Misleading summary (Score: 1) by axsdenied@pipedot.org 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 tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-31 13:28 (#2TTK) 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.But copyright enforcement is the only area where data retention works. Terrorism? If you already have suspects, you don't need a new law. If you don't have suspects, I doubt that data retention helps. Want to search a billion emails for: 'Hey, wanna help me to blast a building tomorrow?'. Up to now I did not hear of a single case, which has been prevented or solved by internet surveillance. Same for organized crime, etc. So yes, I think copyright enforcement is the main goal. IMHO counterterrorism, organised crime, counter-espionage and cyber security... you forgot child porn... are just smoke screens. Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1) by axsdenied@pipedot.org on 2014-10-31 14:52 (#2TTM) Again, I am completely against all this crap but:1. Terrorism: Data retention can show who contacted who and when and hence lead to new suspects. For example seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention"The authorities in Spain and the United Kingdom have claimed that retained telephony data made a significant contribution to police enquires into the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings and the 7 July 2005 London bombings."2. The article/legislation is about storing metadata only and not content. Stuff like 'Hey, wanna help me to blast a building tomorrow?' won't be stored.3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-30/turnbull-introduces-data-retention-bill-to-parliament/5853156"For example, in a current major child exploitation investigation, the AFP has been unable to identify 156 out of 463 potential suspects because certain internet service providers do not retain the necessary IP address allocation records,"Of course 90% of this is politician's bull... but there must be at least a bit of truth in it.The main goal of this proposed law is not copyright. Every government's/leader's/dictator's dream is to have a complete control of their people so they can retain power. Surveillance is a step towards it. Copyright is just an additional bonus. Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-31 15:14 (#2TTN) To 1: Hardly prevents any terroristic acts. Terroristic acts are quite rare. In my eyes terrorism is a very weak excuse to observe the whole population.To 2: Easy for them to restrict themselves just to meta data. Sound good in the public... and is 100% sufficient to enforce copyright.To 3: There is no internet provider, who does not quickly responds to c. p. take down notices. C. p. is the only thing where practically every country agrees on. And how much c. p. is there? I surf the net for more than 30 years and did not stumble upon any. You cannot openly advertize it. You cannot have ads on c. p. sites. To catch c. p. users and producers a much better and totally sufficient way is to follow the cash flow.Here a good example, what really is significant for certain groups:http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/23/cynicism-redefined-why-the-copyright-lobby-loves-child-porn/I'd bet that if we were able to follow most of the lobbying paths for data retention, we would in more than 90% of all case end with the MPAA and RIAA. I all countries.
Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-31 13:28 (#2TTK) 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.But copyright enforcement is the only area where data retention works. Terrorism? If you already have suspects, you don't need a new law. If you don't have suspects, I doubt that data retention helps. Want to search a billion emails for: 'Hey, wanna help me to blast a building tomorrow?'. Up to now I did not hear of a single case, which has been prevented or solved by internet surveillance. Same for organized crime, etc. So yes, I think copyright enforcement is the main goal. IMHO counterterrorism, organised crime, counter-espionage and cyber security... you forgot child porn... are just smoke screens. Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1) by axsdenied@pipedot.org on 2014-10-31 14:52 (#2TTM) Again, I am completely against all this crap but:1. Terrorism: Data retention can show who contacted who and when and hence lead to new suspects. For example seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention"The authorities in Spain and the United Kingdom have claimed that retained telephony data made a significant contribution to police enquires into the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings and the 7 July 2005 London bombings."2. The article/legislation is about storing metadata only and not content. Stuff like 'Hey, wanna help me to blast a building tomorrow?' won't be stored.3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-30/turnbull-introduces-data-retention-bill-to-parliament/5853156"For example, in a current major child exploitation investigation, the AFP has been unable to identify 156 out of 463 potential suspects because certain internet service providers do not retain the necessary IP address allocation records,"Of course 90% of this is politician's bull... but there must be at least a bit of truth in it.The main goal of this proposed law is not copyright. Every government's/leader's/dictator's dream is to have a complete control of their people so they can retain power. Surveillance is a step towards it. Copyright is just an additional bonus. Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-31 15:14 (#2TTN) To 1: Hardly prevents any terroristic acts. Terroristic acts are quite rare. In my eyes terrorism is a very weak excuse to observe the whole population.To 2: Easy for them to restrict themselves just to meta data. Sound good in the public... and is 100% sufficient to enforce copyright.To 3: There is no internet provider, who does not quickly responds to c. p. take down notices. C. p. is the only thing where practically every country agrees on. And how much c. p. is there? I surf the net for more than 30 years and did not stumble upon any. You cannot openly advertize it. You cannot have ads on c. p. sites. To catch c. p. users and producers a much better and totally sufficient way is to follow the cash flow.Here a good example, what really is significant for certain groups:http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/23/cynicism-redefined-why-the-copyright-lobby-loves-child-porn/I'd bet that if we were able to follow most of the lobbying paths for data retention, we would in more than 90% of all case end with the MPAA and RIAA. I all countries.
Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1) by axsdenied@pipedot.org on 2014-10-31 14:52 (#2TTM) Again, I am completely against all this crap but:1. Terrorism: Data retention can show who contacted who and when and hence lead to new suspects. For example seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_data_retention"The authorities in Spain and the United Kingdom have claimed that retained telephony data made a significant contribution to police enquires into the 11 March 2004 Madrid train bombings and the 7 July 2005 London bombings."2. The article/legislation is about storing metadata only and not content. Stuff like 'Hey, wanna help me to blast a building tomorrow?' won't be stored.3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-30/turnbull-introduces-data-retention-bill-to-parliament/5853156"For example, in a current major child exploitation investigation, the AFP has been unable to identify 156 out of 463 potential suspects because certain internet service providers do not retain the necessary IP address allocation records,"Of course 90% of this is politician's bull... but there must be at least a bit of truth in it.The main goal of this proposed law is not copyright. Every government's/leader's/dictator's dream is to have a complete control of their people so they can retain power. Surveillance is a step towards it. Copyright is just an additional bonus. Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-31 15:14 (#2TTN) To 1: Hardly prevents any terroristic acts. Terroristic acts are quite rare. In my eyes terrorism is a very weak excuse to observe the whole population.To 2: Easy for them to restrict themselves just to meta data. Sound good in the public... and is 100% sufficient to enforce copyright.To 3: There is no internet provider, who does not quickly responds to c. p. take down notices. C. p. is the only thing where practically every country agrees on. And how much c. p. is there? I surf the net for more than 30 years and did not stumble upon any. You cannot openly advertize it. You cannot have ads on c. p. sites. To catch c. p. users and producers a much better and totally sufficient way is to follow the cash flow.Here a good example, what really is significant for certain groups:http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/23/cynicism-redefined-why-the-copyright-lobby-loves-child-porn/I'd bet that if we were able to follow most of the lobbying paths for data retention, we would in more than 90% of all case end with the MPAA and RIAA. I all countries.
Re: Misleading summary (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-31 15:14 (#2TTN) To 1: Hardly prevents any terroristic acts. Terroristic acts are quite rare. In my eyes terrorism is a very weak excuse to observe the whole population.To 2: Easy for them to restrict themselves just to meta data. Sound good in the public... and is 100% sufficient to enforce copyright.To 3: There is no internet provider, who does not quickly responds to c. p. take down notices. C. p. is the only thing where practically every country agrees on. And how much c. p. is there? I surf the net for more than 30 years and did not stumble upon any. You cannot openly advertize it. You cannot have ads on c. p. sites. To catch c. p. users and producers a much better and totally sufficient way is to follow the cash flow.Here a good example, what really is significant for certain groups:http://falkvinge.net/2012/05/23/cynicism-redefined-why-the-copyright-lobby-loves-child-porn/I'd bet that if we were able to follow most of the lobbying paths for data retention, we would in more than 90% of all case end with the MPAA and RIAA. I all countries.