Honestly, not overly. The duration of stay of a recorded call will be relatively small, given the volume of calls that will be made and information that would have to be stored. I mean, ISPs keep only text logs of what's going on over their networks, and come the weekend, all information on their servers about me even sending this reply to Blogger will have disappeared.
Plus, it only lasts six months, and I doubt I'll be making any out-of-country calls in that time.
1) How do you know? Do you trust the government corp. to tell you the truth? Really? Are you sure about the storage and processing capacity of said government?
2) It doesn't have to be an out of country call. All they have to do is reasonably believe that you are talking to someone out of country. That means they can listen to whoever they want.
Its not that they will be listening my conversation or your conversation... we're not threats... But they've blown a door wide fucking open and it scares the shit out of me.
I'm sure they've got some massive amount of storage set aside for this, but that still doesn't shake me, given not only the need for and the volatility of said space, but the manhours required to examine the data would be immense, too.
But, I will concede the point that I have not looked at the wording of the legislature, nor their resources. It very well may have clauses that, for example, allow them to continue existing wiretaps beyond the six-month duration, and not make new ones persuant to the bill.
To your second and third points, they are true, and I can't really say anything contrary. It is a very radical step with very careful wording (apparently) to very broadly expand the power of whomever it is doing the taps.
In six months, I would certainly hope that this much of an expansion of power will be deemed unnecessary, though, and either discontinued, or blocked.
4 comments:
A little.
Honestly, not overly. The duration of stay of a recorded call will be relatively small, given the volume of calls that will be made and information that would have to be stored. I mean, ISPs keep only text logs of what's going on over their networks, and come the weekend, all information on their servers about me even sending this reply to Blogger will have disappeared.
Plus, it only lasts six months, and I doubt I'll be making any out-of-country calls in that time.
1) How do you know? Do you trust the government corp. to tell you the truth? Really? Are you sure about the storage and processing capacity of said government?
2) It doesn't have to be an out of country call. All they have to do is reasonably believe that you are talking to someone out of country. That means they can listen to whoever they want.
Its not that they will be listening my conversation or your conversation... we're not threats... But they've blown a door wide fucking open and it scares the shit out of me.
I'm sure they've got some massive amount of storage set aside for this, but that still doesn't shake me, given not only the need for and the volatility of said space, but the manhours required to examine the data would be immense, too.
But, I will concede the point that I have not looked at the wording of the legislature, nor their resources. It very well may have clauses that, for example, allow them to continue existing wiretaps beyond the six-month duration, and not make new ones persuant to the bill.
To your second and third points, they are true, and I can't really say anything contrary. It is a very radical step with very careful wording (apparently) to very broadly expand the power of whomever it is doing the taps.
In six months, I would certainly hope that this much of an expansion of power will be deemed unnecessary, though, and either discontinued, or blocked.
Post a Comment