[LINK] Roxon questions plan to track users' web history

[TKoltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au 
> [mailto:link-bounces at mailman.anu.edu.au] On Behalf Of Kim Holburn
> Sent: Sunday, 22 July 2012 10:14 AM
> To: Link list
> Subject: [LINK] Roxon questions plan to track users' web history
> 
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/roxon-ques
> tions-plan-to-track-users-web-history-20120720-22fp6.html
> 
> > ''THE case has yet to be made'' for a controversial plan to force 
> > internet providers to store the web history of all 
> Australians for up 
> > to two years, according to Attorney-General Nicola Roxon, who has 
> > acknowledged the financial and privacy costs of such a scheme.
> > 
> > Ms Roxon expressed her reservations in an interview with 
> The Saturday 
> > Age, in what may be a sign the government does not have the 
> appetite 
> > for forcing through Parliament the most controversial 
> proposal among a 
> > package of more than 40 national security measures.
> > 
> > The proposals, if passed, would be the most significant 
> expansion of 
> > the Australian national security community's powers since the 
> > Howard-era reforms of the early 2000s.
> > 
> > Regarding data retention, Ms Roxon said she had some 
> sympathy for the 
> > view of the national security community but said: ''I am not yet 
> > convinced that the cost and the return - the cost both to 
> industry and 
> > the [civil liberties] cost to individuals - that we've made 
> the case 
> > for what it is that people use in a way that benefits our national 
> > security. I think there is a genuine question to be tested, 
> which is 
> > why it's such a big part of the proposal.''
> > 
> > Advertisement
> > That is a view that will be greeted with some apprehension 
> by one of the main advocates for such a regime - Neil 
> Gaughan, who heads the federal police's High Tech Crime Centre.
> > 
> > ''If we don't have a data-retention regime in place [in the 
> future], 
> > we will not be able to commence an investigation in the 
> first place,'' 
> > he said.
> > 
> > ''And it's already getting increasingly difficult.''
> > 
> > Opposition to such laws in Germany - the government has 
> declared them 
> > invasions of privacy and forbidden them - had left German federal 
> > police agency the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) a laughing stock, 
> Assistant 
> > Commissioner Gaughan said. ''No one can work with them 
> > internationally; if I go to Germany with an inquiry about 
> who called 
> > who, when and why, they can't tell us,'' he said.
> 

In our home we now have five adults (sometimes six)  all of whom have
WiFi phones (5).
(We also have two very short people. (aged 3 and 4).

The adults also have an assortment of Tablets, (3) Netbooks (3) and or
Laptops (3); we also have four desktop PC's.

The short people use a tablet and a desktop, sometimes mummy's iPhone...

An old Dell 1750 running Squid does duty as a cache.
There are two internet connections that are routed via the cache.
The younger members regularly swap devices amongst themselves (based on
battery charge usually).

Further they often pass content between devices that doesn't even pass
through the cache or see past the firewall.

All of the browsers have no script installed and two of the desktops
set-up specific virtual terminal browsing sessions when opened.
We have two 192 networks and a 10.0 network.

I would like to know how anyone is going to be able to fingerprint any
of url's used by the inhabitants of this house as being definitively
used by anyone individual.

(On the topic of fingerprinting devices... I have a netbook with two
versions of Android and Windows available to boot. I also now have a USB
stick that is regularly used to boot devices to look for rootkits.) (I
am choosing not to discuss other access and cookie policies.)

Whilst the average home may not be multi-homed (yet) 3G and 4G
aggregation devices will eventually appear - supercharged wireless
broadband - adding even more to the complexity of who what where when.

The days of one connection and one device per person has past.

The potential pitfalls of the proposed legislation were demonstrated in
our courts with the introduction of speed and red light cameras;
requiring stat decs as to who was driving the car on what road when.

In a homogonous household with a choice of almost twenty devices (many
of which are "upgraded" (replaced) as quickly as yesterday's "bestest"
pair of jeans), who is going to remember in two years time who used
which device to access what content ?

This legislation will doubtless prove to be untenable without an
individual internet drivers licenses attached to each and every user.
Further I am curious if the legislation will extend to the thousands of
free (no logging possible) WiFi "bridge" access points dotted around the
world.

Will Gloria Jeans now be required to ask for id with each coffee sold ?

"That'll be $3.50 for the Latte, and do you have your hundred points
ready so that you can use our free internet ?"

If the legislation is only about VOIP calls (as per the quoted example)
...

> who called 
> > who, when and why, they can't tell us,'' he said.

Then only packets to registered VOIP gateways should be logged and not
all browser traffic (if only to save all the storage of all that
humungous pile of browsing data.)

In which case, I believe that the carriers already log the VOIP gateway
traffic making this legislation a tad redundant and possibly
unnecessary.


TomK