[tenebrisalietum]

> law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and CIA can continue to look through the browsing history of American citizens without the need for a warrant.

I'm always curious what the heck does this mean exactly.

- Do they seize your computer and literally copy the browser history from any/all installed browsers?

- Do they ask your ISP to pipe DNS requests from your IP to them?

- Do they wiretap your line or cellular connection and basically do a `tshark $SUSPECT_WAN_IFACE | grep HTTP > browsing-history.txt`?

- Is this really a request to Google or other FAANG company for activity history on those platforms?

What does "look through browsing history" even mean?

[shadowgovt]

In the case of the laws discussed in this article, the FBI can gain access to the logs of one's ISP (or VPN provider) without a warrant. So they can trace a suspect's TCP traffic without any duty to notify anyone they're doing so.

[tenebrisalietum]

So why would my ISP be logging every or even any TCP packet coming out of my modem? I watch Netflix at full 4K and that consumes about 3GB an hour. Multiplied by the 50,000 in my neighborhood and it seems pricey.

Some things I would be expecting them to log are DNS requests, DHCP leases, and access to ISP sites.

[hnta142356]

initial TCP connection. obviously they wouldn't log every TCP packet in an established connection.

[Red_Leaves_Flyy]

They could though. Data storage is cheap and consumers can't generate enough fluff to cause an overflow. They probably don't for 95% of internet traffic. It's the outliers that get the most scrutiny.

[mirimir]

Sure, but reputable (from a privacy sense, anyway) VPN providers don't even retain any logs. Some providers just run everything in RAM, so no data ever touches disk. And there may not even be a disk.

And then you can route through Tor, I2P, Orchid or Lokinet. For any of those, getting logs from enough nodes to figure out browsing history would be nontrivial.

I suppose you could then be charged with "evasion" or whatever. If we get to that, it's time for a rootkit/botnet that spreads like WannaCry, and communicates via covert channels. Everyone will be running it, because it spreads so aggressively, and anyone who wants can use it, without leaving any traces.

Edit: spelling

[rmrfstar]

> Everyone will be running it, because it spreads so aggressively, and anyone who wants can use it, without leaving any traces.

This reminds me of 90s era cypherpunk optimism. If recent history teaches us anything, it is that surveillance wins the cat and mouse game.

There is no technical solution. We have to work through the legislature. That means convincing people that this apparatus is a threat to middle class professionals, not just "information activists" or whatever.

The abundance of throwaway accounts on this thread is a testament to the chilling effect these policies have.

Privacy is a losing frame. We need new ideas.

[mirimir]

Yeah, I guess. I suspect that authorities are planning ahead. As we get further into the jackpot (see Gibson's Peripheral and Agency) there'll be more and more disorder and chaos. And so there'll be a need for more surveillance and control.

[bitxbitxbitcoin]

That's my reading of it, too. If there are no logs, though the FBI can't get access. [1][2]

Disclaimer: I work for Private Internet Access.

[1]https://torrentfreak.com/private-internet-access-no-logging-... [2] https://www.technadu.com/private-internet-access-wins-agains...

[xenospn]

I'm wondering how that helps them out, exactly? All they see is HTTPS requests to iMessage/Reddit/HN or WhatsApp. They can't look inside the actual payload.

[kibblesalad]

https://www.zdnet.com/article/legal-loopholes-unrestrained-n...

[lern_too_spel]

That doesn't address GP's point. You can redirect encrypted traffic all you want. That won't help you read its content.