y ago
> Of course, as Chris Soghoian points out, the bill exempts WiFi providers, so it's woefully ineffective at stopping child porn, since anyone who wanted to do that just needs to go to Starbucks.

owenmarshall 15y ago

The bill further limits administrative subpoenas to the US Marshal service that are investigating child pornography cases. I think the argument people have is that the US Marshal service could abuse this mechanism to blindly issue reams of subpoenas and see what sticks. The law should protect against that by requiring good cause to obtain the subpoena. Whether or not it does is the sticking point.

tsotha 15y ago
The system works pretty well in normal criminal cases. If the defense can show the subpoena was issued illegally the government can't use any evidence gathered as a result. It's a pretty big embarrassment for the cops and the DA, and doubly so if the suspect walks.