The Flow of Consciousness

Sent via e-mail to Senators Specter and Casey, as well as Congressman Altmire, all of Pennsylvania…

Senators and Congressman,

I write in regards to a bill with the short title “Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today’s Youth (SAFETY) Act of 2009″. This bill was introduced with virtually the same text into the House by Mr. Smith of Texas as H.R. 1076 and into the Senate by Mr. Cornyn as S. 436.

While the overall goal of the bill — a reduction in the use of the Internet to facilitate the trafficking of child pornography — is noble, I am concerned that a key section of the bill is overbroad and unenforceable.

The section to which I am referring is Sec. 5, the “RETENTION OF RECORDS BY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS.” I include the text of the section here for reference:

Section 2703 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “(h) Retention of Certain Records and Information- A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least two years all records or other information pertaining to the identity of a user of a temporarily assigned network address the service assigns to that user.”

My interpretation leads me to understand that this section would require any person operating an electronic communication or remote computing service to retain at least two years of logs of temporarily-assigned network addresses.

If interpreted as broadly as possible, this law could require every person who owns an Internet router — a very common, inexpensive, often wireless-capable networking device — to retain these logs for two years. These devices have a very limited storage capacity and generally do not have logging facilities enabled by default.

This law would essentially obsolete every home and small business router, as Americans would be compelled by federal law to buy a certainly more expensive router capable of storing an great amount of log files. This device would also have to be capable of backing up these logs to one or more external devices in order to ensure that the owner is protected from device failures. The price of these new routers would be much higher than the current market price of a router and this legislation would open the possibility of lawsuits against router makers when a router fails to log or retain the logs.

While this procedure is standard rigmarole for computer- and technology-savvy Americans, including information technology professionals, it is a difficult and potentially costly one for those who are not so inclined.

A single power outage or accidental or natural disaster could put someone in a position where they have violated federal law, as they acted as an electronic communication and remote computing service provider and did not retain records as federal law requires.

This is, of course, assuming that the federal agents responsible for enforcing this legislation do in fact police it. Instead, this new data retention requirement will go largely unnoticed, unacknowledged, and unenforced. It will become a law used to convict the ignorant, the careless, and the negligent instead convicting those actually responsible for exploiting children.

I can assume that one or more of you has a wireless router in your home. This law would apply to you, as well. You would need to ensure that your wireless router logs all addresses which it assigns, and you would need to ensure that your logs are retained for at least two years. If for some reason something happened and those logs were lost, you would be guilty of violating federal law.

Moreover, the identifying information contained within these logs is easily fabricated and even easier to masquerade. Two of the three major operating systems can masquerade the most commonly used unique network hardware identifier — a MAC address — with a simple command. A trivial program does the trick for the third. Such a simple fact would easily dismiss a MAC address as evidence in a court test of this entire law, not just the section against which I am campaigning.

I understand that these bills have probably been referred to committees for further exploration. I urge you to exercise extreme caution if this bill comes up for vote alone or as a part of a larger piece of legislation. I urge you to see Section 5 stricken in its entirety on the grounds that it is unenforceable and overbroad.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you wish to discuss these or other technology-related bills, my phone is always handy and I’m always willing to share my knowledge.

Colin Dean
Volant, PA

CC: Senator Casey, Senator Specter, Congressman Altmire

Blog reader note: Slashdot links to an excellent summary by C|Net’s Declan McCullaugh entitled Bill proposes ISPs, Wi-Fi keep logs for police.

According to Reuters, the Gas Price Relief for Consumers Act of 2008 passed the House 324-84 today. The GovTrack status page for the act has yet to be updated, though—it is usually updated a day or two after action is published on THOMAS.

I commented in my previous entry, regarding overreaching and unenforceable foreign policy bills in the House.

Read this quote from the article a few times and really think about it.

The bill would subject OPEC oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela, to the same antitrust laws that U.S. companies must follow.

How is the US going to enforce this? The US has no legal authority or ability force its laws upon other countries, other than by gunpoint diplomacy, a policy which has already harmed the US enough.

The Bush Administration, in a rare bout of intelligence, said that the bill “would likely spur retaliatory action against American interests in those countries and lead to a reduction in oil available to U.S. refiners.” This would obviously increase the price, not reduce it at all.

Fortunately, the bill still has to go through the House, where it will hopefully fail with not more than 10 minutes of debate. Clearly 324 Congresspeople are delusional and think that they can exercise their petty will against other countries’ governments.

Congressman Altmire,

I write to urge you to argue and vote against H.R. 5990, the “Video Games Ratings Enforcement Act” recently introduced by Rep. Jim Matheson [D-UT]. This legislation unfairly targets video games without citing a reason for the ban on sales to minors, and fails to acknowledge the similarly violent, sexual, and other objectionable content of equivalently-rated television and film.

The Entertainment Software Ratings Board is merely a self-regulatory body established by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA). The review process for video games is based on developer submission of pre-recorded content to the Board, not the Board or its agents actually playing through the video game. This can result in omissions causing a lighter rating or misjudgments causing unfair, heavier ratings.

In fact, two major video game publishers/distributors–Activision and Vivendi Universal–recently left the ESA. A third and one of the largest of its kind in the world, Electronic Arts, is rumored to be considering leaving, as well. They disagree with the ESA’s policies; that is their reason for leaving, as far as I know.

Also, there is no constitutional grounds for this prohibition. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution makes no mention of entertainment media, and more than likely citizens’ rights groups will cry foul that this legislation violates the First Amendment. The interstate commerce clause would allow the Federal government to prohibit sales to minors or mandate rating across state lines as partially stated in Section 2(a) of H.R. 5990, but not within the states–that’s a states’ rights issue supported by the Tenth Amendment.

Moreover, the legislation will do almost nothing to prevent video games with content not meant for minors. Parents will purchase games for their children irresponsibly and without regard for content. If the federal government should do anything in regards to video games with objectionable content, it should urge the ESA and ESRB to educate parents about the rating system and perhaps ask the ESA to mandate that all retailers adhere to guidelines and face penalties or ejection from the ESA if a retailer is caught selling high-rated video games to minors.

If such legislation passes and withstands a constitutionality trial, then a dangerous precedent will be set by which other entertainment media (books, film, television) could, or even /should/ be equally regulated/prohibited.

Congressman Altmire,

First, I applaud your recently-introduced modernization of the G.I. Bill. Taking care of veterans after they’ve served the country is an important and noble thing. They’ve served us well, so we need to return the service and give them the means necessary to continue to be responsible, productive citizens after discharge.

Second, and on a more negative note, I’m frustrated with the House’s passing of a H.R. 1077, the resolution calling for China to stop its shenanigans in and with Tibet.

I fully support the Tibetans—independence is an important moral to Americans such as you and me. Were I in Congress, I would recognize an official Tibetan government when it forms and open trade with it.

However, this H.R. 1077 does little more than condemn China for something the U.S. has already condemned them! It’s toothless gnashing and saber-rattling, Congressman. The bill doesn’t /do/ anything—it doesn’t place any economic sanctions on China, it doesn’t enable any action, it doesn’t doesn’t have any force of law. It’s empty posturing.

Moreover, the U.S. Constitution does not grant Congress the power to meddle in how China treats the people of Tibet—other than through trade policy. The Constitution does grant Congress the right to regulate trade with China (Article 1, section 8, paragraph 3), and, as such, an economic or immigration restriction would be far more effective than a simple condemnation.

There’s an axiom I find quite apropos for this empty condemnation. It’s called Lazlo’s Chinese Relativity Axiom: “No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese could care less.”

What, if I may ask, was your reason in voting for this resolution, and on what grounds did you find it constitutional?

Ron Paul was on KDKA AM 1020 this evening. I took notes as I listened.

The beginning topic was monetary policy, mostly the rampant inflation caused by the Federal Reserve printing more money, thus devaluing the money already in circulation. He clarified that most people think of printing more money as literally printing more money, but the process is actually handled more by computers and the processes by which our economy handles the creation of wealth. An example of this is when the Federal Reserve issues bonds to the government for money which doesn’t exist. This essentially creates money, driving us more into debt, devaluing the dollar, and causing prices to rise.

“We are more likely to destroy the dollar than do the right thing.”

On the new, sweeping changes which give the Federal Reserve oversight of a lot of the mortgage market: “The Federal Reserve is an unconstitutional organization…and we want to give them more power?…We’re moving closer to socialism…actually fascism…” Note: I know very little about the new legislation, so I didn’t understand some of what they were discussing.

“There’s a large number of people who are…now aware, but not fully understanding.” Young people are becoming more aware of the debt the current government is creating. They may not understand it entirely, but they are concerned and they don’t like what they hear.

“This notion that conservatives should always support war is wrong…that Republicans should always support war.” He acknowledges that Republicans who do that often get labeled as the “Blame America First” crowd and made out to be like Jane Fonda.

“I’m in medicine. If we make a mistake, and keep killing people, we acknowledge it and change. I think we’re using the wrong medicine in Iraq, and we need to acknowledge it and change, by pulling out.” [heavily paraphrased]

“Our troops follow the oil wells. 8 years ago…Colombia…made out to be drug war…oil lobby pushed harder…oil wells in Colombia.”

Domestic drilling? “I think that’s a good idea.” “When Texas came into the union, there was almost no government ownership of lands.” The people owned the lands, and they drilled. “Private property solves these problems…In Alaska, everyone owns it; no one owns it.” Nothing gets done.

Host: “In order to accomplish this, you’d have to reverse everything done in the past 40-50 years.” RP: Basically. “My supporters call it the Ron Paul Revolution, but really it’s the revolution started by our forefathers.”

Universal healthcare. “Get the government out of the way; it’s destroyed the private practice of medicine.” “Rules laws and taxes on it.” “Best thing to do is to let people choose, let them take medical expenses out of taxes.” “Idea that government can deliver better healthcare than the private sector is wrong.”

“Have to have priorities….cut back what we do overseas….hundreds of millions of dollars to help AIDs in Africa, and no one actually every sees the money.” Stop all overseas spending, pull the troops home, and take care of our own.

Host: “Congressman, you’re making too much sense.”

Race issue. Racial divide. “Government hasn’t done a very good job…grandest solutions came out of private sector…sports. Government designates people as groups.” How can you have laws which help groups? Libertarians see the individual, and don’t categorize. Affirmative action.

Education. “I don’t like nationalizing anything like education.” It’s something that could be amended into the Constitution. “No authority for federal government to be involved in education.”

Environment. “Local people with property rights, with local regulations, are far more effective…at dealing with pollution…than federal regulations.” ”

Plans for convention. “I have no plans, no intentions [to run third-party]….supporters active in PA…stickin’ by supporters and the chance to really change the country. No reason in the world why Pennsylvanians shouldn’t be able to vote for a true conservative with a constitutional background.

“Changing the course of the country is far more important than winning the election.” [paraphrased]

Host: “What he’s proposing would involve changing the minds of way too many people.” People interpret his distaste for federal control to be a distaste for the topic, e.g. he wants to get rid of the department of Education, so he doesn’t think education is important. This is incorrect thinking. Ron Paul thinks it is of high importance, and that the government can’t possibly know what’s best for everyone.

Callers highlighted the Freedom March on Tax Day and that his honesty is tip-top.

If you can find a recording of it, send it to me and I’ll update the quotes.

Congress once voted to appropriate relief aid for a couple of families in Georgetown whose houses had burned. Congressman David “Davy” Crockett was out a few days later seeking votes for an upcoming election. He met a person named Bunce who disagreed with the vote, because Congress was not granted the power of charity.

“The congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”

Mr. Bunce said this, speaking to Congressman Crockett. Crockett immediately agreed, and changed his stance on the matter, promising never again to vote in favor of such a bill.

You should read the full story, available at a certain favorable candidate’s web site.

Side note: If you’re in western PA, join the RP meetup group.