Local Public Security Requires "No Less Than 180 Days": Unifying Log Retention Standards Across Multiple Stores

Zhang, a regional manager of a chain brand with twelve outlets, has been facing a headache this month. A store in City A received a reminder from local police that logs must be retained for at least 180 days. The store in City B was told the requirement is “no less than six months”. The outlet in City C, meanwhile, needs to export fixed monthly report templates. Each store built its own storage system separately. While logs are being saved, the starting point for the 180-day window, required log fields and report formats all differ from site to site. When the group headquarters asks for consolidated reports, Zhang is left with three sets of inconsistent export files that are difficult to reconcile.

I. The Real Challenge Is Not Insufficient Storage, but Fragmented Standards

The core requirements set by local public security authorities for public Wi‑Fi boil down to two items: real-name authentication for users and internet access log retention. In most regions, the retention period is specified as no less than 180 days (approximately six months), so the overall regulatory direction is consistent.

The problem arises during implementation. If each store selects its own solution and deploys independent hardware, inconsistencies emerge. One store may calculate the 180 days starting from the authentication time, while another uses the store opening date. One captures all six mandatory fields, while another only records two or three. Reports may be exported as Excel at one location and PDF at another. Individually, each store may appear compliant, but from the group perspective, the records are misaligned. This is a common pitfall for multi-location chains. The more stores spread across different cities, the harder it becomes to align standards, and headquarters cannot easily view a unified overview.

II. Why Self-Built Systems at Each Store Lead to Inconsistencies

Three typical deviations occur when stores manage access records independently.

• Inconsistent retention cycles: Some stores interpret the 180-day rule as a fixed window starting from opening, while others use a rolling calendar-month cycle. When headquarters asks whether complete records exist for any date going back 180 days, managers cannot give a definite answer.
• Inconsistent fields: Mandatory fields include mobile number / document ID, terminal MAC address, IP address, login time, visited URL and uplink/downlink traffic. If a store only captures partial fields, cross-store traceability during joint investigations will stall due to missing data.
• Inconsistent report formats: Local authorities use different templates. City A requires exports searched by mobile number, while City B needs time-period summaries. Custom formatting at each store makes consolidation extremely difficult. Worse still, when on-site staff change, new operators often have no record of how the logging system was originally configured.

III. Unified Local Deployment: AINOPOL Dream Gateway Standardizes All Stores

The AINOPOL Dream Gateway acts as the local authentication and log egress. Chains do not need separate custom configurations for every outlet. Instead, devices are deployed under unified centralized management.

The core advantage is standardization. The Dream Gateway stores logs locally on the hard disk with a rolling retention period of no less than 180 days. All stores share the same retention cycle, field set and report template. Records showing which store, date and user accessed the network are formatted identically. Headquarters no longer needs to manually verify whether each outlet has sufficient and complete logs.

Real-name authentication is handled via the Dream Gateway captive portal. Guests are redirected to a verification page after connecting to Wi‑Fi. They can authenticate via SMS code, document verification or WeChat login. User identities are bound together with the network session four-tuple and written into the log. The Dream Gateway comes with built-in compliant SMS authentication capability, removing the burden of separate qualification applications for individual stores. The front-end experience stays consistent across all branches, and customers complete verification in roughly the same short time wherever they connect.

IV. Centralized Headquarters Management: View Authentication and Logs Together

The greatest value for multi-store chains lies in the headquarters management view. AINOPOL Dream Gateway supports centralized O&M for all stores. Policies can be pushed in batches. New outlets automatically adopt the group standard template, so they do not create a separate custom standard. The dashboard highlights abnormal real-name authentication rates and stores whose log retention is approaching the expiry threshold.

Local authorities require each independent store to maintain proper records, while headquarters needs the whole chain to operate as one coordinated system. With real-name authentication and logs contained within the local Dream Gateway system, chains satisfy the 180-day baseline requirement of regional police and keep oversight manageable. When inspections arrive, headquarters can export reports for all stores in one operation, without chasing each outlet separately.

Public security departments across different regions require internet logs to be retained for no less than 180 days. The rule itself is straightforward. The complexity comes from inconsistent local execution across distributed stores. Built on all‑optical infrastructure, audio & video engine and security shielding, AINOPOL delivers the integrated “connectivity & security” solution. Unified deployment of Dream Gateways aligns retention cycles, log fields and report templates using local hard-disk storage. Equipped with native firewall, IPS, WAF and antivirus capabilities, the solution elevates compliance from individual store readiness to group-wide compliance.

FAQ

Q: Different cities require different report formats. Can local gateways export customized templates for each jurisdiction?
A: The Dream Gateway supports searches and exports based on the field sets and time ranges required by local authorities. Custom templates can be finalized together with the solution provider.

Q: How can a new branch maintain the same retention standards as older stores?
A: Unified policies and templates are batch pushed from the centralized management backend. New stores inherit group standards immediately after deployment and avoid building separate custom rules.

Q: Does the group need dedicated IT staff at every store to monitor authentication and logs?
A: No. Authentication and logs are stored within the local Dream Gateway system and viewed centrally by headquarters. Stores only purchase the hardware and carry out routine on-site maintenance.