The way I read it it’s not about any new data gathering or backdoors or whatever, it’s about keeping the metadata (so not message content, but things like source/destination, date & time of a message), which already are known to the service provider, but not structurally saved until slow law enforcement comes asking for it (which they already can and do). So nothing is added except efficiency, if I read it correctly.
If you have concerns about anything they already do, or things not in this proposal but scary or dangerous; now is as good a time as any to complain about it, and perhaps this is a valid platform for it, but phrase it as such.
But some of the comments (on the proposal) talking about adding backdoors just look like someone didn’t read and just blindly started complaining, which is not a good look.
If we want to participate as educated citizens, let’s educate ourselves so our input is still valued in the future.
I might also be interpreting it wrong, but this seems to be a bit more than just “increased efficiency” to me. It would legally require providers to keep metadata that can currently be deleted - including never retaining it in the first place.
Hmm, fair point. I guess I default to assuming that data is already kept, just often not long enough for law enforcement to come and request it (in a way that’s functionally the same as never even saving it I guess), but practically this would mean lots of providers starting to keep records, also the storage requirement would be enormous if it’s saved at every hop, so practicality is a concern too.
Correct me if I’m wrong:
The way I read it it’s not about any new data gathering or backdoors or whatever, it’s about keeping the metadata (so not message content, but things like source/destination, date & time of a message), which already are known to the service provider, but not structurally saved until slow law enforcement comes asking for it (which they already can and do). So nothing is added except efficiency, if I read it correctly.
If you have concerns about anything they already do, or things not in this proposal but scary or dangerous; now is as good a time as any to complain about it, and perhaps this is a valid platform for it, but phrase it as such.
But some of the comments (on the proposal) talking about adding backdoors just look like someone didn’t read and just blindly started complaining, which is not a good look.
If we want to participate as educated citizens, let’s educate ourselves so our input is still valued in the future.
That all aside, thanks for sharing!
I might also be interpreting it wrong, but this seems to be a bit more than just “increased efficiency” to me. It would legally require providers to keep metadata that can currently be deleted - including never retaining it in the first place.
Hmm, fair point. I guess I default to assuming that data is already kept, just often not long enough for law enforcement to come and request it (in a way that’s functionally the same as never even saving it I guess), but practically this would mean lots of providers starting to keep records, also the storage requirement would be enormous if it’s saved at every hop, so practicality is a concern too.