Misleading summary (Score: 1) by email@example.com on 2014-10-31 12:47 (#2TTJ) Two things in the summary are misleading:1. I want to know where $100 to $200 figure came from? It is not in the linked article and, as far as I know, no cost estimates have been released yet.And it definitely sounds WAY TOO HIGH. Does it mean my Internet bill will go from $50 to $250???2. "The data will be used for copyright enforcement and to track the exact location of mobile phone users."This is VERY MISLEADING as it sounds that the main goal is copyright enforcement. The data retention is part of anti-terrorism legislation and it will be used for a variety of investigations (counterterrorism, organised crime, counter-espionage and cyber security). Yes, copyright enforcement also gets mentioned but I don't think it is not the main goal.Having said that, I completely disagree with the proposed laws as they are more than open for abuse. Even "metadata" has not been defined yet.And I agree with Tanuki64's comment how such laws are inevitable. The whole world is slowly turning into a police state. Unfortunately resistance is futile :-( Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1) by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2014-10-31 17:27 (#2TTR) 1. Whether the numbers are correct or not, you're confusing per-month with per-year. $100-200 per-year works out to $8.34-16.67/month, making your internet service $59-65/month.