One thing I'm unclear on is what the definition of "provider of an electronic communication service" is. From the bill text (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1981) and Title 18 definitions section (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=...), it seems to be ISP, since they're requiring the "temporarily assigned network addresses the service assigns to each account" to be retained. This leads me to believe that the bill basically requires ISPs to keep IP <=> account mappings around, and isn't so egregious as to require e.g. Google to store de-anonymized logs for all account usage for 18 months; the definitions seem to corroborate this.
In which case it's questionable, but not near as bad as it could be. Or am I missing something?
The system works pretty well in normal criminal cases. If the defense can show the subpoena was issued illegally the government can't use any evidence gathered as a result. It's a pretty big embarrassment for the cops and the DA, and doubly so if the suspect walks.
> Of course, as Chris Soghoian points out, the bill exempts WiFi providers, so it's woefully ineffective at stopping child porn, since anyone who wanted to do that just needs to go to Starbucks.
In which case it's questionable, but not near as bad as it could be. Or am I missing something?