Slashdot Mirror

• Extortion. Threats of harm or injury to another person or his property? Just what is it he has supposedly threatend to harm?
• Larceny by conversion. This assumes that you took something of value and used it for yourself rather than its original purposes. Just what is it that this guy supposedly took? And how is he using it for his own purposes?
• Using a computer to commit a crime. This assumes a crime is committed. It's also a stupid law. Might as well make it illegal to use a stick to commit a crime. Committing the crime is a crime, no matter what you use to do it.
• Obstruction of justice (bad link). This is based on the guy lying to the police about who owns the web site. Dumb thing to do, but "justice" doesn't figure prominently in this story in any case.

• Extortion. Threats of harm or injury to another person or his property? Just what is it he has supposedly threatend to harm?
• Larceny by conversion. This assumes that you took something of value and used it for yourself rather than its original purposes. Just what is it that this guy supposedly took? And how is he using it for his own purposes?
• Using a computer to commit a crime. This assumes a crime is committed. It's also a stupid law. Might as well make it illegal to use a stick to commit a crime. Committing the crime is a crime, no matter what you use to do it.
• Obstruction of justice (bad link). This is based on the guy lying to the police about who owns the web site. Dumb thing to do, but "justice" doesn't figure prominently in this story in any case.

• Extortion. Threats of harm or injury to another person or his property? Just what is it he has supposedly threatend to harm?
• Larceny by conversion. This assumes that you took something of value and used it for yourself rather than its original purposes. Just what is it that this guy supposedly took? And how is he using it for his own purposes?
• Using a computer to commit a crime. This assumes a crime is committed. It's also a stupid law. Might as well make it illegal to use a stick to commit a crime. Committing the crime is a crime, no matter what you use to do it.
• Obstruction of justice (bad link). This is based on the guy lying to the police about who owns the web site. Dumb thing to do, but "justice" doesn't figure prominently in this story in any case.

Who and what has to be in Michigan for this to work?

Read the article:

Sec. 4. (1) A person who sends or causes to be sent an unsolicited commercial e-mail through an e-mail service provider located in this state or to an e-mail address held by a resident of this state shall not do any of the following:

Unless the cable company approves it. This would retransmit telecommunications service, and thus run afoul of Michigan's new law.

Actually it would be cool if your porn-loving neighbor got one of these, you could probably watch for free.

...do something about it.

Don't like these bills coming across your state legislatures? Write to your local senator or congressman. Go to the Michigan State Homepage and lookup your rep, write them an email, call them, fax them. Don't think it works? Try it and you will get a reply.

Better yet, check the Michigan State Legislature website, and find out when this bill is up for a public hearing before the committee. This is the best use of your time if you are truly concerned. Since we are all somewhat tech-savvy, our input is paramount to countering the massive brainwashing and lobbying the motion picture and recording industry is pounding into your statehouse. Take a day off work, do some research, and tell the committees how this will affect their constituents. I know if this ever hits my home state, I will be first in line to speak out.

It is your right to take advantage of democracy. Sure, it's difficult to change federal legislation, but if you pack the state house, you will get local media coverage, and your state reps will take note. Or you could just keep complaining here...

A recent Slashdot article, "Super-DMCA" Outlaws Ph.D. Thesis, references a change to Michigan law which outlaws any effort to "... Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service." Since (a) SMTP is a telecommunications service and (b) a large proportion of Spam/UCE headers are forged in an effort to hide their source, (c) let's route all the world's SMTP mail through servers located in Michigan.

(a) "Telecommunications" and "telecommunications service" mean any service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation to facilitate the origination, transmission, retransmission, emission, or reception of signs, data, images, signals, writings, sounds, or other intelligence or equivalence of intelligence of any nature over any telecommunications system by any method, including, but not limited to, electronic, electromagnetic, magnetic, optical, photo-optical, digital, or analog technologies.

(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service.

Regarding your question of routers:

As I see it, there are two separate issues to worry about there. Living in Michigan myself, and not only using an IPtables/NAT script but also offering it to the public, I'm following this law with considerable interest:

"Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service" MCL 750.540c(1)(b)

The first issue: As a NAT user, I might technically obscure the "place of origin"... namely, local 192.168.0.0/24 IPs. But if I send spam from any of these machines, my public IP is still quite visible. Now, I would like to see this law applied to spoofing, bouncing off open relays/proxies, etc -- in those cases, you are indeed concealing the place of origin, and with malicious intentions.

What concerns me isn't the state government (yet), it's the ISP. Therein lies the second issue: theft-of-service allegations, via this bit about "concealing the existence". Ergo, a firewall/NAT/router splits one IP into something multiple machines can use, and I don't pay Comcast for each separately. Don't think they wouldn't try to sue you... see "Buckeye Cable".

Both of these are markedly different applications than in the original story, which goes to show how broadly this law could be interpreted.

• Obtaining telecommunications services with intent to avoid charge; violation; separate incidents pursuant to scheme or course of conduct; enhanced sentence based on prior convictions; definitions.

• Prohibited conduct with regard to telecommunications access device; violation as felony; penalty; amateur radio service; forfeiture; order; definitions.

• Intent to permit or obtain unauthorized receipt of telecommunications service.

• Obtaining telecommunications services with intent to avoid charge; violation; separate incidents pursuant to scheme or course of conduct; enhanced sentence based on prior convictions; definitions.

• Prohibited conduct with regard to telecommunications access device; violation as felony; penalty; amateur radio service; forfeiture; order; definitions.

• Intent to permit or obtain unauthorized receipt of telecommunications service.

• Obtaining telecommunications services with intent to avoid charge; violation; separate incidents pursuant to scheme or course of conduct; enhanced sentence based on prior convictions; definitions.

• Prohibited conduct with regard to telecommunications access device; violation as felony; penalty; amateur radio service; forfeiture; order; definitions.

• Intent to permit or obtain unauthorized receipt of telecommunications service.

Here is the link Section 750-219a defining telecommunications devices: I read the section which looks like it defines telecommunications device (disclaimer: IANAL), and it seems to me voting machines would fall under telecommunications devices given the linked definition.
And even paper punch cards would be illegal, if the data was transmitted electronically in some stage of the process. So no matter how they vote, it would be illegal to use voting machines anonymously. In which case, the voters of Michigan would have to have their votes identitied to comply with the law. Doesn't this break a constitutional ammendment or two?

(c) "Telecommunications" means the origination, emission, transmission, or reception of data, images, signals, sounds, or other intelligence or equivalence of intelligence of any nature over any communications system by any method, including, but not limited to, electronic, magnetic, optical, digital, or analog.

...

(e) "Telecommunications device" means any instrument, equipment, machine, or device that facilitates telecommunications. Telecommunications device includes, but is not limited to, a computer, computer chip or circuit, telephone, cellular telephone, pager, personal communications device, transponder, receiver, radio, modem, or device that enables use of a modem.

(f) "Telecommunications service" means providing, allowing, facilitating, or generating any form of telecommunications through the use of telecommunications devices or telecommunications access devices over a telecommunications system.

I hope when you decide to become a lawyer that you'll do more for your client than skim the legislation and hope for the best, because your research skills SUCK.

Note the following line in the ammendment.

(b) "Telecommunications access device" shall have the same meaning as in section 219a.

Here's the URL for Section 219a.
Section 219a

(b) "Telecommunications access device" means any of the following:

(i) Any instrument, device, card, plate, code, telephone number, account number, personal identification number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, counterfeit number, or financial transaction device as defined in section 157m that alone or with another device can acquire, transmit, intercept, provide, receive, use, or otherwise facilitate the use, acquisition, interception, provision, reception, and transmission of any telecommunications service.

(ii) Any type of instrument, device, machine, equipment, technology, or software that facilitates telecommunications or which is capable of transmitting, acquiring, intercepting, decrypting, or receiving any telephonic, electronic, data, internet access, audio, video, microwave, or radio transmissions, signals, telecommunications, or services, including the receipt, acquisition, interception, transmission, retransmission, or decryption of all telecommunications, transmissions, signals, or services provided by or through any cable television, fiber optic, telephone, satellite, microwave, data transmission, radio, internet based or wireless distribution network, system, or facility, or any part, accessory, or component, including any computer circuit, security module, smart card, software, computer chip, pager, cellular telephone, personal communications device, transponder, receiver, modem, electronic mechanism or other component, accessory, or part of any other device that is capable of facilitating the interception, transmission, retransmission, decryption, acquisition, or reception of any telecommunications, transmissions, signals, or services.

Note that telephone numbers, PINs, and account numbers are considered telecommunication access devices. ...AND YOU DON'T THINK THESE BROAD DEFINITIONS DON'T INCLUDE MODEMS AND ROUTERS THAT HAVE NAT???

What color is the sky in your world?

BTW, This has nothing to do with being anti-George Bush, anti-corporation, anti-war, or anti-republican. This is about EVERYDAY corruption that's been happening in this and EVERY OTHER country since the dawn of civilization that infects EVERY political party.

Grow up and stop being naive.

Oops - the link should be this instead. Damn spastic posting finger...

***** 750.335.amended THIS AMENDED SECTION IS EFFECTIVE MARCH 31, 2003 *****

750.335.amended Lewd and lascivious cohabitation and gross lewdness.
Sec. 335.

Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together, and any man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00. No prosecution shall be commenced under this section after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;--CL 1948, 750.335 ;--Am. 1952, Act 73, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;--Am. 2002, Act 672, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003 .

Michigan doesn't seem to have made it to the 21st century yet.

I have been involved in local youth-rights related issues in the past, some pertaining to local businesses barring individuals under a certain age from entering their stores without an adult, or after certain hours (well before curfew). Section Section 37.2302 of the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976, states:

Sec. 302. Except where permitted by law, a person shall not: (a) Deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, or marital status.

Being that rating systems like the ESRB and MPAA are not government-mandated, and that many movie theaters and department stores have barred individuals under 17 from viewing/purchasing "M" rated games or viewing "R" rated movies, it is arguable that the practice is illegal in Michigan. The only exception I could see to this rule is if it was a private club. I do know other states have similar laws concerning age, but Michigan does have a model policy that has proven effective in challenging local businesses. I have pondered the possibility of challenging movie theaters and retail stores, many of which voluntarially enacted policies barring minors based on the content ratings, but it obviously would cause some strong opposition and fighting teams of corporate lawyers.

I vaugely remember the copyright issue you mentioned. I doubt copyright issues will prevent the government from publishing it's own laws. At least, I really hope that's the case.

The part that scares me about this article isn't the charges themselves, but the fact that it's Granholm behind them. Jennifer Granholm's record with regards to the internet is not exactly spectacular. I'm thinking in particular of Michigan Public Act 33, Michigan's attempt at keeping porn away from kids. It was, of course, so ridiculously broad as to be obviously unconstitutional, and the ACLU got a preliminary injunction. (Incidentally, Arbornet was one of the plaintiffs in that case.) Granholm was, I understand, one of the proponents of that law. I'm not entirely sure this is the kind of person I want going after "hackers".

For anyone interested, here is the law straight from the horse's mouth.

But the strange thing is, the laws were effective March of 1980. And Michigan finds the use of a computer as a way to enhance the sentence through this law.

I'm also a community member of Grex (finger nharmon@grex.cyberspace.org), and used to frequent M-Net quite a bit. These are UNIX-based community systems, and I find it extremely disturbing that someone would take advantage of free system like this.

The people at M-Net are pretty reasonable people, and will probably not overstate damages (unless one of their parent companies or sponsors makes them).

I think the most important thing to remember, is that these kids were malicious and weren't just "exploring the system". Personally, I think "exploring the system" should also be illegal, because accidents can happen,... but that's not the case here. These kids are criminals, and should not be made into heros like Mitnick.

For anyone interested, here is the law straight from the horse's mouth.

But the strange thing is, the laws were effective March of 1980. And Michigan finds the use of a computer as a way to enhance the sentence through this law.

I'm also a community member of Grex (finger nharmon@grex.cyberspace.org), and used to frequent M-Net quite a bit. These are UNIX-based community systems, and I find it extremely disturbing that someone would take advantage of free system like this.

The people at M-Net are pretty reasonable people, and will probably not overstate damages (unless one of their parent companies or sponsors makes them).

I think the most important thing to remember, is that these kids were malicious and weren't just "exploring the system". Personally, I think "exploring the system" should also be illegal, because accidents can happen,... but that's not the case here. These kids are criminals, and should not be made into heros like Mitnick.

Such is the case with pepper spray use in Michigan. If you use a normally defensive weapon in an offensive way, you've violated the public trust, thus your punishment should be more extreme.

I understand the previous example was a bit crude at least. But I think it stands that the same object can be legal or illegal based on it's use. Another example would be prescription drugs, another would be fireworks.

In my most very humble opinion, I feel this man did something wrong, and should be punished for it.

Further I agree with the damages stated by Epicor. I think the damages of $12,500 required to issue new user IDs and passwords is fair. Assuming that's a realistic estimate, I believe that the cost of total recovery is a fair price.

But one thing I would dispute, is that Epicor claims that the cost of losing their customer list would be in the amount of $2.5 million per year. All the article stated was that Bell has an email with the list as an attachment. In this case, they are claiming unrealistic damages, in where they didn't REALLY lose the list. So to these damages I would disagree.