8 ms·

But the part everybody's getting worked up over is the tracking of Internet activity, which is not part of current law, and is not part of the bill in question.

by skymt 15y ago

But the part everybody's getting worked up over is the tracking of Internet activity, which is not part of current law, and is not part of the bill in question. I have no idea where that part came from, so I'd be glad if you could make that clear.

SODaniel 15y ago
I am actually thinking that you are in fact correct here. Though most articles on the bills in question describe them as 'Tracking internet usage' (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/house-committee-approves-bill-mandating-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/house-committee-approv... , http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/07/29/congress-child-porn-bill-trojan-horse-spy-everyones-internet-45281/ http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/07/29/congress-child-p... etc) what the bill in question (and previous bills on the subject) states is the mandatory storage of assigned IP-addresses. Now I guess one could assume that our ISP's save our browser history, however there is no mandate in this bill for access to that data. I will look over the blog post and make edits to clarify this. Thank you very much for pointing this out!
SODaniel 15y ago
I have updated the post to reflect the fact that the amendment or previous bill does not explicitly refer to tracking of internet habits. I will continue to investigate the bills and available data etc. I would like to thank you for pointing this out and I took the liberty of thanking you in my update of the post.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- skrebbel 15y ago
  I think it's great that you're actively open to feedback and fixing it, but basically it means that you started out writing about stuff you, apparently, knew nothing about, so just assumed things. That sounds a lot like FUD tactics. The internet freedom camp seems to apply these more and more, seriously blurring the debate and screwing it over. Why are you doing these things? Why do you act as bad as the people crafting these laws? Why do you allow both camps in this debate to remove all truth altogether?

by skymt 15y ago

SODaniel 15y ago

I am actually thinking that you are in fact correct here. Though most articles on the bills in question describe them as 'Tracking internet usage' (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/house-committee-approves-bill-mandating-internet https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/house-committee-approv... , http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/07/29/congress-child-porn-bill-trojan-horse-spy-everyones-internet-45281/ http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2011/07/29/congress-child-p... etc) what the bill in question (and previous bills on the subject) states is the mandatory storage of assigned IP-addresses. Now I guess one could assume that our ISP's save our browser history, however there is no mandate in this bill for access to that data. I will look over the blog post and make edits to clarify this. Thank you very much for pointing this out!

SODaniel 15y ago

I have updated the post to reflect the fact that the amendment or previous bill does not explicitly refer to tracking of internet habits. I will continue to investigate the bills and available data etc. I would like to thank you for pointing this out and I took the liberty of thanking you in my update of the post.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
skrebbel 15y ago
I think it's great that you're actively open to feedback and fixing it, but basically it means that you started out writing about stuff you, apparently, knew nothing about, so just assumed things. That sounds a lot like FUD tactics. The internet freedom camp seems to apply these more and more, seriously blurring the debate and screwing it over. Why are you doing these things? Why do you act as bad as the people crafting these laws? Why do you allow both camps in this debate to remove all truth altogether?