3 ms·
And if it was the bill introduced two months ago that would be fine. Govtrack, as great a resource as it is, is often days to weeks behind. According to the cne
by camiller 15y ago
And if it was the bill introduced two months ago that would be fine. Govtrack, as great a resource as it is, is often days to weeks behind. According to the cnet article linked from the Atlantic article a few changes were made by the committee:
"A last-minute rewrite of the bill expands the information that commercial Internet providers are required to store to include customers' names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and temporarily-assigned IP addresses, some committee members suggested. By a 7-16 vote, the panel rejected an amendment that would have clarified that only IP addresses must be stored."
- darrikmazey 15y agoHas anyone actually seen the text of this "last-minute rewrite"? I'm skeptical, because I've been seeing this fear broadcast about this bill since day one. Maybe I'm naive, but it seems like a pretty large leap from temporary ip addresses to bank account numbers, names, phone numbers, etc. Every reference I can find to this bill still only contains the text for the initial retention of ip addresses. Would love to see verification of the broader scope.
- camiller 15y agoSo far information is only coming from interviews with congress-critters on the committee that passed the bill(19-10). It takes awhile for Thomas (and from there GovTrack) to get updated with the revised text.