Re:Tech firms seek to frustrate internet history log law
by pawelk on Wednesday November 23, 2016 @11:00AM
(#13023471)
I was trying to point out that:
1. It wouldn't be hard to pollute the logs with noise, and
2. At the ISP level there's no distinction between "browsing a website" and accessing the URL unknowingly.
So let's assume no one will monitor these logs to fight thoughtcrime in real time, and it'll only be analyzed once someone becomes a suspect in a criminal investigation. Would it present as valuable evidence considering the points above?
As to your question: no I don't, but it isn't unheard of for law enforcement around the globe to set up honeypots. But then again there's no need to look into ISP logs because they control the server.
1. It wouldn't be hard to pollute the logs with noise, and
2. At the ISP level there's no distinction between "browsing a website" and accessing the URL unknowingly.
So let's assume no one will monitor these logs to fight thoughtcrime in real time, and it'll only be analyzed once someone becomes a suspect in a criminal investigation. Would it present as valuable evidence considering the points above?
As to your question: no I don't, but it isn't unheard of for law enforcement around the globe to set up honeypots. But then again there's no need to look into ISP logs because they control the server.