[AusNOG] Govt wants ISPs to record user history

[Mark Smith]

On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 08:30:12 +1000
Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve at eintellego.net> wrote:

> Sorry, I haven't read the entire thread in case this has been commented on already.
> 
> But isn't this just like the filtering situation - can't most people still bypass this sort of thing?
> 

"if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"

policy overrides mechanism.

(I'm expecting they'll make it illegal to use anything but CERT
Australia soon ... and then we'll also have a government controlled
filter on information security information)

> ...Skeeve
> 
> --
> Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
> eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
> skeeve at eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net
> Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
> Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
> www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
> --
> NOC, NOC, who's there?
> 
> From: ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net [mailto:ausnog-bounces at lists.ausnog.net] On Behalf Of phil colbourn
> Sent: Friday, 11 June 2010 11:51 PM
> To: Matthew Zobel
> Cc: ausnog at ausnog.net
> Subject: Re: [AusNOG] Govt wants ISPs to record user history
> 
> 
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Zobel <matthew.zobel at gmail.com<mailto:matthew.zobel at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Does anyone else notice the gross hypocrisy here?
> I did.
>   Conroy calls out Google for catching personal information on users, then the Government wants ISP to hold all this kind of information.  This Government is a shambles.
> 
> Can I suggest '... possibly catching personal information ...'
> 
> If Google got anything, it was an occasional packet:
> 
> 1. Most probably with a NAT IP address on the user's network - not identifiable
> 2. SSID - not identifiable
> 3. Only unencrypted data
> 4. Since they were taking photos, it probably only happened when there was good light, say 9:00 to 15:00 - this would be off-peak for most homes - probably just a bunch of malware calling home or the odd SPAM-bot delivering it's mail.
> 5. Possibly with a real internet IP address of the remote server, but probably not a URL
> 6. Probably a few fragments of a HTTP request, maybe a DNS request/response, maybe a SMTP/POP3 fragment (has anyone done the math to see how much data they might have collected?)
> 
> The proposal seems to collect the ISP subscriber (identifying the residence), URL, and probably every packet header.
> 
> But what good is a URL is you don't know what was on the page at that time? ... or do they already have that?
> 
> --
> Phil
> 
> http://philatwarrimoo.blogspot.com
> http://code.google.com/p/snmp2xml
> 
> "Someone has solved it and uploaded it for free."
> 
> "If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to look."
> 
> "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke - Who does magic today?