Broad Bills to Protect 'Communications Services'

mttlg writes "According to Freedom to Tinker, MA, TX, SC, FL, GA, AK, TN, and CO have introduced similar bills that would make it illegal to possess, use, etc. "any communication device to receive ... any communication service without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider" or "to conceal ... from any communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication." (Additional legalese removed for the sake of brevity.) This would seem to outlaw NAT, VPNs, and many other security measures. In other words, don't secure your communications, just sue if you don't like who receives them." The bills define 'communication service' as just about any sort of telecom service that is provided for a charge or fee. In effect, they would extend the already-extant laws relating to theft of cable TV services to any telecom service. For example, if your ISP charges per computer connected, using a router/NAT device would be illegal if these became law.

Comments

Ouch

[DeadSea]

This law would make it illegal to do several things that I currently do:

1. Run a proxy server at home and connect to it via ssl so that my employer can't tell what web pages I visit at work.
2. SSH chaining - Use ssh to log into a remote computer and use ssh to log into another computer since this makes both endpoints unaware of the address of the other.
3. Use a remailer as a whistleblower. A remailer stips all headers off a message before sending it out to a new specified sender. This provides anonymous mail which is important for people who are afraid of retribution if the note could be traced back.
4. Post to slashdot anonymously.

Re:Ouch

[Old Uncle Bill]

Not to sound like a newb, but how are you doing #1? I know of a few ways, but have not tried doing that for a while.

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

4. Post to slashdot anonymously.

Not at this precise moment though ;-)

Re:Ouch

[Carbonite]

While I can certainly see legitimate uses of each of those things, they do seem rather questionable. Even if you're using these methods for the right reasons, I'd suspect that many people aren't. The real debate is whether a law prohibiting these activities is necessary. I believe that in virtually all cases, the answer is no.

Re:Ouch

[jon787]

https://proxy.magusnet.com:443/-_-http;//www.googl e.com/

SSL encrypted proxy connection.

Re:Ouch

[Troed]

Put up a socks5 proxy at home, then tunnel port 1080 from your computer at work to 1080 at home. Now run all programs through socks5 at 127.0.0.1:1080 at work - those that don't have native socks5 support can probably run through sockscap.

Re:Ouch

[diablobynight]

I think this bill is probably not so much directed at us, IP geeks, as much as it is directed at people stealing sattelite TV, and people stealing cell phones

Re:Ouch

[EllisDees]

This one is pretty simple:

http://www.jmarshall.com/tools/cgiproxy/

Re:Ouch

[jgerman]

It doesn't matter who it's directed AT. What matters is that it can be used against anyone that it covers. Which include people doing the things the poster suggested. Things that should not be legislatable (matbe I just made that word up). I contantly ssh from box to box in what may be a long chain of ssh sessions. This bill is ridiculous and has no business even being up for a vote. It's nother example of how current lawmakers get involved in things they have absolutely no comprehension of.

Re:Ouch

[warmcat]

The DMCA wasn't aimed at printer cartridges. But there it is.

Re:Ouch

[jon787]

I'm at Michigan Tech.

I like MagusNet, the slower speed is a very acceptable tradeoff for the privacy sometimes.

Re:Ouch

[B1]

I think this bill is probably not so much directed at us, IP geeks, as much as it is directed at people stealing sattelite TV, and people stealing cell phones

It may not be directed at IP geeks--maybe the spirit of the bill is that it's supposed to go after satellite TV pirates and cellular fraud.

The problem though is that once the law is in the books, it's the letter of the law that matters. And right now, the wording of the bill leaves it open to potential abuse.

The law may not target IP geeks, but if some ISP wanted to go after NAT users, they would now have a broken law on their side. As with the DMCA, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

And what about Freenet?

Re:Ouch

[Elwood P Dowd]

Wide-open WIFI would also be illegal.

Re:Ouch

[Rick the Red]

As with the DMCA, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

In the case of the DMCA: It's a superhighway to hell, they knew exactly where it went when they built it, and their intentions were not at all good. Congress' intention was to hand your wallet over to the corporate copyright holders, allowing Disney - for example - to charge you every time you view a Disney movie, not just when you buy it at WallMart. They know the best way to get further campaign contributions is to help fill their donor's pockets.

Re:Ouch

[rben]

This bill would follow the pattern of many recent bills and make lots of currently law-abiding citizens into criminals. It's amazing to me that our "representatives" are so eager to pass bills designed to squeeze more money out of out pockets and into the hands of the largest campaign contributors.

Many representatives now introduce legistlation that is almost entirely written by companies that are aiming to improve profits. I doubt most of the representatives understand or even read the bills they put forward that cover technical topics.

Re:Ouch

[sharekk]

When reading the suggested changes it was aimed at "whoever, with intent to defraud". If you're not attempting to cheat your ISP (running 6 machines for the price of one if the ISP you use charges per machine or something) you should have no problem. If you do want to run your 6 machines just pay the extra or switch ISPs.
Granted I don't want to do either but I don't see it as unreasonable...

Re:Ouch

[Skjellifetti]

The problem though is that once the law is in the books, it's the letter of the law that matters.

That's too simple. While the letter of the law is clearly quite important, the legislative intent of the law is given a lot of weight when the law is interpreted by the courts.

Re:Ouch

[kableh]

The real debate is if this will stop real criminals, as opposed to those of us who have work to get done, from doing any of these things. I believe that in all cases, the answer is no.

Re:Ouch

[Creep73]

If an ISP can regulate the amount of computers I have hooked up to that ISP's pipe can the water company charge for the amount of faucets installed in my house? Can the electric company charge me for the amount of electrical sockets installed in my home? Can the phone company charge me per phone? The logic used in coming up with these policies is flawed to the core. I thank the companies for this and the gullible lawmakers we have in this country. Instead of making money by creating and proving viable services they will make their current services and products make them more money through bad legislation. Unfortunately it is the current trend. Just ask Disney's Mickey.

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

Or if you're even lazier just use an OpenSSH client to connect to a remote OpenSSH server like this:

ssh -D 1080 remotehost -l username

Then just point your web browser to localhost port 1080 in the socks config section and browse away as if you're on that remote box. As a security person this really annoys me since people behind my firewall could be doing whatever they want on the net without going through our filtering and controls, but the only way to stop it is to block all outgoing ports and/or use authenticated circuit gateways outbound. Quite a pain in the ass though. So, alas, might as well just open up all outbound connections since anybody with a clue will figure out how to do it anyway. It's only useful for keeping the regular users in line not running shit and propogating trojans via worms. :-/

Re:Ouch

[mbogosian]

SSL encrypted proxy connection.

I don't think this gets around the wording of the proposal. You're still using something to disguise the origin of the communication. In fact, it might make most public proxies illegal.

Would this also Wireless Ethernet cards illegal, since the legislation "would make it illegal to possess, use, etc. 'any communication device to receive ... any communication service without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider'". I can use my 802.11b card to do this today. Would possession be a crime?

Re:Ouch

[HiThere]

Why are you assuming that the purpose of the law is anything like as innocent as you are proposing. To me it looks not only foul, but intentionally foul.

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

More than that! It would make illegal the possession of a television set! This is because
you would have to get a written license to recieve
a signal from every station from which you could
possibly recieve a signal. The key word is 'possibly', because a station a thousand miles
away could claim in a court that you could possibly recieve. It would turn this country into
another Iraq! What is next? Possibly a system
to 'simplify' the situation. You would have to
buy a 'license to own a television' from the
government through your local friendly dealer.
You would have to buy from a dealer because at this point private ownership of electronic devices
would be a form of contraband.......forget your
personal computer as it would be history! Snoops
with loop antennas would sniff up and down your
streets looking for unlicensed receivers/equipment
just like in Europe. If this is the kind of
America that you want to live in, just lay down
and take it without complaining!.... ....and, Oh Yes, the license would just put you
on a list for the RIAA and others, like a kind
of 'sucker list' from which you could NOT opt
out of.....junk mail up the yang!

Re:Ouch

[queequeg1]

Generally, legislative intent is looked at only if the law itself is so ambiguous that a court cannot make heads or tails of what it should do (in many such cases (especially in a criminal setting), it would likely invalidate the law). In this case, the wording seems to be relatively clear. The problem with legislative intent is that there is rarely any single intent, mostly a variety of self-serving comments that support a huge variety of intents.

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

That is bad. If the url your web browser is using has the proxy address in it, the remote www server will know you are going through a proxy if they do anything clientside like javascript. And you may well find a lot of things that check the url for something won't work. Just configure your browser to use the proxy, like a normal person. Putting the proxy in the url may work at times, but it's stupid.

Re:Ouch

[john.r.strohm]

Yes. What he said.

The guy who originally wrote the Racketeering in Corrupt Organizations (RICO) law deliberately wrote the bill as broadly as he could, despite warnings from colleagues, because he believed that prosecutors could be trusted to use reasonable discretion and judgement and only use the bill for the intended purpose, to wit, going after organized crime.

He reportedly has a great deal of difficulty sleeping at night these days, as he contemplates just how much carnage his baby has wrought. The prosecutors have had a field day using his tactical nuclear weapon as an all-purpose flyswatter.

Re:Ouch

[Xenographic]

It would also illegalize spam, or so it would seem... :]

Still, it would /have/ to be a lot more narrow to be a very reasonable law :[

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the word you want is 'justicable' (e.g. something the judges should be able to decide :)

Re:Ouch

[smasherbob]

And don't forget garage door openers, of all things.

Re:Ouch

[MacGabhain]

if some ISP wanted to go after NAT users If your ISP charges per computer (such as cable modem providers), then they should have a broken law on their side. You've contracted to use their service with one machine (and on a shared-bandwidth network, there's good reason for that contract limitation). If you start hooking up more machines, you're effectively splicing those machines onto the network, just like with CableTV. If your ISP authorizes the setting up of networks to share they bandwidth they provide you, the law would not apply.

Re:Ouch

[MrNemesis]

"They do seem rather questionable"?

I don't men to sound like a token bearded lefty, but this sounds an awful lot like "you're guilty until you've proved yourself innocent".

I for one use an anonymous proxy at work (as well as NAT, SSH, firewalls, blah) with permission from my boss since some of our work requires me to visit several locations on the internet where it would be unwise to divulge my location to ANY third party, be it legitimate or not. If this was removed, my job could no longer be performed, since I no longer have adequate safeguards.

For those of you who are interested, our work entails some computer forensic work and some visiting of what could be construed as "damaging" sites.

Re:Ouch

[k_stamour]

My SSH connection to another server is equal to me and another person coming up with an original verbal language that is only understood by both of us. Sure in time the original language could be deciphered (de-crypted), but it is relatively as secure as SSH. Two ends communicating and nothing understood in between. (WWII code talkers come to mind). Once the law is in the books, it becomes a target-rich environment for Ashcroft & co. Once a disgruntled ISP or record company claims you have info of mass destruction (to their bottom line) the broad brush of this bill could bit us all in 5 - 20 years. Ehh.... how about my SSL connection to Amazon.......Where does that fall......Where is the line for personal freedom and expectation of relative privacy? Dam, I'm turning into a conspiracy theorist..... sheesh (turns to FBI agents....waves....)

Re:Ouch

[erc]

That's because you've never used ssh or PGP to encrypt your browser connection or your email, respectively. Lots of reasons why your private communication isn't anyone else's business - discussing or researching your spouse's medical condition, for example, or your own.

Re:Ouch

[canadian_right]

Its just another step on the road to a police state which the current USA administration seems to feel is the only way to "protect" its citizens.

This will not stop a single criminal. Its a horriblely broad bill that criminalizes many standard computer practises. I hope someone with a shred of common sense will point this out and the bill dies.

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

"The problem though is that once the law is in the books, it's the letter of the law that matters. And right now, the wording of the bill leaves it open to potential abuse."

You are exactely right on, remember how the dmca was supposed to protect IP holders and now automanufactures and all other types of industries have used it as a way to make more profit.

I'm an optimist however, bad laws don't get enforced very often and as long as people can code, there will be a technological workaround to any piece of shit legislation.

Re:Ouch

[Reziac]

Cable companies used to charge per TV hooked up to the service. (Maybe some still do, I dunno.) I vaguely recall that this practice got hauled into court a few times but not what the outcome was -- anyone here know??

BTW, back in the olden days when every phone was hardwired in (no modular jacks), phone companies DID charge extra if you had an extension on the same line. So yes, you did get charged per phone.

Re:Ouch

[Lectrik]

This bill would follow the pattern of many recent bills and make lots of currently law-abiding citizens into criminals.

But a police state can be run so much more efficiently if everyone is already a criminal.

[begin hyperbolistic hypothization]
I'm sure at some point they'll manage to slip by some wording in an obscure bill making it illegal to represent someone accused (by a company) of comitting a crime. At that point we're all screwed You can't hire a lawyer and if you represent yourself you've commited another heinous act in a viscous death spiral of legal doomy death... of doom.
[end]

Re:Ouch

[Zemran]

All you need to do is move to a country that respects free speach and personal freedom and you will be able to continue doing these things. The main problem you will find is a drop in income but if you can live with that you may find happiness. I have long considered doing so and will probably do so as soon as my children leave home.

Re:Ouch

[Feanturi]

Yeah, I think it's silly for ISP's that charge by-the-machine. Bandwidth is the commodity being used up, as is the water in your house regardless of faucets, electrical regardless of outlets, and phone regardless of outlets. Cable TV outlets are a bit different, as they let different people (possibly boarders not family members) watch different things at the same time, so that's like getting extra service. My cable company charges for additional IP addresses if you need more than 2. But the reason is just that it costs money to have a large enough block of IPs to handle all these extras desired. They don't mind if you're using a router to get more connections, they're more concerned with how much of their pipe you're using. If your bandwidth is way incredible over a 30-day period (something like 60 gigs down, and 20 gigs up) you get a phonecall, but no extra charges. Sounds fine by me.. I've got 2 IPs available to me, and I just use one because my router handles the 3 machines.. But sometimes, every now and then, I have need to unplug one of my machines from the router and move that one to the hub so it can have its own real IP, since configing a DMZ isn't always a good solution. I'm using the same amount of bandwidth either way, so they don't care how I'm connecting. Now, if I was running a Cat-5 line down the hallway to my neighbor, then I'm bad and would deserve some sort of prosecution if it was discovered. Common sense should rule things like this, not more stupid laws.

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

--
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.
--

No, no, no.

You can lead a horticulture, but you can't make her think.

Re:Ouch

[Almost-Retired]

This makes me feel that the average Michigander is pretty dumb, if they think we are going to open up our systems just to please some fscker from the phone industry whose afraid he might lose a nickle because pa's computer, and 3 of the kid's machines all come in on the same ip adddress.

Tell ya what Michigan, in this country the majority rules, and the majority is going to run something that protects his investment, even if he's a windows weenie. You can go fly a kite, prefereably with a wire string, its not your machinery, its mine.

Methinks its time I shut down my home dns though.
That gave me away the last time I had a check site check me.

--
Cheers, Gene (who doesn't live in Michigan, thanks)

Re:Ouch

[pivo]

...view a Disney movie, not just when you buy it at WallMart.

If you're getting Disney movies at WallMart you might already be in hell.

Re:Ouch

[leshert]

Yes... when it GETS to the courts. But until it's tested in court, it can be used for quite a lot of intimidation, arrest, and disruption (again, the DMCA is a great example).

The DAs and law enforcement people don't (and shouldn't) dither over legislative intent.

Re:Ouch

[Mindragon]

According to Michigan Law, as of April 1st (April's fools?!) IP telephony is banned. This is due to the following sections passed by meatheads/cheeseheads in Michigan:

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

(c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.

For those who aren't in the know -- IP Telephony is a great way to save money by networking multiple offices together using IP Networks as the backbone for the phone system. So a call originating in New York could be delivered to the Los Angeles office via the internet and a VPN device. So much for that brilliant concept. While we're at it, Cisco's wonderful technical support service is outlawed in the state of Michigan ... According to this section:

(2) A person shall not modify, alter, program, or reprogram a telecommunications access device for the purposes described in subsection (1).

(3) A person shall not deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise plans, written instructions, or materials for the manufacture, assembly, or development of an unlawful telecommunications access device or for the manufacture, assembly, or development of a telecommunications access device that the person intends to be used or knows or has reason to know will be used or is likely to be used to violate subsection (1). As used in this subsection, "materials" includes any hardware, cables, tools, data, computer software, or other information or equipment used or intended for use in the manufacture, assembly, or development of an unlawful telecommunications access device or a telecommunications access device.

So, I am proposing that we just pass legislation on Slashdot that bans the state of Michigan from any advances in computer technology. Leave 'em in the stone age where they seem to be happier.

Re:Ouch

[PingXao]

Intent doesn't matter. Many a prosecutor has made his career by stretching laws beyond their original intent to cover the activities of defendants. This is commonly used when "throwing the book" at somebody. They pile up charge after charge to encourage the defendent to plea bargain.

Case in point: The mayor of a medium-sized town was caught and arrested a couple of years ago for a really heinous crime. The Eff Bee Eye obtained damming evidence by tapping his phones. The only problem is that the evidence they got was for a crime totally separate from what they were investigating him for. What they caught him doing was not a federal crime, so they had to invent one. They charged him with interstate something-or-other because he used a telephone to arrange his evil deeds, and a telephone is considered a device used in interstate commerce.

It didn't matter that the phone calls he made never left the boundaries of his town. The fact that a telephone could be used for interstate commerce was enough for federal prosecutors to charge and ultimately convict him. IMO this is wrong. His crimes were truly horrific, yes, and he did deserve a harsh sentence, but this twisting of laws to suit the whims of prosecutors is dangerous. There were plenty of state laws that covered his crimes, but the state was not investigating him and the Feds just couldn't legally turn over incidental evidence they had collected to the state. Some would say that's a technicality. I say it's an abuse of prosecutorial power.

Re:Ouch

[Koatdus]

I, for one, refuse to buy anything Disney puts out. They are a greedy bunch and don't deserve a single penny of my money.

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said.

I hereby pledge to you today, as a professional software developer, that I will phase the Internet out of my every day life and gradually go back to BBS'ing if this becomes law. I will publicly denounce the Internet at every opportunity and advise others of the disgrace to the public trust that the Internet is steadily becoming.

I will not willingly play into the hands of evil corporations and evil politicians. I will draw the line and not cross it. If the Internet becomes unusable... put simply, I will not use it.

Boil THIS frog, motherfuckers.

Re:Ouch

[Black Copter Control]

I think this bill is probably not so much directed at us, IP geeks, as much as it is directed at people stealing sattelite TV, and people stealing cell phones

Nuclear weapons aimed at military targets will still take out civilians. Whomever this law is aimed at, it's still wiping our a lot of legitimate uses.

If I do something as simple as using SSH to start up a netscape/mozilla session from home so I can look at my email, and it incidently opens up the web browser, I could end up in jail. That is absolutely assinine and overreaching.

I will quite often do things like ssh to my friend's box and use that to test whether problems with a network connection are local to my box or more generally net wide.

I do remote system administration... Testing the network connection of a remote box (if it's in Michigan) is now illegal.

Checking the email on my home box while on the road may or may not be illegal, but sending a reply definitely is.

Logging into a work computer and doing anything that involves a second box is now a criminal offence.

Surfing the web through a NAT firewall is now a criminal offence.

How about this one?
Owning a cable/DSL router/firewall could land you in jail!

Many people who use those things probably don't know that they're now the equivalent of burglary tools.

Re:Ouch

[Trolling4Dollars]

You think wrong. The problem is that we have "big government" that is keen to control it's citizens a lot more than it should be allowed to. We haven't faced threats to our personal lives like this since the original Reagan/Bush era. (George Bush Sr. was paranoid of computers, the Internet and geeks. Who's administration was responsible for the unjust treatment of Kevin Mitnik after all?) Remember this next time you're at the polls and vote for anyone but the conservative candidate. The only freedom they are concerned with is the freedom to take money out of your hands and put it in to the hands of big business. Keep that in mind folks: "Big Government" + "Big Business" = "Corporate Fascist State" We're 90% there right now...

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

Its just another step on the road to a police state which the current USA administration seems to feel is the only way to "protect" its citizens.

Hi Canadia! You are a moron. Did you even read the summary? This is for STATE GOVERNMENTS. Yet another person blinded by hate of the good ol' US of A. Of course, we do have the DMCA....

But, I agree, the bills are bad and I hope they are struck down.

Re:Ouch

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an optimist however, bad laws don't get enforced very often and as long as people can code, there will be a technological workaround to any piece of shit legislation.

I wish would you said was true, but the DMCA speaks otherwise. I think that this law complements the DMCA well. The DMCA makes everything illegal, and these new state laws make it illegal to not broadcast your identity so companies can find you. (I don't use the word "hide" because most people not broadcasting their identity are in fact doing so for technical, not privacy reasons.)

Doh...

[}InFuZeD{]

"any communication device to receive ... any communication service without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider"...

Now my computer is illegal to own too =/

Re:Doh...

[JaredOfEuropa]

What about phones, radios, etc? As long as you don't have "express permission" from the service provider, you're in trouble. I am glad we in Holland have a law called the "Right to reception", which basically means that if something is transmitted into the ether, it's fair game for anyone to receive. This law is quite fundamental, almost constitutional, and has even be used to uphold the right to use radar detectors to avoid speed traps. The law grants you the unconditional right to receive anything, including the radar signal.

Re:Doh...

[qqtortqq]

The FCC, the government organization that deals with radio transmissions, gives us the same right you have, that it shall not be made illegal to recieve a radio transmission. That will probably just get stomped on and ignored, the new laws will stand for 3 or 4 years until someone gets charged with violating it, appeals all the way to a court high enough to have some authority, then the law will be overturned. Theres no planning ahead or common sense among the people who make the laws.

Re:Doh...

[Anonymous Coward]

or if you over-hear me mumbling to myself i'll sue your ass

Re:Doh...

[Le Marteau]

The FCC, the government organization that deals with radio transmissions, gives us the same right you have, that it shall not be made illegal to recieve a radio transmission

Well, most of the time, anyway. For example, it is illegal, in many areas, to use a radar detector in a car.

Re:Doh...

[way2trivial]

Ye gods... EMF from the powerlines?? no limits? gov't transmissions as well? you can tap most phonelines without cutting a wire, just proximity is needed..

Re:Doh...

[way2trivial]

I just thought of something else..

There have been cases in the US of people stealing electricity
from high power transmission lines, by burying a coil of large guage cable underneath them
as a giant transformer, it takes electricity without contact-
"from the ether"-- wonder what the take on that would be...

Re:Doh...

[Rick the Red]

Only because a simple speeding ticket isn't worth appealing all the way to the Spreme Court. But if I were rich... Seriously, the Constitution gives authority over interstate commerce to the Federal Government, and the courts have ruled this applies to radio, because radio crosses state lines. Therefore, the courts have ruled, the States have no authority over radio. Therefore, I believe (but IANAL), the courts would rule the States have no authority to prevent you from using the radio waves in a way the FCC permits, including reception of police radar frequencies. Now, to be fair, the courts have also ruled that if you listen in with a police scanner you may not share what you hear with anyone, so be sure your radar detector is positioned such that other drivers (including cops) can't see it when it lights up, or hear it when it sounds off.

Re:Doh...

[dougmc]

There have been cases in the US of people stealing electricity from high power transmission lines, by burying a coil of large guage cable underneath them as a giant transformer, it takes electricity without contact- "from the ether"-- wonder what the take on that would be..

Do you have a citation for that?

I can't imagine that generating enough electricity to actually be worth the trouble. Yes, people like to wave flourscent bulbs under power lines, but that doesn't take much power.

That, and the energy is already lost -- it's not like the bulbs (or wire) are sucking energy from the wire -- the energy has already been radiated.

And it would be very interesting if this were made illegal -- after all, this is exactly how a radio works.

Re:Doh...

[rbook]

I believe it is FCC regulations, not courts, which prevent you from divulging what you hear when you listen to a radio transmission not meant for you (e.g., police scanners).

IN GENERAL, there is a "right to reception" in the U.S., but there are exceptions. A few states prohibit radar detectors, and a few prohibit listening to police scanners while in a car.

Also, it's illegal to make a device to receive cell phone frequencies ... but if you have an old device from before that law was passed, you can still use it (but not divulge what you hear). I'm not sure anyone's ever been prosecuted for this -- a few years ago someone eavesdropped on (and taped!) a cellphone conference call between Republican House leaders, and sent the tape to a top Democrat. No prosecution when you eavesdrop on Republicans!

Re:Doh...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been told that the energy is actually being carried outside the wire, therefore you would be stealing (it falls as a 1/r law)

Re:Doh...

[Rick the Red]

A few states prohibit radar detectors, and a few prohibit listening to police scanners while in a car.

My point is that, in my opinion, these state laws are unconstitutional. You have only stated that such laws exist, not argued that they are constitutional or pointed to any court finding them constitutional.

Also, it's illegal to make a device to receive cell phone frequencies

That's a federal law, not a state law -- which supports my point!

Re:Doh...

[rbook]

You have only stated that such laws exist, not argued that they are constitutional or pointed to any court finding them constitutional.

Of course I only stated that the laws exists -- I certainly didn't mean to say I was in favor of them!

The state scanner-in-car laws probably are constitutional, since they regulate what goes on in the car, in the state. Without the car restriction, the states could still probably argue that listening to a within-state police transmission is not "interstate commerce" thus the restriction is constitutional.

I would still oppose it though. Just because a law is constitutional doesn't mean it should be passed!

Re:Doh...

[JaredOfEuropa]

The law does state you are free to receive anything... without affecting the transmitter in a significant way. If you steal electricity using the EMF around a powerline, you are affecting their 'transmitter' in a very real and measurable way. And yes, government transmissions and analog cell phones are fair game as well. You are free to receive them, that is why such transmissions are encrypted these days.

Re:Doh...

[SgtXaos]

" That, and the energy is already lost -- it's not like the bulbs (or wire) are sucking energy from the wire -- the energy has already been radiated."

There is a certain amount of energy radiated to the surroundings, and this is accounted for in the design of the power lines (height, separation, etc.). But if you place a coil nearby, and start drawing current from it, there will be additional power loss from the transmission line. If this were not true, then it would be simple to get free power - just put in a transformer! After all, the primary has already radiated the energy, so you could just place any number of secondary coils near it and get free power from all of them.

But no, this is not the case. Induction between two conductors enables power transfer, and the secondary circuit certainly does load the primary.

Not sure how practical this method of getting free power from the utility company would be, though. Generally the lines are a long way from the ground compared to the distance between phases, and so the fields would be pretty much cancelled at the parasitic coil.

Hope this makes sense, I'm running on sudephed and a slight fever right now....

Re:Doh...

[mlippert]

I just was skipping along and stumbled upon your post. Right to reception is exactly the concept I was grasping for when I read the article. I'm glad there are some places where the laws make sense!

Re:Doh...

[Rick the Red]

The Federal Government's official position is that automobiles are theirs to regulate, because they operate on public roads that cross state lines. It doesn't matter if you only operate your car within your state, you're still subject to Federal regulations (emissions, safety, etc.) because you could cross a state line. California has emissions regulations that exceed the Federal standards only because Federal law grants them permission to set their own standards. So the fact that your radar detector is inside your car doesn't mean anything -- it's still covered by Federal laws/regulations (FCC), not state. It doesn't matter if the states don't think it's interstate commerce, what matters is what the courts think. So far, AFAIK, Federal courts have not ruled on state laws prohibiting radar detectors.

Back to the original topic, I remember an arguement from the 1970s regarding satelite television which went something like this: I have a right to protect my family from the potentially harmful radiation your satelite is beaming at my house, and in the course of providing this protection I have a right to monitor the radiation levels. If I chose to display the radiation levels in the form of an image on a television screen, that's my business.

Re:Doh...

[mttlg]

The FCC, the government organization that deals with radio transmissions, gives us the same right you have, that it shall not be made illegal to recieve a radio transmission.

Sorry, but this is absolutely not true and hasn't been since at least 1934. From:

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/subcarriers/

Section 605 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, which states that no one may receive, or assist in receiving, any radio communication to which they are not entitled and use that information for their own benefit. In addition, 18 U.S.C. Sections 2510 through 2521 prohibit the manufacture, assembly, possession, and sale of any device primarily useful for the surreptitious interception of such radio transmissions.

This is just one of the first in the long list of things you are not allowed to receive if they are provided to you.

Re:Doh...

[rbook]

I like that satelite argument! But really, though, I think you'd need some evidence that RF radiation from a satelite was potentially harmful -- doubtful -- and that by monitoring it and displaying it that way could somehow be used to mitigate the harm. Which is even more unlikely, since you probably get a whole lot more radiation from a TV screen in the same room than from a satelite hundreds of miles above you. ;-)

Re:Doh...

[rbook]

I stand corrected!

Re:Doh...

[schodackwm]

Le'see: I pay for radio reception by (often unwillingly) buying from advertisers... and law '...would make it illegal to possess, use, etc. "any communication device to receive ... any communication service without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider" ....' Sounds as tho I better start writing the radio station owners around the country for permission to continue to use my $3.95 transistor radio!

Re:Doh...

[Rick the Red]

Hey, how do I know it's not harmful unless I monitor it? ;-)

If they're so concerned about theft of service they should only beam their signal to their customer's houses. If they don't want me to see it, don't beam it at my house.

Re:Doh...

[qqtortqq]

AND use that information for their own benefit.

I understand that to mean I can't listen in to police communications to avoid getting caught doing something, but its perfectly legal to listen for entertainment.

Re:Doh...

[itsme1234]

HA ! I should move to Holland ! In Germany you have to pay the TV/Radio tax if you have a receiving device (even if you have for example a Radio+CD player and you only use CDs because you don't know german). You have to pay the TV/Radio tax if you have a PC, only because you could use your pc to listen to radio/tv on-line !!!!

Re:Doh...

[pivo]

Beneift != profit, it's perfectly reasonable to argue that you benefited by being entertained or informed.

Glad I don't live in those states!

[Anonymous Coward]

And, goog thing laws never jump from state to state!

Re:Glad I don't live in those states!

[jmccay]

{Insert you favorite Masshole (local word with an obvious definition) joke hear}...

I doubt it will pass in Mass because there is FAR to many technology companies in Mass, and most would probably move to a near by state (a benefit of being a smaller state) if they had to give up firewalls and such because of this new law. As a side note, New Hampshire, a Mass neighbor, has no sales tax or income tax, and we already get people moving to, shopping, and vacationing up hear to escape Mass taxes and stupid laws. (New York City has the Hamptons, and Mass has New Hampshire.) There's plenty of options for any company that wants to move out of Mass. I will be really surprised if this actually becomes a law because it will hurt them more than help them.

Boy!

[Pig Hogger]

Boy I'm glad the network I secure behind a NAT firewall is not in the USA!!!

Re:Boy!

[FilthPig]

Boy I'm glad the network I secure behind a NAT firewall is not in the USA!!!

Securing a network outside of the USA? Sounds awfully suspicious to me, isn't there some law against that?

By the way, please don't hog me.

in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rep. congressmen will renameCommunications Services as Freedom Services

Re:in other news...

[(54)T-Dub]

ROFL

This is frightening

[joebagodonuts]

"In effect, they would extend the already-extant laws relating to theft of cable TV services to any telecom service."

It does more than that. The language of the bills uses the word "harm" instead of "fraud". The language is vague enough that it could be twisted to be used against anyone. Just having a firewall that does nat translation is a violation of these bills.

All brought to us by the friendly folks at the MPAA. Jerks

Re:This is frightening

[PhxBlue]

Actually, I'm not sure if this is a result of MPAA lobbying or if it's something different at work. Consider that at least three of the states listed (CO, FL, GA) have Republican governors IIRC; and the MPAA's strongest influence is traditionally within the Democratic camp.

No, this is just as likely some harebrained "antiterrorism" measure designed to render all networks wide-open to government surveillance. And since the lobbying is occurring at the state level, it's going to be more difficult to stop than if it occurred at the Federal level--it's a lobbying effort that more resembles a hydra than a snake.

Re:This is frightening

[joebagodonuts]

Nope, MPAA is the culprit, according to "Freedom to Tinker".

Of course, it is posted on the internet, so I supose I should verify it else where before casting blame.

Re:This is frightening

[druske]

"Just having a firewall that does nat translation is a violation of these bills."

Which is why I'm not too worried about them passing as they are. If these were enforced, the ISPs themselves would lose business. And there are exceptions: the Texas bill notes an intent to defraud the service provider, and the Massachusetts bill uses the phrase "without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider". My guess is service providers won't be anxious to keep legitimate businesses from using their services. And if my ISP tells me I can't use my wireless router, they'll simply lose my business. Many bills are stupid in their infancy, but I have some hope that it'll make more sense by adolescence. (Of course, after the DMCA, that may simply be naive, unjustified optimism on my part...)

Re:This is frightening

[dAzED1]

Just having a firewall that does nat translation is a violation of these bills

OH REALLY. Mind quoting the section of what bill that says, or suggests, or whatever, this? A bill that even BEGINS to HINT at making it illegal to have a firewall? Please, I'd love to see some links. It certainly wasn't in bills in the links in the post.

Re:This is frightening

[daoine_sidhe]

Where, exactly, in the DMCA that thou shalt not manufacture aftermarket ink cartridges? Look, it's called a loophole, and the minute an ISP has the right to snoop for the existence of a NAT, even just barely by the letter of the law, they're going to. Every broadband ISP that I know of in my area expressly forbids it without their permission/extra cost/hardware. Routers, VPNs, firewalls, etc, etc...all fall into the loophole of "concealing the origin of the communication."

Re:This is frightening

[joebagodonuts]

From the post regarding the Texas & Massachusetts bills:

Both bills would flatly ban the possession, sale, or use of technologies that "conceal from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication". Your ISP is a communcation service provider, so anything that concealed the origin or destination of any communication from your ISP would be illegal -- with no exceptions.

If you send or receive your email via an encrypted connection, you're in violation, because the "To" and "From" lines of the emails are concealed from your ISP by encryption. (The encryption conceals the destinations of outgoing messages, and the sources of incoming messages.)

Worse yet, Network Address Translation (NAT), a technology widely used for enterprise security, operates by translating the "from" and "to" fields of Internet packets, thereby concealing the source or destination of each packet, and hence violating these bills. Most security "firewalls" use NAT, so if you use a firewall, you're in violation.

Re:This is frightening

[clarkcox3]

DUH, NAT conceals "the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication".

Re:This is frightening

[dAzED1]

"Mind quoting the section of what bill that says..."

I didn't ask for interpretations. I asked for you to quote actual portions of bills that actually *say* that. Please. I'd love to see it.

Re:This is frightening

[dAzED1]

my point is that the "concealing the origin of the communication" isn't in the bill that I saw...its in a post. Now...where, in the bills is that said? And as soon as you show me that, I'll show you where that section is defined, and how it doesn't have anything to do with a VPN. Give me links, and section numbers.

Re:This is frightening

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what I don't understand. If the bill forbids concealing "place of origin or destination", how does that apply to the "to" and "from" fields of packets, which are not geographical in nature?

If you do read it that way, then IP itself would be outlawed, since all Internet packets contain "to" and "from" fields that fail to indicate, geographically, the source and destination of the packet.

Re:This is frightening

[joebagodonuts]

"A firewall that does NAT translation." (Emphasis is mine)

Nothing in the proposed bills prohibit firewalls, but NAT translation could be considered an offense. This is from the link to the proprosed Texas bill:

SECTION 6. Sections 31.14(a), (b), and (d), Penal Code, are
amended to read as follows:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally
or knowingly manufactures, assembles, imports into the state,
exports out of the state, distributes, advertises, sells, or
leases, or offers for sale or lease:
(1) a communication device with an intent to:
(A) aid in the commission of an offense under
Section 31.12 or 31.13; or
(B) conceal from a communication service
provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of
origin or destination of any communication;
(2) an unauthorized access device; or
(3) plans or instructions for assembling or
manufacturing a communication device or unauthorized access
device, with the knowledge that another person intends to use the
plans or instructions for an unlawful purpose [, a device, a kit or
part for a device, or a plan for a system of components wholly or
partly designed to make intelligible an encrypted, encoded,
scrambled, or other nonstandard signal carried or caused by a
multichannel video or information services provider].

Re:This is frightening

[joebagodonuts]

"A firewall that does NAT translation." (Emphasis is mine)

Nothing in the proposed bills prohibit firewalls, but NAT translation could be considered an offense. This is from the link to the proprosed Texas bill:

SECTION 6. Sections 31.14(a), (b), and (d), Penal Code, are
amended to read as follows:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally
or knowingly manufactures, assembles, imports into the state,
exports out of the state, distributes, advertises, sells, or
leases, or offers for sale or lease:
(1) a communication device with an intent to:
(A) aid in the commission of an offense under
Section 31.12 or 31.13; or
(B) conceal from a communication service
provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of
origin or destination of any communication;
(2) an unauthorized access device; or
(3) plans or instructions for assembling or
manufacturing a communication device or unauthorized access
device, with the knowledge that another person intends to use the
plans or instructions for an unlawful purpose [, a device, a kit or
part for a device, or a plan for a system of components wholly or
partly designed to make intelligible an encrypted, encoded,
scrambled, or other nonstandard signal carried or caused by a
multichannel video or information services provider].

Re:This is frightening

[dAzED1]

conceal from a communication service
provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication

Is the origin concealed? Its coming from your house. No craziness there. Is the destination concealed? If the ISP is the one servicing your transimition, they HAVE to know where its going, otherwise your packet won't get there. They are, after all, routing it.

Unless you're spoofing something, poisoning a table, etc., you're ok. OR...if you've modified a cell phone to look like you're calling from someone else's phone, and then making a phone call. Which is, after all, the very point of this bill.

Re:This is frightening

[Anonymous Coward]

Which computer in my house? Sorry, the firewall/NAT router hides that info.

Re:This is frightening

[Rick the Red]

"to conceal ... from any communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication."

If you use NAT you are concealing from your ISP the place of origin or destination of your email, web surfing, etc. As far as your ISP knows, all your traffic is from/to your firewall, but in reality it's from/to the various computers within your home network. Ergo, you are concealing the true origin/destination of your Internet traffic.

Re:This is frightening

[dAzED1]

gosh! so does a kvm switch! cause the originator of those bytes is, in part (the data part, versus the headers part) a keyboard. So...if you conceal your keyboard via a kvm (when the keyboard isn't switched to a particular unit, the signal is kept hot by the kvm) then you're in violation! CRAP!

/sarcasm

They don't care which computer it came from. They just care that there is more than one computer. But even that isn't the intent of this bill.

Re:This is frightening

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading it yourself, fucktard.

Re:This is frightening

[kableh]

And the intent of the DMCA was to prevent aftermarket printer cartidges?

Are you trolling or just stupid? Hasn't the DMCA been enough of a lesson for all of us?

Re:This is frightening

[Anonymous Coward]

FUnny enuff with all the evil 'verizon online' is painted as, they fully allow routers and NAT's, and will even sell them to you to allow all your 5 computers to work online.
Now if only they hadn't decided to step into MS's door, becuase in general with all thier problems and thier basterd parent company and everything else they seem to be a fairly decent 'large ISP' when compared to the others. Its a shame they will just be MSN in a few years

Re:This is frightening

[Jaysyn]

And if it does pass, all we have to do is start reporting (state & local) government IT departments & colleges. Last time I checked they used a lot of wi-fi & firewalls.

Jaysyn

Re:This is frightening

[Anonymous Coward]

My lord you're dense...

Re:This is frightening

[Cecil]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but by saying "I don't want an interpretation" when the courts and enforcement most certainly will interpret the law doesn't make any sense. (um, what else do you expect them to do? how can you *not* interpret it?)

It's like a math textbook telling you that to square a number you multiply it by itself, and then you claiming that being asked to evaluate 4 squared is unfair because nowhere in the book does it say that 4 squared is 4 x 4.

Now, whether the law would actually be interpreted that way is a whole other story. Still, if it's possible that it might, then the law should be re-worded so that it's no longer possible to have it interpreted that way, or the law should not be passed. Laws are laws. They should not be trusted to be used "only when appropriate." They will be used whenever the letter of the law permits it. It's a fact of life. If the letter of the law leaves a hole, just because it's against the spirit doesn't mean that people won't abuse it, and win. See the DMCA.

Re:This is frightening

[daoine_sidhe]

Try reading section 2-b-1-ii of the Massachussets one, as follows; (b) Offense defined. Any person commits an offense if he knowingly: (1) possesses, uses, manufactures, develops, assembles, distributes, transfers, imports into this state, licenses, leases, sells or offers, promotes or advertises for sale, use or distribution any communication device: (i) for the commission of a theft of a communication service or to receive, intercept, disrupt, transmit, re-transmits, decrypt, acquire or facilitate the receipt, interception, disruption, transmission, re-transmission, decryption or acquisition of any communication service without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider; or (ii) to conceal or to assist another to conceal from any communication service provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication; or (2) modifies, alters, programs or reprograms a communication device for the purposes described in subparagraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) above; or (3) possesses, uses, manufactures, develops, assembles, distributes, imports into this state, licenses, transfers, leases, sells, offers, promotes or advertises for sale, use or distribution any unlawful access device; or (4) possesses, uses, prepares, distributes, sells, gives, transfers or offers, promotes or advertises for sale, use or distribution any: (i) plans or instructions for making, or assembling or developing any communication or unlawful access device, under circumstances evidencing an intent to use or employ such communication or unlawful access device, or to allow the same to be used or employed, for a purpose prohibited by this section, or knowing or having reason to believe that the same is intended to be so used, or that the aforesaid plans or instructions are intended to be used for manufacturing or assembling such communication or unlawful access device for a purpose prohibited by this section; or (ii) material, including hardware, cables, tools, data, computer software or other information or equipment, knowing that the purchaser or a third person intends to use the material in the manufacture, assembly or development of a communication device for a purpose prohibited by this section, or for use in the manufacture, assembly or development of an unlawful access device; and (5) Assist others in committing any of the acts prohibited by this section.

Re:This is frightening

[harmless_mammal]

I don't think the intent is to ban firewalls and NAT, although the current versions would outlaw some features. The real target of the "concealment" provisions would appear to be anonymous re-mailers and FreeNet. I think MPAA/RIAA want to outlaw FreeNet because it is an anonymized P2P service. The fact that these laws would ban ALL types of anonymous (on-line) speech is just an extra bonus to all those cloak-n-dagger types who find our civil liberties sooo inconvenient.

Re:This is frightening

[thogard]

This makes it illegal to use a device that allows you to run two TV's off one cable service without telling your cable company. That is exactly what NAT does.

I don't know about most of you, but my cable internet provider charges extra for each computer that is hooked up to the internetnet but will give me dhcp addresses for anything on the net for free.

Re:This is frightening

[Anonymous Coward]

Typing and clicking aren't communications services.

Re:This is frightening

[Anonymous Coward]

Post your IP and we'll see how fast someone can narrow down (within a few miles) your geographical location....

Re:This is frightening

[jbn-o]

Consider that at least three of the states listed (CO, FL, GA) have Republican governors IIRC; and the MPAA's strongest influence is traditionally within the Democratic camp.

Maybe the Democrats and the Republicans are more alike than is popularly recognized.

Re:This is frightening

[surprise_audit]

No, this is just as likely some harebrained "antiterrorism" measure designed to render all networks wide-open to government surveillance.

Wouldn't it be nice if all company networks were wide open?? I mean, obviously any company that uses a firewall to conceal their servers must be doing something illegal...

Your milage may vary, but where I work I have to use a proxy server to get to the Internet - which effectively conceals the IP of my PC because outbound requests look like they come from the proxy. This is NAT, pure and simple, and is required by the powers-that-be of the Internet, because our network uses the class A 10.x.x.x IP range extensively. IIRC, the 10 address range (and the open class B & C as well) is required not to be routed to the Internet . In order to comply with removing NAT-style proxies, we'd be requesting IP's for one of the biggest privately owned Intranets on the planet...

In fact, if NAT becomes illegal across the US, wouldn't every PC and server have to be visible to the whole world?? If this is supposed to be an anti-terrorism measure, it really sucks... Anyone care to guess how many wide-open boxes would be connected to the Internet?

Re:This is frightening

[SlimFastForYou]

Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. My best friend got in trouble by the law for informing the school about a common security vulnerability (Search the net for "turlock school hacking"). After repeated emails warning of the vulnerability were dismissed by the people in the big chairs, he effortlessly decrypted a single file on a student computer to gain administrator access to servers. He went to them with a list of everyone's passwords and was shortly after arrested. Ever since Mr. Clinton left the white house, persons who point out security vulnerabilities have been synonimous with "hackers" which are now synonimous with "terrorists". Hmmm i wonder how long before my friend is taken before a firing squad for treason. lol i exaggerated the last part to make a point hopefully it wasn't lost.

Those in lofty places do wield power against little guys. I have good reason to suspect the cops are still harrassing my friend - trying to link him to any "hacker group" they can think of. All instigated by what I believe an administration trying to save face...

After all, what do all laws have in common? They all criminalize previously acceptable behavior. It seems that increasingly more laws have little grounding in what is right. It would seem better if industry experts decided whether or not firewalling should be a prosecutable offense as opposed to experts in brown-nosing.

Where is your Freedom going?

[ShwAsasin]

Is it just me, or are these new laws being passed over the last couple years seem to really deprive the average citizen of regular rights and freedoms?

With a country that seems to tout freedom at every corner, it's unfortunate that many rights and freedoms are being destroyed by people who have no clue about the general consequences of their actions.

Re:Where is your Freedom going?

[Anonymous Coward]

uh "last couple years"?? uh stupid it actually dates to March 4, 1933 when that repugnant Franklin DELANO Roosevelt took power

Re:Where is your Freedom going?

[bucklesl]

You forget that...

"Liberties are not given -- they are taken."
-- Aldous Huxley

With a country that seems to tout freedom...

You should add, "when it is in their best interests".

Re:Where is your Freedom going?

[Musashi Miyamoto]

I believe it was Patrick Henry that said:

"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or at least give me a false sense of security"

Re:Where is your Freedom going?

[inerte]

Is it just me, or are these new laws being passed over the last couple years seem to really deprive the average citizen of regular rights and freedoms?

It's just you.

I am not allowed to talk on this subject. ;)

Re:Where is your Freedom going?

[jeffy210]

"deprive the average citizen of regular rights and freedoms?"

But you see, this is the *new* United States... "By the Corporation, for the Corporation."

Re:Where is your Freedom going?

[xenophrak]

It's simply profit taking.

Big business doesn't want to listen to it's customers, so they pay off their politician friends to pass laws to prevent them from loosing money.

What was that about free market economies again?

Re:Where is your Freedom going?

[fudgefactor7]

That is true, and the resoning is simple: the people drafting the legislation don't understand it. The cure is equally simple: technology that isn't understood should not be legislated until it is understood.

Re:Where is your Freedom going?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh troll? if not, offer a little explanation.

Ridiculous interpretation

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, what a great interpretation. Let's read before we comment this time, please???

Yeah, but the cow's already out of the barn...

[Bonker]

While not having quite the range of people using services in violation of these statutes as say, people downloading mp3's, there are already so many people doing these things, and profiting on them, that it will be pointless to try to enforce this law.

Imagine for a second Bestbuy's reaction to the fact that it's popular cable-modem routers and wireless access points have all become illegal. I don't exactly see them pulling millions of dollars of hardware off the shelves without a legal fight. Nor do I see the manufacturers of those devices just giving up either.

I NAT and I'm proud of it!

Re:Yeah, but the cow's already out of the barn...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a non issue! I am not for this legislation, but, from what I can tell, it doesn't outlaw NAT, it just compells you to disclose how many machines are behind that NAT device. As with any of this legislation, IMHO, the real motivation is the Bottom Line.....

Re:Yeah, but the cow's already out of the barn...

[SpaceLifeForm]

Not to mention that SBC *provides* routers for home DSL users that have multiple computers.

I also NAT as do many others. The PTB still don't have a fsck'n clue when it comes to home networking. For some reason they believe that home networks are costing Large Corps money, when in fact, most people doing NAT at home probably have a clue and actually reduce problems (ex: CodeRed) due to firewalling.

A proud member of the NAT terrorist group!

Re:Yeah, but the cow's already out of the barn...

[plague3106]

If thats all it does, tell me again why its anyones damn buisness how many computers i have?

Re:Yeah, but the cow's already out of the barn...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sometimes, but just as often they do something like port forwarding, and end up with a hacked NT box infected with codered, an out-of-rev redhat box 0wnz0red by the dateless wonder down the street, and an unprotected Win98 machine that they accidentally shared the entire c:\ drive on.

(My next-door-neighbor has an open 802.11 AP. I discreetly suggested to him that he HIDE HIS PR0N A LITTLE BETTER NEXT TIME!! or at least get better stuff)

Re:Yeah, but the cow's already out of the barn...

[Degrees]

If thats all it does, tell me again why its anyones damn buisness how many computers i have?

Revenue.

Your ISP (probably) currently sells you a connection, at a particular speed, for a fixed monthly price. What they (probably) don't charge you for is the actual bytes transferred. If you set up links between you and twenty neighbors, and you all split the cost of one broadband connection; then the ISP feels deprived of potential revenue.

Get this: the government agency I work for buys its wide-area connections on a state schedule from a Baby Bell, so we get a pretty good discount. Buried in the fine print is the claim that by buying any one circuit on this schedule (discounted price), we agreed to use them as the sole-source for all WAN links.

Their lawyers sent us a letter, claiming that all the point-to-point 802.11 links (wireless!) we put in place are violations of the sole-source agreement. They want to be paid for the T1 lines they did not install, but could have. They want to be paid retroactively, and from now on, for service they don't provide.

Its all about the revenue.

As you might expect, our lawyers are going to challenge it, pointing out that if we were forced to have bought T1 lines, we would have just done without. We don't have to lease any particular building anywhere, and wouldn't if the telecomm cost was prohibitive. We can get dark fiber to buildings via the local Cable TV provider - MANs are not WANs.

But still, they sent us the letter, trying to bully us into forking out more from our deep pockets.

When you think about it, doesn't it almost seem typical for a former (?) monopoly?

But getting back on track, if you hide from your ISP the quantity of machines you have, then you deprive them of (potential) revenue. Someone else (insightfully) pointed out these bills are most likely the work of a single lobbyist (or PAC). First, the businesses (?) have to legislate that hiding the quantity of computers you have is illegal. Then they can change the TOS to charge per internet connected device.

Its all about the revenue.

I Am Not Sure How To React

[Jerk City Troll]

It seems to me that the likelihood of these bills getting passed is next to nothing (of course, one can never be so sure). They were clearly introduced by technology-clueless law makers, but once they are subject to a vote, their silliness should become obvious. So I am not entirely afraid that they will succeed. If they do pass, other states are likely to pick up and follow the trail.

What is really scary to me is that, even though these bills were introduced by the ignorant, the fact that lots of legislators had the mind to introduce them in the first place is shocking. Particularly on the note of encryption, this is largely unconstitutional and hopefully, if ever passed, these bills will be challenged by (financially) enabled individuals.

How can such a thing even hold up when it not only criminalizes most existing telecom infrastructure, violates the 4th Amendment by tangent? Of course, we do live in a DMCA-cursed USA...

Re:I Am Not Sure How To React

[jonabbey]

Wow, is the weather very nice on your planet?

This kind of legislation could easily pass. If something like this is proposed in your state, you need to write your legislators and let them know that this language could potentially criminalize a lot of straight-forward Internet gear, if a communications provider decides to require a per-CPU charge, or the like.

Re:I Am Not Sure How To React

[Cpt_Kirks]

It seems to me that the likelihood of these bills getting passed is next to nothing

In TENNESSEE? Dude, up until a couple of years ago, you could hire a contractor to work on your house. Your agreement was with him. If the contractor did not pay HIS suppliers, the supplier could put a lean on your house. And it was LEGAL!

Bad law, crooked as a dogs hind leg, right? It took YEARS AND YEARS to repeal that shit. The building material suppliers said it would bankrupt them. God knows they shouldn't have to do credit checks on fly-by-night contractors...

Re:I Am Not Sure How To React

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that the word you're looking for is 'liens'.

Re:I Am Not Sure How To React

[regen]

What is really scary to me is that, even though these bills were introduced by the ignorant, the fact that lots of legislators had the mind to introduce them in the first place is shocking.

The fact that these bills are being introduced in multiple states at the same time, indicates that it was probably crafted by a lobbyist.

The question you should be asking is who wants this legislation? Who hired the lobbyist?

Re:I Am Not Sure How To React

[Alan Hicks]

If the contractor did not pay HIS suppliers, the supplier could put a lean on your house. And it was LEGAL!

This is still legal in GA. Case in point, last year when the new building at my Church was being finished, the bankers put a lien on it. To make matters worse, it was neither our fault nor our contractor's fault. He had previously done work on publicly owned buildings, and they hadn't paid him what he was owed. When the bank came to call, they put a lien on our building until the mess was straightened out. Why did they put a lien on us? Well, in GA, it's illegal to put a lien on publicly owned property, which means the government can shaft a contractor and pass the buck along to the next privately owned job until they can make good on their debts.

Re:I Am Not Sure How To React

[poot_rootbeer]

Dude, up until a couple of years ago, you could hire a contractor to work on your house. Your agreement was with him. If the contractor did not pay HIS suppliers, the supplier could put a lean [sic] on your house. And it was LEGAL!

This is still the case most of the time, due to the peculiar circumstances of the supplier-contractor-purchaser working agreement. Any contractor worth their salt will agree to a waiver in the contract, absolving you of any liability in the case that they fail to give your money to the supplier.

Re:I Am Not Sure How To React

[Anonymous Coward]

"...the fact that lots of legislators had the mind to introduce them in the first place is shocking"

more shocking is that you apparently think that legislators actually write these laws.

these are essentially written by lawyers for the lobbying organizations, with editing performed by staffers in conjunction with the lobbyists and lawyers. the legislators know almost nothing about the laws they pass aside from the 30-second soundbite and the list of financial contributors that are either pro or anti.

Re:I Am Not Sure How To React

[Anonymous Coward]

Mechanics liens are very old, and common. They may even originate in English common law. Think about it for a minute; your contractor represents you to the actual builders of your house. You are the master and he is your servant. If he fails to pay the subcontractors with the money you paid him, then you get the benefit of what they built, and they get squat. Your beef is with your contractor, not the subs.

Next time you take a network wiring job on the side, you may want to bone up on how a UCC-1 mechanics lien can insure that you get paid.

BTW, its lien, not lean.

Re:I Am Not Sure How To React

[mpe]

these are essentially written by lawyers for the lobbying organizations, with editing performed by staffers in conjunction with the lobbyists and lawyers. the legislators know almost nothing about the laws they pass aside from the 30-second soundbite and the list of financial contributors that are either pro or anti.

If the legislators were doing their job they'd toss bills they don't understand in the trash. Of course if the legislators don't/won't do their jobs then it's the job of the public to put them in the trash.

Re:I Am Not Sure How To React

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Texas I'd suspect Roadrunner as my cable modem service provider does not even have a TOS or require one to sign a TOS. They don't care how many computers in my home I connect via a router.
I think this proposed law as written is to inclusive. It seems to be designed to thwart theft of services at the expense of the honest citizens. At a time when the federal government is advising companies and citizens to secure their infrastructure with routers, firewall's, and operating system security patches, this proposed legislation as written seems un-American.

Double ouch

[pupsterCA]

And guess who's out front waving the flag of support for this?

Relax, John Ashcroft will help you..

[grub]

Just wait for John Ashcroft to announce the only legal services after these laws take effect:

http://www.nsa.gov/patriot-proxy/
http://www.fbi. gov/freedom-remailer/

Re:Relax, John Ashcroft will help you..

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, I think that the URLs that you posted are broken. What are the correct ones?

;-)

Makes no difference to me...

[ajuda]

My ISP blocks ports, and does not allow me to run servers (email/web/irc/anything) of any kind. If most ISP users are not allowed to run ANY servers, why should we care if they put additional restrictions on running servers?

Re:Makes no difference to me...

[jandrese]

Just because your ISP is stuck in the 90's doesn't mean you need to drag everybody else down with you. Personal servers are what make the internet great, not giant media conglomorates feeding you exactly what their advertisers want. You'll note that the most useful webpages are usually the ones put up by some devoted guy on some particular topic in his spare time, not the multi-million dollar popup/flash/trendy keyword extravaganzas that big companies bought into.

of course you can just run your server on your ISP's website (if they offer one), but that's usually rather limited if you have a large number of infrequenty accessed files or dynamic content, and lord help you if your website needs a database backend to keep everything convienent yet manageable.

Sorry about the rant, but I just hate when people get suckered into thinking they're nothing more than "consumers" that aren't allowed to contribute to the public good.

Re:Makes no difference to me...

[elmegil]

Most ISPs don't block these things,and a significant portion of those don't care unless you're eating huge bandwidth. Are you saying that law should be made for the most restrictive case because it doesn't hurt you? So I guess if you're some ethnic group, it's ok if other ethnic groups get rounded up in quarantine camps, since it doesn't effect you, right?

Re:Makes no difference to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

who is to say they stop at only disallowing servers. the language is so vague that they could place restricts on anything you use over there lines. Do you like have a choice of web browsers? Sorry you can only use IE with us, anything else is illegal.

Re:Makes no difference to me...

[EricWright]

You are a prime example of what's wrong with this country. It doesn't affect me, so why should I give a shit. Me me me me me... The world doesn't revolve around you. These laws (were they to become laws) would affect a lot of people, and in an adverse way.

My ISP doesn't give a fat rat's ass if I run an email server. I don't allow open relays, so it deals with about 5 emails a day. Big whoop...

I'm kind of surprised they haven't bitched about my 1-2 GB/day Usenet habit, though...

Re:Makes no difference to me...

[Unregistered]

Earthlink has no restrictions of that kind. I run a http/ftp/ssh server with no trouble. I could run other stuff too, but i have no need to. Maybe you need to reconsider your choice of ISP.

I am in nol way affiliated w/ Earthlink, but i have been doing work for people ruinning AOL and have a high opinion of Earthlink these days. :)

Re:Makes no difference to me...

[the eric conspiracy]

Just because your ISP is stuck in the 90's doesn't mean you need to drag everybody else down with you.

I am not sure this makes economic sense. An ISP providing general internet access is going to have its costs driven up if it supports servers as part of its basic package. I would think it would make sense to unbundle this.

Right now there are plenty of good hosting companies that offer packages that include database access for $10/month or less, and provide far better service than any broadband ISP I have heard of.

Re:Makes no difference to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

umm how are you equateing what your ISP dose to most ISP useres. When I checked out my local ISP's non of them blocked anything, and that seemed to be standered, I think your ISP is screwing you he rest of us are fine.

Re:Makes no difference to me...

[3waygeek]

Actually, they do -- Earthlink doesn't allow you to run your own SMTP server, as they block outgoing port 25 traffic, supposedly as an anti-spam measure.

Re:Makes no difference to me...

[ryanwright]

Earthlink doesn't allow you to run your own SMTP server, as they block outgoing port 25 traffic, supposedly as an anti-spam measure

Good. I wish more ISPs would do this. 90% of the spam I get comes from idiots on dial-up accounts running their own SMTP servers. If you want to run your own SMTP servers, get a business class connection like I did.

Re:Makes no difference to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to try looking at the full ramifications of the bill. Not just NATing or firewalls. This could in effect many more applications and/or internet services.

"...to conceal or to assist another to conceal from any communication service provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication"

It would also make it illegal to encrypt any comunications, since this is hiding verious different parts of the cominication.

The register has a some interesting points on the bills and a more indepth explination.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/30003.htm l

Read the artical from the Register, I'm not going to re-post it here since it's an easy artical to read.

Re:Makes no difference to me...

[mkldev]

Dial-ups, that's fine, but DSL, such service restrictions suck. That port 25 block is one of the ten or so reasons I left Earthlink. It would be different if they blocked it by default to prevent idiots who don't know what they're doing from leaving open relays, but refusing to remove said blocks is sleazy.

Making it particularly bad is the fact that they didn't start blocking it until well after my first month, at which point I no longer could drop them without penalty until the end of the entire 1 year service term. Make no mistake, Earthlink is the worst ISP I've ever encountered. They make my experience with Pac Bell look positively refreshing by comparison.

Re:Makes no difference to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

The 90s? You have things backwards.

Restrictions on what you can and can't do is a new thing. Previously, if you had a fixed connection and permanent IP address, it was obvious that you could run a server. A permanent IP with ports filtered would've been considered a joke.

Having been around long enough, I feel that any internet access where you get an IP address should, by definition, mean that that address can communicate with the rest of the internet freely and that the job of the ISP should be as a router.

Filtering isn't the only thing, either - it feels technically wrong that connecting to port 80 on some external host doesn't actually do what it should, but is instead captured by some transparent proxy. Ick...

My suggestions for ISPs is to split their broadband access into two kinds - permanent IP and NAT. The former gives you direct, unfiltered access, and the latter gives you outgoing access only (which should be the default for people who don't care about a permanent IP, since they aren't going to know how to secure their machines, either).

The permanent IP could be at an extra price, but not an unreasonable one - some ISPs charge for a permanent IP with the assumption that it will be used by a small business.

Re:Makes no difference to me...

[faaaz]

...if it supports servers...

What? No ISP I've come across actually supports servers. They might allow them, but I'm still the one responsible for maintaining them. They could block port 80, 21, 22, 25 etc. but everyone can run a server on a different port.

I've been on a permanent IP DSL connection for over two years now, and I'm allowed to run whatever servers I want as long as they are non-profit. Why would I want to find some hosting when I run what I want and nothing less on my own old AMD friend?

Re:Makes no difference to me...

[ryanwright]

It would be different if they blocked it by default to prevent idiots who don't know what they're doing from leaving open relays, but refusing to remove said blocks is sleazy.

On this point, and in regards to broadband services, we agree 100%. I would think they could provide a disclaimer or something for you to sign, with a penalty to be paid if you abuse the privilege...

DMCA?

[Limburgher]

Wouldn't it be illegal for ISP's to bust SSL users?

Re:DMCA?

[Erris]

Wouldn't it be illegal for ISP's to bust SSL users?

No because your private papers are not copyright. Go figure, an empty ink cartridge gets protected, but you have "no reasonable expectation" of privacy in your email. It's unAmerican but it might happen anyway. I'm disgusted.

Re:DMCA?

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK, that is BS. My understanding of copyright is you implicitly own you, your image, and anything you create. Thats why photographers ask/require you to sign releases when taking your picture and using it in a professional manner. By signing the release, you give the photographer the right to sell your image, something which copyright gives to you automatically.

Then again, IANAL

-Xoder

Re:DMCA?

[BFaucet]

Okay, I'm no expert on the DMCA so I'm probably wrong, but...

I thought the DMCA made it illegal to crack encryption. Not to disallow it.

As long as the ISP doesn't try to figure out what those encrypted packets were, they're in the clear.

Right?

Re:DMCA?

[mkldev]

Actually, it is somewhat more complicated than that. You don't own your image. Not in any way. I can take photographs in a public place and use them in a TV show, and you have no right to sue if you happen to be in them, because you have no expectation of a right to privacy in a public place. If I took a photograph of you through your bedroom window, you would have the right to sue for a privacy violation (and possibly for other things like defamation, but that's a separate issue).

There are many reasons why you might have to sign a waiver like the one you mention. The most obvious reason is that you paid the photographer to do a service on your behalf with no expectation that the photographer would claim any rights to said photo. Because it is a work for hire, you have reasonable expectations to own the rights to that photo unless you sign those right away.

You are technically correct that anyting you create (apart from works for hire) is not only yours, but is implicitly copyrighted. This gives you the right to sue for actual damages. To sue for punitive damages, however, you must explicitly file the paperwork.

For example, if someone steals your book and reprints it, you can sue for the profit lost from the sales that would otherwise have gone through your publisher. If you register the copyright, you could also sue for any arbitrary amount above and beyond that to punish the person for said theft and reduce the chances of it happening again.

As for whether the DMCA would protect you from your ISP, the answer is almost certainly "no". It would make it illegal for the ISP to attempt to decrypt the traffic without your knowledge, but that's already probably an invasion of privacy issue, and would be illegal anyway. The ISP, however, would still have the right to refuse to allow you to send any encrypted traffic down the wire, as the packets themselves are not encrypted (with the exception of IPSec, which can still be blocked globally without actually examining the contents of the traffic), only the data within the packets.

More significantly, these laws are criminal, not civil, AFAIK. The ISP couldn't sue under these laws. They could ask the district attorney to prosecute under them, however.

Communications law is extraordinarily complex, and my understanding of it is just from a single class on the topic, though, so the usual "IANAL" caveats apply.

Depends on Definition

[PhxBlue]

From the article:

If you have a home DSL router, or if you use the "Internet Connection Sharing" feature of your favorite operating system product, you're in violation because these connection sharing technologies use NAT. Most operating system products (including every version of Windows introduced in the last five years, and virtually all versions of Linux) would also apparently be banned, because they support connection sharing via NAT.

I'm not concealing the origin or destination of communication, in any of these cases. If I'm using a router to share my network connection, the origin/destination of my ISP's communications is whatever box is doing the routing. After that, if my router routes a copy of the data from my ISP to another PC in my home, that's okay: the transmission between my router and my ISP is complete, and the new transmission is between my router and one or more PCs on my network.

I've always held that, as far as ISPs are concerned, they're responsible for supporting their network until it reaches the access point of my network--whether that's a single PC, a PC that shares its internet connection, a router, whatever. After that, I can accept the liability of supporting my own equipment. This should be handled the same way.

Actually, better yet, it should be shot down outright. But that's more optimistic than I tend to be about such things.

Re:Depends on Definition

[teeker]

the transmission between my router and my ISP is complete, and the new transmission is between my router and one or more PCs on my network.

If only that were the case. The thing is that your router is considered an intermediary device- the final destination/source of the communication *is* your PC at your desk. The router is *not* the source of the communication, it's merely the point where the communication (which originiated at your PC) finds entry to your ISP and the internet. There may be a dozen routers between your router and the final destination of that communication that perform the same function your router does, but clearly, none of those are endpoints either. By that logic, a cellphone tower, your ISP, a TDD/voice relay service or the phone company itself could all be considered endpoints, which is clearly not the case.

While I do agree that what is behind your router is your business, the case that your router *is* the source or destination of the activity within your network is flawed.

Re:Depends on Definition

[theCoder]

I guess it depends on your point of view. I agree with the original poster. When a machine on my network sends a packet, my NAT box sees that and crafts it's own packet (with ITS IP address) that it sends out to the Internet. When it gets a response back, it receives it, then sends a new packet back to the original computer.

Put another way, what's the real difference between ping'ing google.com from an internal computer and sshing from that computer to the NAT box and ping'ing from there? Different packets will be sent on the internal network (SSH vs. ICMP), but from an external viewer, the two situations are indistinguishable (mostly -- there was an article a while back about guessing how many computers are behind a NAT, but that's not very reliable).

And if my ISP decides to try to prevent NATs (and if they're somehow successful), that's just one more reason for me to finally break down and switch away. I guess that'd be their loss (I don't use that much traffic).

Re:Depends on Definition

[PhxBlue]

There may be a dozen routers between your router and the final destination of that communication that perform the same function your router does, but clearly, none of those are endpoints either.

At my router, the message leaves the Internet topology altogether. The message from my ISP stops at my router, which let's say has the address 62.65.160.84. Once my router receives the message, the internet portion of the transmission is done. What the router does with the data after that is irrelevant, or should be, as far as the ISP is concerned. Their pipes are no longer carrying the data--mine are.

What this boils down into is property rights. Think of the cellphone tower and the voice relay the same way: the message is not under my control until it has reached a receiving device (my phone). Once it has reached that receiving device, however, I can do with the message as I please--encrypt it, decrypt it, forward it to my friends, whatever. I can do this using the same phone, or, if I own a second phone, I could conceivably even relay the data from one phone directly to the other. The point is, it's out of the telco's hands.

Re:Depends on Definition

[teeker]

Right, I see what you (and the other poster below) are saying, and if you want to split hairs, you're correct. In fact, that's the whole point. Once it's on your wires, it *should* be up to you to do what you want with it (and it is today for the most part). But if this bill becomes law, that "LAN soverignity" (for lack of a better term) will be gone, and that is why it's a problem. You won't be able to argue your way out of it by saying that the router is an endpoint and anything after that is none of their business. The way this bill accomplishes that is to say that the endpoints of the *communication* path may not by obscured, and that has nothing to do with which device created the packet. It has everything to do with the device that originates or ultimately receives that data *within* those packets. If that's a PC behind your NAT box, then you are (by definition) using said NAT box to obsure it, and will therefore be subject to the applicable penalites.

I'm not arguing it sucks, I'm pointing out that this bill will *explicitly* render that "LAN soverignity" resoning null and void.

NAT

[Gothmolly]

If your provider charges per computer, and you use NAT to host multiple PCs, then it is ALREADY ILLEGAL. You are violating the contract which outlines your terms of service, and can be sued or have your service terminated.

Re:NAT

[AmigaAvenger]

my linux pc IS a single PC... it routes traffic to other machines internally, but that is my own business and no one elses. I only have one machine connected to the internet, but have 6 more connected to that machine.

Re:NAT

[emag]

The way I always read the ToS for various cablemodem ISPs I used before ditching them for service I could *use* was they always specified one computer connected to their cablemodem. Fine, I did that. I had exactly 1 computer connected to it. The fact that there was another NIC in it, connected to another network entirely, was immaterial.

True, it likely violated the "spirit" of the ToS, but quite frankly, having every useful port blocked, and then being dinged for actually *using* the bandwidth they advertised on TV and radio and the "always on" capabilities they keep hawking, well....I was able to sleep at night.

Re:NAT

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to "The network is the computer"?

Re:NAT

[BobRooney]

Violating the terms of a contract is not necessarily illegal. It's likely a civil matter that would have to be resolved in a persribed manner. In no case would a fine or imprissonment come into the picture because your ISP neither legislates nor enforces LAWS, only business policy. Run all the servers you want. The ISP has the rigth only to terminate your service for breach of contract. This legislation would cause many forms of network security and connection sharing to be illegal. For example: If firewalls are no longer permitted every Major Operating system would have to change their kernel or they would be encouraging lawlessness. Personal Firewall in WinXP anyone? Heck, Linux and the XBSD line have integrated firewall and network security that is at the core of their structure.

To summarize, contract != law. Violating the terms of a contract, such as NAT or running non-permitted personal servers costs you $$$ but you will not wind up in "Federal pound me in the A$$ prison" for it.

Re:NAT

[herc_mk2]

my linux pc IS a single PC... it routes traffic to other machines internally, but that is my own business and no one elses. I only have one machine connected to the internet, but have 6 more connected to that machine.

Good point. I have an identical setup at home (w/ Verizon DSL). I wonder how this is covered under "the letter of the law?"

This is intended for Radio....

[wowbagger]

This bill is intended for radio, and is to prevent you from having a scanner.

However, unless they change the current law, having an Amateur Radio Operator's license trumps this - being a ham I can have a scanner, due to hams' role in emergency communications.

However, this is just like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1987 - it may be illegal to eavesdrop on cellular communications, but it did'nt really stop anybody from doing it. Going from an insecure system (AMPS) to more secure systems (GSM, CDMA) did that.

However, the point of the /. post is valid - the law of unintended consequences comes to play - VPN, NAT, proxies all could be banned by wording that broad. Perhaps that is a good thing - overbroad wording might just get it thown out.

Yeah, and moderators on /. will grow a clue. Time to start adding comms gear to my armory.

Re:This is intended for Radio....

[Telastyn]

This also seems alot like something to prevent people from stealing satelite TV. People that broadcast TV realised there's no way to charge for that so they found alternative revenue in commercials. People that broadcast radio realised there's no way to charge for that so they found alternative revenue in commercials. People that boardcast satellite TV realised there's no way to charge for that, so they did it anyways and manipulated the government into policing it for them.

Re:This is intended for Radio....

[Surak]

No it isn't. Just read the bills, particularly some of the crossed out text. Just read this crossed out text from the TX bill:

2) [makes or maintains a connection, whether
physically, electrically, electronically, or inductively, to:
[(A) a cable, wire, or other component of or
media attached to a multichannel video or information services
system; or
[(B) a television set, videotape recorder, or
other receiver attached to a multichannel video or information
system;


Note that the key words here are "multichannel video or information systems [or services]." This bill, as originally written, is targetted squarely at cable TV and Internet customers.

And I wouldn't doubt for 1 second that they didn't have NAT in mind.

Re:This is intended for Radio....

[DutchSter]

This bill is intended for radio, and is to prevent you from having a scanner. ...

However, this is just like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1987 - it may be illegal to eavesdrop on cellular communications, but it did'nt really stop anybody from doing it. Going from an insecure system (AMPS) to more secure systems (GSM, CDMA) did that.

Actually, if these bills are truly aimed at radio these laws are pointless. The reason amateurs are exempt from state laws is because the FCC has been explicitly granted an authority by Congress to regulate everything having to do with radios. This is why your landline phone service is regulated by a state utilities board, but your cellular phone provider is regulated by the FCC.

The federal preemption basically says that no law may be passed by the states to in some way regulate anything that makes use of the airwaves. It isn't entirely accurate to say that the amateur preemption to scanner laws is because of their roll in emergency services. The preemption exists because the scanner laws could interfere with the exercise of federally licensed service (Ham Radio). If I have an FCC license to operate a radio and that radio is capable of receiving certain frequencies, Joe Hickabilly Cop cannot prevent me from do what I am legally licensed to do. There is some gray area with regards to scanners that cannot transmit. Clearly in the case of wireless routers and whatnot, which DO transmit, and are regulated as Part 15 devices, I think a strong case for preemption would exist.

The ECP Act you speak of is a FEDERAL law, as such it is enforced by the feds, not the states. If Ohio were to pass a similar ECP law without Congress also doing so, it is unlikely that Ohio would have much to stand on.

Towns have sometimes attempted to pass laws prohibiting someone from interfering with a person's TV set by way of radio. Usually it turns out to be Ham interference, but sometimes it's because there's a 100,000 Watt FM station in the middle of town. Each and every time they are quickly slapped by the FCC and made to pay any legal fees incurred by people who were charged under those local laws.

I've read three of these proposed bills, and I'm just not sure what the true intent is. Having said that, if the aim is truly at radio problems, they'll all be slapped silly by the FCC.

Re:This is intended for Radio....

[Lumpy]

However, unless they change the current law, having an Amateur Radio Operator's license trumps this - being a ham I can have a scanner, due to hams' role in emergency communications

I strongly suggest you low-key this. I have in my car with my radios a copy of that section of the law for any officer that tries to call me on it, but It's best to never EVER give up information. tell them it's a amateur radio tranciver.. NEVER EVER say scanner as the cops are never smart enough to understand the laws they are enforcing and they will confiscate it from you then you have to try and get it back from the department.

Michigan has a "scanner = Criminal" law for in vehicle scanners. the safest thing is to never EVER give information to them.

Re:This is intended for Radio....

[mpe]

People that broadcast TV realised there's no way to charge for that so they found alternative revenue in commercials. People that broadcast radio realised there's no way to charge for that so they found alternative revenue in commercials. People that boardcast satellite TV realised there's no way to charge for that, so they did it anyways and manipulated the government into policing it for them.

As well as putting commercials into their output.
Effectivly you have the situation of the law attempting to prop up a business model which is broken. Regardless of how much "collateral damage" the attempting causes.

Re:This is intended for Radio....

[PugMajere]

And Michigan also has an exception from the Governor (well, Engler, I think) that exempts Amateurs from that law.

Re:This is intended for Radio....

[PugMajere]

Actually, let me clarify.

The rule that I was referring to was a Federal rule that says (IIRC) "Reception of any transmission by persons that do not have the right to make such a transmission is illegal without explicit permission."

The governor of Michigan put an exception out for Amateur Radio operators that said, "Amateurs can receive police transmissions."

So, for the most part, scanners are legal in Michigan for Amateurs, dunno about other states though.

What does it matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

...to live in "The Land Of The Free" when the goverment uses every freedom to get onto their citizens nerves? I mean even taking this shit serious (by posting it at /.) is FUBAR.

Re:What does it matter...

[Dawn Falcon]

The weakness of your system, I'm afraid. A codified constitution protects, but it also limits what it was not explicitly designed for.

Hmmm..

[Azureflare]

Anyone know what ISP(s) serve those states, or have a lot of users in those states? This sounds kinda fishy that it would just HAPPEN to appear around the same time, and each bill is almost exactly the same. Sounds like a bit of corporate manipulation. Whatever happened to fair rights/users rights? Whoever is in those governments mobilizing this needs to be voted out! Can someone explain to me how ANY end user would want this kind of legislation? I thought this country was for the people, not the corporations. And no, corporations aren't like people. If you kill a person, they're dead. If you try to kill a corporation, it will just reform. Corporations are not people. (Why is Enron still around? A normal person would be in jail if they had done the kind of misdeeds they did)

Re:Hmmm..

[Ayrehtek]

Bellsouth.net is one of the major providers in GA. I use them for home DSL access. They don't neccessarily prohibit their customers from using more than one computer online at any given time, but they will charge $10/month extra if you connect an extra computer and take up another IP address. I switched all my computers behind a router with NAT, so I'm only using 1 IP address now. They haven't bothered me with extra charges since.

Mindspring/Earthlink is also popular in my area, but I'm not sure of their multiple computer policies. It's been a while since I've used them. I'm sure the other "mamoth" ISPs are also providing to GA. I've only used Mindspring and Bellsouth to date though.

Re:Hmmm..

[amembrane]

I live in FL, and I know that for cable it's Comcast (formerly AT&T), Adelphia, and Time Warner. BellSouth and one of the satellite companies are the biggest DSL suppliers.

Re:Hmmm..

[Anonymous Coward]

A biggie in Houston is Time Warner Road Runner. They're all over the place.

Re:Hmmm..

[gearheadsmp]

Memphis TN here. We have Ma Bellsouth for DSL, RR, and a couple local ISP's that are barely alive that do xDSL. I think XO also does xDSL here.

amputation to ensue?

[FatAlb3rt]

I hope eyes, ears, and mouths don't count as commuication devices or services...

But then again, the next time I get dragged into HR for "inappropriate discussion", I'll sue whoever was offended, as the conversation was not meant to be stolen (ooh, how about pirated?) by the offendee.

Let's just agree on one thing

[nial-in-a-box]

In most cases, ISPs limit the bandwidth provided to each customer. Therefore, it does not matter whether I have one computer directly connected to their network or if I have 200 sitting behind a NAT router device. Either way, I can use the same amount of bandwidth and the same single IP address. Beside the fact that it would be difficult to regulate use of routers, it is also foolish and unnecessary. This applies especially to home users, since ISPs and phone companies are not exactly leaping to provide multiple connections to one home, and it is hardly justifiable from any viewpoint to pay double for (usually) two computers that get little to moderate use.

Re:Let's just agree on one thing

[Qapf]

ISP's rely on the fact that you are not going to be using all your bandwidth all the time to make their money off you. If you have 200 computers behind nat odds are one of them is going to be doing something at sometime. Your isp is going to come down on you faster than a catholic priest

Re:Let's just agree on one thing

[mkldev]

But as many slashdot readers will point out, the purpose of laws is not to perpetuate a bad business model.

Guess what? All those home users use their machines at... pretty much the same time... before work and after work. This whole "we rely on people's bandwidth usage being distributed throughout the day" crap is just that.

Simply put, they either have enough bandwidth to give you the bandwidth stated in your contract or they don't. If they don't have the bandwidth to provide it 24x7, then they also don't have enough bandwidth to provide it during peak usage periods. Period.

Besides, the typical throughput of most people with three computers behind a NAT box tends to not be any higher than that of one person anyway, since one person usually means a teenager or college student downloading lots of {porn, warez, mp3s, .. } while three people tends to be a family viewing web sites. Or if there's only one person involved, then odds are he/she is only using one of those machines at a time and is using NAT to save downtime when switching.

People in the specific states that get the law

[diablobynight]

should all just up and leave, taking there companies with them. These idiot states will suddenly notice huge declines in tax revenue and remove the law. (Wishful Thinking)

this is hopeless

[HBI]

They're going to keep trying and keep succeeding in various places until such time as all right to use information technology by the home user are taken away.

The common idiot in the streets couldn't care less, so I can't see as anything can be done about it.

It's a losing battle. I haven't seen a single advocate who had a decent plan for mobilizing the public, which is what is going to be needed to defeat this crap once and for all.

We'd have to demonize the MPAA/RIAA types and make their motives suspect -to the general public- to gain any traction. I'm open to ideas.

Revised?

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like items related to "MULTICHANNEL VIDEO OR INFORMATION] SERVICES" have lines through them, should we assume that they've been revised out of the bill?

Introduction of a bill in Massachusetts

[leviramsey]

...has nothing to do with it ever becoming law (other than it could become law).

This is because any number of crackpot bills get introduced because Massachusetts law requires a member of the General Court to file any and all bills given them by their constituents. If I were to give Steve Brewer or Anne Gobi a bill to prohibit drinking, dancing, and anything that a reasonable person might consider fun, they would be required to file it.

Protecting communication services...

[gmuslera]

... banning firewalls, privacy, and even accesibility? Is like avoiding spam banning the use of email.

meaningless, but harmful law

[bigpat]

If such a dastardly law came into effect I would argue that no device can conceal the orgination of a communication, because it is always the originiation of the communication. No more than a computer conceals the fact that the message really came from the keyboard, which first came from a person.

Unfortuneately, we all know that lawyers will selectively apply this law to just those things that the mega corporations don't like, such as internet sharing devices and home networks. But really it should be applied to all electronic or mechanical communication devices, since to be consistent they all conceal who the communication is coming from. So no more telephones, computers or cell phones either... just face to face communication is allowed from now on.

Sounds like we are going back to the good old days when people could go to jail for hooking up a modem to a phone line.

Re:meaningless, but harmful law

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, and for not using union employee. one to stupidvise, one to plug the phone in, and another to plug the ac unit in...

fear causes pussies to bitch

[diablobynight]

You see all the pussies that can't get over the fact that our towers came down. Are using there fear as an excuse to pass thousands of laws, that don't affect them because there non-technical ninnies, and sadly the rest of America is dumb enough to let this crap happen under the guise of patriotism I bet it was patriotic to kill a jew in Germany during world war II, patriotism isn't always a good thing.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[Zigg]

That's really pertinent to this discussion, seeing as how the laws in question are state laws and all.

When you're done grinding your axe, can I borrow it?

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[Anonymous Cow herd]

That's really pertinent to this discussion, seeing as how the laws in question are state laws and all.

So? They're just jumping on the bandwagon as well, it appears. Or is it somehow fine if the states invade my privacy, but if the federal government does it, it's bad?

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[PetWolverine]

Good point. Sorry for the OT, but I felt the need to respond to that guy.

By the way, nice .sig.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[bmalia]

This reminds me of a FWD'd e-mail I got...

"How do you handle someone protesting the US retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror?
These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them. When you come

upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas.

They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They

will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the nose.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter.

Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a

solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the nose.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people.

It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge debt for what they are about to do for us

and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep

getting hit in the nose.

Lesson over, class dismissed"

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, there's no evidence to support the assertion that Iraq was behind the destruction of WTC. Second, our fucked-up government has meddled in the affairs of other countries by supplying weapons, etc. So, WE PUNCHED THEM IN THE NOSE 1ST. Now everyone is all riled up because because we took a hit. Get your facts straight.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound like the USA is the victim here. Believe me, USA has behaved like a bully. You may have good intentions, but they're not all on good soil, and you're messing around with something you don't understand, least of all your president.

I pray that whatever happens, happens for the best. Let those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Btw, if you punch somebody on their nose, something is not quite good in you. I don't care what intellectual discussions you can win. A good heart makes up for it.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[Moofie]

Problem with this course of action is, what happens when somebody decides to stop you from punching people in the nose by shooting you in the head?

Escalation==bad.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[SydShamino]

The person, after being hit, can then say "well, let's look at the alternative view point, that violence actually solves problems."

Then, that person's brother walks over and blows a hole in your kid's head.

Would you just punch the guy in the nose again? Would you shoot his brother? Because his brother's son would shoot your wife.

That email forward "sounds" good, but it makes no more sense in the real world than any other crap you see spewing forth.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[mark-t]

Interesting analogy -- but unless you strike hard enough to absolutely and unequivocably GUARANTEE that there is no possibility of reciprocated attack afterwards, all that you do is escalate the violence level. Eventually, someone goes apeshit and hurls a nuke at someone else and all for what?

In the scenario you described, instead I would prefer to simply avoid being hit. I might get sucker punched once, but I'd be on my guard after that point and another attempt to hit me would probably not be successful.

Oh, that and probably an asault charge laid against the person who hit me.

Back to the original point...

Experience is often a hard teacher, and what happened on Sept 11 2001 was tragic to the extreme, but how does revenge stop it from happening again? Even if we succeed in destroying those responsible, we do not know for sure where the next threat will come from. And there will be another - I guarantee it. The most we can all do is learn from mistakes in history, realize what we should have done differently, and then take those steps to ensure, to the best of our ability, that it does not happen again. That's what life is -- and it's a struggle we all face, regardless of who we are, what we do, where we live, the color of our skin or even what we believe in.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[diablobynight]

Wo....I hope no one associates this idiots comment with my own. I didn't mean I was pro war. I hate this beligerant war, yes lets put terrorists in prison, yes, maybe even hold responsible the country that houses them, but ummm...what the hell can we prove that Iraq did? Nothing, absolutely nothing, do we send people to prison if we can't prove them guilty, no. If I hit you, yes you can hit me, but can you hit my mother, my brothers, my dad, my congressman, my 3rd grade teacher, my doctor, my old soccer coach. We do not owe our millitary a huge debt, we are waging a war against a country already in ruins, even if a child spits on my shoes I will not beat the shit out of it. This war is for oil, for racism, for hate. Maybe I agree with these things, maybe we are Rome and should be imperialistic, but lets not try to pretend were doing it to free the Iraqi people or any shit like that.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[diablobynight]

The only way for this scenario to work is if we made it totally devastating for someone to punch us in the knows, like if you punch me in the nose, I slaughter everyone in your town, and then launch the heads of my victims on catapaults at your house.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[bnenning]

This war is for oil, for racism, for hate.

Ridiculous. If we wanted Iraqi oil, we'd just lift the sanctions and buy it, which would be far cheaper than than the billions we'll spend on the war. As for racism and hate, we're going to great lengths to minimize civilian casualties, hardly what we would do if our goal was to kill the filthy Arabs. There are reasonable arguments against the war, but these aren't.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[HiThere]

Do you really believe that? That's what they are telling you the reason is, but why would you believe them?

Excuses to implement authoritarianism, are excuses, not reasons. The goal is to implement authoritarianism, not to protect the citizenry. But they are quite willing to tell you whatever they think you will believe.

Read "The Prince". (Machievelli didn't get called old Nick for nothing. He told things straight.)

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[CBravo]

And you win the battle against this person. You will lose the war though. No, I'm not talking about the Iraq war, the US will win that one. I'm talking about the cold war of the US vs the rest of the world.

Why didn't the US save 3000 persons in Africa "as revenge against violence"... That would be "turning the other cheek". It wouldn't mean that directly involved people can't be prosecuted but otherwise? The US just promotes violence at the moment. You might not think about it that way, but we do.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, I don't think this war is for oil.

I do, however, think it's about the 2004 elections.

That's a whole different case of tin-foil hats!

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

yea, sadly, the intelligence of half of our population is below average... think about it.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, what a great way to lose said election.... Oh, wait! It's a vast left-wing conspiracy.... *cough*bullshit*cough*

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[bmalia]

Saddam is not innocent in anyway. When Bush 1.0 kicked Saddam's nuts out of Kuwait, Saddam had to sign this little thing when he surrendered that said he would play nice.

1) Saddams son kills athletes who don't win in compitions. In particular, I remember a story about a boxer who lost to a US figheter.

2) Saddam has a personal army of about 15,000 soldiers that his son runs. They report directly to him and are loyal to him, not iraq.

3) Saddam says what can be shown and what can't be shown on Iraqi TV. Nice brain washing technique, don't you think?

4) Saddam uses fear to keep his power. If someone questions him, they get put in this huge paper-shredder type thing.

5) Saddam is building weapons of mass destruction. Now if he were so peaceful and innocent, why would he do that?

6) Saddam tests out chemial weapons on the citizens of Iraq. How long do you think GW2.0 would be president if he ordered Lincon Nebraska to be a test site of a new cool missle that turns people into little pieces of dog terds?

Notice, none of these start with Iraq is... The people of Iraq hate Saddam but are too afraid to say it! They do not have the freedom of speech like we do. If we were in Iraq, and you said that this war was stupid and that Saddam is fighting just because he wants oil, you'd have men comming to your door to "punch you in the nose". We are not starting a war, we are going in to finish what GB 1.0 should have finished in the first place. Sometimes there are things worth fighting for. We're not fighting just for our freedom anymore, we're fighting for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Its not it's the US vs Iraq. Britain and Austrailia are also involved in offensive attacks. In addition Spain is helping out with humanitarian efforts. We have the support from many Nations! I hear Morroco offered 200 mine detinating monkeys! Obviously the rest of the world leaders agree that something should be done with Saddam, why don't you?

Do you really think we're spending 75-80 billion dollars just to get some oil? Just because we wanna be bullies? Ol' Osama Bin Laden really rattled the cage of this big dog and this dog bites. And right now, if you so much as look at us funny, we'll light up your world like the forth of July.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[Feanturi]

In the scenario you described, instead I would prefer to simply avoid being hit. I might get sucker punched once, but I'd be on my guard after that point and another attempt to hit me would probably not be successful.
Oh, that and probably an asault charge laid against the person who hit me.

In the war analogy though, who do you lay assault charges with? Would that be the UN? Crossing that analogy with punching people in the nose, the cops in this case said, "Well, we didn't see him punch you in the nose, so sorry, nothing we can do..." and went back to their rounds.

And by the way, when the cops left the scene the punk just punched you again while you were distracted watching them leave, so now what?

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[AndyMouse GoHard]

Here's how the present situation should be simplified into a story by you:

1. Somone punches you in the nose. They're different than you, maybe they wear some different clothes. Hey, let's use a turban as an example.

2. Grab the next person wearing a turban who comes along. Pretend this is the person from 1 above. When your proof is revealed to be lacking, blame the British, who'll in turn say they got the information from you. Maybe there is proof, but that doesn't matter.

3. Punch the person in the nose really hard. But do it in a flailing manner so you hit lots of other people nearby. This is ok, because at least a few punches will land on the person from 2 above.

4. Get punched in the nose from 1 above. Repeat steps 2 and 3, each time with a different person.

5. Soon the world will love you. They'll see that you promote certain freedoms and you "walk the walk" of your talk every day.

There. See it in a different light? I simplified the situation as much as you did. You're such an idiot.

Bill

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety

-Benjamin Franklin

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[mark-t]

And by the way, when the cops left the scene the punk just punched you again while you were distracted watching them leave, so now what?

I think I already addressed this point. After the first time, my guard would be up against being hit again. In my experience, nobody ever successfully sucker punches a person more than once unless the recipient is a complete idiot. I'm not an idiot.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[Feanturi]

No, I don't think you addressed it, you were too busy trying to press charges to pay attention. Oh, and he just punched you again by the way, or maybe his buddy on the other side of you did. You don't have 360 vision do you? Are you ready to fight yet?

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[mark-t]

Just how stupid do you think I am? I'm not going to just ignore a person who's just punched me to give him an opportunity to do so again.

The point is, while I conceed the point that he might succeed once, there's no way in hell I'd open myself up to another assault before the encounter is even over. I will defend myself, and those that I love if necessary, with as much force as I can muster should the circumstances warrant it, but I draw the line at hitting back for the sake of "getting even".

This would become even more of an issue when one didn't actually see the face of the person who sucker punched them. They may be able to make a good guess, and maybe even get a confession out of someone, but at that point, what purpose does reciprocating the violence serve but to satisfy ones own need for vengeance? I've never seen revenge *really* solve a problem, and it almost always makes things worse.

Re:fear causes pussies to bitch

[Feanturi]

I'm not talking about one getting revenge, I'm talking about taking care of a problem that is menacing you. This guy who keeps insisting on trying to punch you for example, isn't stopping. And the cops didn't want to do anything. And he still wants to hit you some more. So you are on the alert, ok, fine, he can't 'sucker punch' you again. You see another punch coming, so you defend yourself with as much force as can be mustered but somehow without hitting back? What, do you dodge forcefully? How will you know when it is safe to turn your back on the scene and go back to your life?

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

You need the clue. He did not mention anything about God. Just about religion. The fact you equate God with religion shows how blinded you have been.

And how do you implement this?

[Noryungi]

I mean, I know you can probably detect a NAT box by looking at all the packets, but how many ISPs are going to do this? Honestly?

I mean, running your own server or sharing your 3l33t broadband connection between several machines are (AFAIK) the big interests -- or killer aps -- of broadband. (That, and mountains of pr0n and "FP!" on /., of course...) ;-)

If you can't do this, why not stay with 56K dial-up?

Er... wait, I have 56K dial-up and I can't stand it. Never mind me, carry on... =)

Re:And how do you implement this?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you can probably detect a NAT box by looking at all the packets

Yet another reason to go with OpenBSD!

Re:And how do you implement this?

[michael_cain]

I mean, I know you can probably detect a NAT box by looking at all the packets, but how many ISPs are going to do this? Honestly?

All of the big cable companies are deploying or looking at deploying equipment that examines each and every packet sent or received by a subscriber (with the possible exception of stuff that stays within a single CMTS). The primary purpose of this is to measure volume, that is, how many gigabytes per month did the subscriber use, enabling volume-sensitive pricing. The same equipment can, however, identify traffic types and even monitor individual TCP or UDP flows. Statistical analysis of those flows should make it possible to identify subscribers operating multiple computers behind a NAT firewall with a high degree of accuracy.

Doing that detailed analysis for all subscribers all the time may not be practical, so it may be restricted to subscribers that raise other, simpler flags like high volumes. When I was employed by a cable company, I always argued that we really shouldn't care what the user was doing, just how much bandwidth they used. The most common argument for outlawing NAT boxes was not lost revenues, but the expense of tech support time wasted looking for problems in the cable network that were actually in the subscriber's LAN.

No violations

[gr8_phk]

The endpoints of a connection are specified by IP addresses. If NAT is illegal because the "source" is disguised, they're really dictating what software you can use and what you can do with it - the source is obviously the machine doing NAT. They need to understand that they operate at the packet level - they sure don't offer any higher level capabilities that I care about. If they want to regulate what's in your packet, then they can be responsible for kiddy Pr0n and any other illegal activities taking place over "their" network.

I used to work for a small ISP/Telco, and my boss always liked the Common Carrier status because it exempted them from liability. Apparently big ISPs don't understand this yet. If you monitor it, you're taking some responsibility for what's in it.

Re:No violations

[Bull SR]

I agree with gr8_phk here, one cannot look at the level 7 and above stuff here, because no carrier knows the endpoints of that stuff "really" even when you throw out all the NAT and SSH technical issues. (Hell, I've printed out email only to fax it to the recipient the sender was trying to reach!) One can only reasonably look at the proposed legislation at the network level, NAT does not in any way obfuscate what the endpoints are on the carrier's network. Neither does SSH tunneling or VPNs or firewalls. However, forging source addresses seems to be caught in this trap. I got no problem with that!

Reducing Security and Utility == Profit & Just

[HeelToe]

Geez.

This is really bad.

I hope the states where I run networks aren't next.

This allows companies to make more money off us by the threat of lawsuits or report to the authorities. If someone sells me internet access at a specific bandwidth, they should expect I can and may use up to that allotted bandwidth. They are selling me bandwidth, not individual ethernet ports.

Things like ssh-tunneling to hide IM and WWW traffic while I'm at work, as well as improving the security of my networks by hiding the endpoints of my ipsec tunnels behind nat boxes also becomes illegal.

So, in summary, we're trading utility (let's face it, a lot of these vpn/nat apps make things easier to handle - voip tunneling, smtp tunneling, very nice stuff handled with both vpns and nat), AND security (why should all my network devices sit exposed?) so that companies can make more profits, and we can be hauled to jail for making it harder to snoop our communications?

This is ludicrous. Where will the fascism stop?

Buying laws

[dattaway]

This is what happens when companies are allowed to buy politicians.

Re:Buying laws

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it it even boils down to that.

I think it's more a case of what happens when you let unqualified veg. with no technical knowledge of a subject draft legislation and make decisions.

A good display of this is Andrew Pinder the UK E-Envoy who dispite 15-20 years in IT still doesn't recognise unreliable, buggy, shite software when he signs the order forms.

But isn't that a civil matter?

[lordpixel]

Define illegal?

Certainly you could have your contract terminated. You may even be sued for some kind of damages.
That's not the same as breaking the law.

It sounds like this would make even possessing the equipment a _crimal_ offence...

home networking

[igotmybfg]

if i use a redhat box as a router/gateway with ipmasq, then they can't see that i've got several computers connected to the dsl line, right? in the contract that i signed with earthlink, they specified that only one computer may connect at one time. of course, they sell some sort of kit that allows you to network all your pcs and share your connection... basically the same thing i am doing already, but it costs like $20/month extra. i thuoght the whole point of ipmasq was that it looks like all the traffic is coming from one computer? is this true/viable?

Re:home networking

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a recent article on /. mentioning a paper that describes how an ISP can see that there is masq going on. It had to do with watching packet sequence numbers in the IP headers. There is probably a work-around built into Linux by now.

I think the paper authors were from AT&T. Sorry, but I can't remember more about it.

Re:home networking

[Apaturia]

Someone please explain to me the harm you're doing your ISP if you have other computers behind a NAT, sharing a connection you're PAYING for. From their end, you're still using up ONE IP address. Plus, no one's asking them to support this configuration.

Please don't tell me it's because of "lost profits".

Re:home networking

[Anonymous Coward]

>Someone please explain to me the harm you're
>doing your ISP

Well I wouldn't try to claim that you're doing harm, at all. But look at it another way. There is a service in demand: use of NAT to provide internet service to multiple terminals. Currently there is difficulty in charging for that service.
But if you could make a product around the service, you can generate revenue. A new product with a recurring bill plan might make the career for some manager.

Someone with thier foot in the door of government sees that such a business model would be desirable for certain media. They understand the difficulty of creating a revenue model, because the consumers are generally permitted to provide the service to themselves for free, and there is no recourse for the service providers.

There are providers that would very much like to charge you for everything you do with their service. And, they participate in the political process, unlike most individuals. So they might get their way.

Re:home networking

[surprise_audit]

Sadly, it probably is because of "lost profits".

The way it works is: your ISP would be happy to let you have multiple computers provided you pay a minimal fee for 2nd, 3rd, etc. By not declaring the extras, you've deprived them of income, thereby causing "harm" to them.

Now, if you have multiple computers, but only connect one at a time, you might be OK.

I agree with you, by the way - I support computers for a living, and the only time I'll call my ISP is when their service is broken. I'm sure the same goes for many of those who run home networks.

BTW, what about the folks that get one of those instant firewalls from BestBuy or CircuitCity, and still only have one computer connected? The firewall is probably doing NAT anyway, so that'd be illegal if NAT becomes illegal...

All companies I've ever been at use NAT

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd guess the MPAA itself uses NAT, no?

What company of say 200 people + servers, so possibly more than 253 computers using a crappy DSL connection to the net does not use NAT?

Permission?

[PetWolverine]

This is disgusting. It sounds like, from the wording given in the headline, it would be hard for an ISP to give someone permission to use an NAT, even if they wanted to. Of course, maybe that's what all that extra legalese was for, and someone will tell me to RTFA.

Either way, this isn't something that should be illegal, it's something that should be a matter of your ISP's terms of service. My university doesn't allow routers in the dorm rooms, but I have one anyway; without this law, if I'm discovered, my service could be terminated. With the law, I could face some massive fine, which would probably be totally out of proportion to the "crime" committed. Shenanigans!

Re:Permission?

[Anonymous Coward]

they want you to pay when you hook your iFridge up, iToaster, iBlender, iBar, iVodka, iGrey Goose, and so on.

What about Freenet?

[Lockle]

to conceal ... from any communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication.

I believe that this item is probably not intended to go after NAT'd computers, but to try to cut back on spammers using broadband connections.

If this is the reason, they should be applauded for trying something new. This law WOULD make forged headers illegal.

One problem is that this also constrains anonymous peer-to-peer systems such as Freenet. One of it's strengths is that when you receive a request for a file from an IP, you don't know if that IP origionated the request. If you don't have it, you pass on the request and the node you pass it onto doesn't know if you requested it.

This does make it impossible for a "communications service provider" to determine the origin or destination of the file or information request.

If this is the intended outcome, it is a major violation of a civil liverty we have been appreciating lately.

Re:What about Freenet?

[HiThere]

The question isn't what you believe the purpose to be, but rather:
1) what does the court believe the purpose to be, and
2) how does enforcement interpret it.

Given recent trends, it seems best to assume the worst, if not immediately, then eventually.

This is nuts

[abhisarda]

Dude My Congressman sucks Ass

When they outlaw firewalls...

[MsGeek]

...only outlaws will have firewalls. If this bullshit spreads to California, damn straight I will keep my ipfw/nat firewall up!

Time to make this a very uncomfortable time for your state assemblypersons and senators if you live in the affected states. Geek power stopped the Berman Bill, geek power is forcing the feds to revisit the DMCA, geek power is a pretty amazing thing when unleashed.

The one thing that makes the least sense about these bills is that firewalling+nat is one of the tools needed to combat worms and exploits. Everyone is so damn interested in "protecting our Internet infrastructure from exploits, worms and viruses" yet these same clowns are taking away a very important tool that real people can use to make a real difference against these problems.

And what if you are still running Windows NT4, for whatever reason? The workaround Microsoft gives people for the recent RPC vulnerability is to keep the server in the private IP space and firewall off the ports in the 13x range! You can't do that without a NAT!!!

Time to fight this and fight it hard. Whatever you think about whatever other issues are going on around us, this is serious shit.

Re:When they outlaw firewalls...

[TrevorDoom]

Well yeah...when the legislators and lobbyists discover that their new "whiz-bang cure-all" law to force everyone into being nice, hugging puppies, and playing within the boundaries of the law fucks over those individuals who make their lives comfortable...I'm pretty sure they'll stop and think about it for a second.
"Wait...you mean that any Timmy out there can see me surfing preteenethiopianasseating.com from work? Why can't I hide that shit?! ...wait...you mean we can if this silly law doesn't pass? Okay..."

Just make sure your local legislators know how much they're screwing over the IT world by trying to do this...

Wardriving

[Chester K]

In effect, they would extend the already-extant laws relating to theft of cable TV services to any telecom service.

You didn't really think wardriving would stay in the gray "no laws" area for long, did you?

At the risk of sounding level-headed in what's sure to be a discussion filled with reactionary "how can they do this?!" sorts of comments, I guess I don't really see the problem with this law. You have to take a pretty loose interpretation of it to apply it to NAT and other legitamite sorts of technologies -- unless of course you're using it on an ISP that specifically forbids NAT, or wants you to pay extra for multiple computers on the same line; but in that case you're at least ethically bound to pay what they're asking, or find another ISP.

Re:Wardriving

[rwsorden]

Thank you for looking at this in a level-headed and non-selfish manner. It seems many (not all) Slashdotters have a real hard time putting the shoe on the other foot. Everyone forgets that in order to guarantee one freedom, you sometimes have to restrain or constrain another in order to maintain a coherent society.

Re:Wardriving

[jedidiah]

You speak as if corporations and governments don't routinely indulge in "pretty loose" legal interpretations when it suits them.

Can you really be that naieve?

The DMCA has already given us rather recent glaring examples of how an abiguously worded law can run amok.

Re:Wardriving

[arkanes]

Um. What freedom is being guaranteed, here? On top of that, I believe the OP is wrong, and that the (at least some of) bills would preclude things like NAT and encrypted traffic without any especially loose interpetation. Certainly not as loose as it takes to decide that the DMCA applies to garage door openers and printer cartridges.

Re:Wardriving

[rwsorden]

Well, in theory, the bills propose restrictions that could help with the prosecution of people who are misusing "communications services" for nefarious reasons (as in terrorists). What I meant by ("guaranteeing freedom", in so far as anything that ephemeral can guaranteed) is best illustrated by example. For instance, many people believe that the enhanced security measures at airports are causing minor violations of privacy. From recent personal air travel experience I can feel where they are coming from since, for no apparent reason (at least no reason was given to me), I was forced to remove my shoes, belt, and lift up my shirt the last time I flew even though I am a born-and-raised U.S. citizen who once held a TS-1 security clearance and has never been convicted of any crimes) for the sake of ensuring the overall safety of all airline passengers.

I agree that the aforementioned bill proposals can be looked at from many angles, some of which seem to open up the floodgates for abuse, but almost all bill proposals that have to do with regulating the activites of human beings can be looked at that way when they are first written. Just be sure you voice your dissent to the appropriate political bodies (all the while remembering that you should be able to suggest an alternate solution to the problems they are trying to address)! Complaining without offering up solutions to the problems is the quickest way to be ignored.

It would seem

[SuperJ]

I haven't read the bill, and I'm not a lawyer, but from the description, it sounds like NAT and VPN would be ok. It says you cannot conceal the transmission of the "communication" to the "communication service provider", nor can you receive a "communication" without the permission of the "communication service provider."

Now that sounds to me like if I pay for broadband, I'm paying for IP communication. My provider is selling me IP communication. So if I'm somehow tapping into Verizon's network, somehow stealing an IP connection, that's banned. But anything above the IP layer (VPN, tunneling, whatever) is ok. I guess NAT might be disallowed under this.

Earlier laws

[willpost]

There was also the cellular law enacted in the 80's. Instead of encrypting the cellphone signals, they made it unlawful to listen to the 800 Mhz radio spectrum and illegal to manufacture or import any radio capable of doing so.

Re:Earlier laws

[Wansu]

There was also the cellular law enacted in the 80's. Instead of encrypting the cellphone signals, they made it unlawful to listen to the 800 Mhz radio spectrum and illegal to manufacture or import any radio capable of doing so.

So, the radio manufacturers put jumpers in the radios which disabled the reception of 800MHz phone calls and leaked info out on the net about how to cut the jumper in the field. Here's one for the Alinco DJ580

http://www.mods.dk/mods.php3?radio=alinco&model=dj -580&selectid=51#51

What other option do they have?

[Musashi Miyamoto]

I would estimate that most persons with a NAT gateway is not using their internet connection any differently from a person with a direct connection. One machine surfing at any one time...

Why can't the cable and DSL provider settle on a reasonable limit, such as "no more than 4 computers from the same household"? That way, it allows 99% of persons with routers to do what they want to do (allow multiple family members to surf the net, or allow them to surf the net from any of their computers).

The problem is that most cable companies are accustomed to charging more for multiple connections. They are similar to the telephone company (ATT) before the government had to step in. What they refuse to realize is that most customers know that it does not "cost" the company any additional money when they watch cable on another TV, or surf from the livingroom instead of the home-office.

Though, they currently have every legal right to demand that only one device is attached to their line, most persons know that there is no legitimacy to the demand. It is pure greed.

Re:What other option do they have?

[jedidiah]

???

Cable companies stopped charging for multiple connections a long time ago. People simply weren't buying.

These days, they will only charge you extra rent for associated hardware. Otherwise, you can have 10 TV's in the house connected to cable and the charges are the same.

What cable companies still charge extra for multiple TV's?

Re:What other option do they have?

[sapped]

Why can't the cable and DSL provider settle on a reasonable limit, such as "no more than 4 computers from the same household"? That way, it allows 99% of persons with routers to do what they want to do (allow multiple family members to surf the net, or allow them to surf the net from any of their computers).

Or, how about this. They sell you a certain amount of bandwidth. If you can exceed that bandwidth with a single PC, then you buy more. If you can't exceed it with your 10 PC's at home then you - and they - are ok.

They should be selling you bandwidth - nothing else!

Re:What other option do they have?

[platipusrc]

Unless I'm entirely mistaken, Charter Communications (the most wretched of cable companies), charges extra per cable outlet that is turned on within your abode.

Re:What other option do they have?

[mpe]

Why can't the cable and DSL provider settle on a reasonable limit, such as "no more than 4 computers from the same household"? That way, it allows 99% of persons with routers to do what they want to do (allow multiple family members to surf the net, or allow them to surf the net from any of their computers)

As someone else said: Why is it any of their business? Shouldn't ISPs be treated like any other utilities?

what the bills actually say

[dAzED1]

Does anyone actually read things anymore?
From the texas bill

(a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to harm or defraud a communication service provider, the person:

(1) obtains or uses a communication service without:

(A) obtaining the authorization of the provider; or

(B) making a payment to the provider in the
amount normally charged by the provider for the service; or

[(3)] tampers with, modifies, or maintains a
modification to a communication device provided by or installed by the provider

That is the entirity of the definition of a bad guy in this bill, as it is currently proposed as of the time I'm writing this.

So, you have to, with "intent to harm or defraud," "[use] a communication service without""obtaining the authorization of the provider; or making a payment to the provider in the amount normally charged by the provider for the service; or tampers with, modifies, or maintains a modification to a communication device provided by or installed by the provider." I put it all together for ye who don't want to link.

So, to be even MORE clear, this only effects people who are trying to harm or defraud an ISP, etc, by using service without authorization.

Does a VPN "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO

Does ssh "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO

Does posting anonymously anywhere, or any of the other things being complained about, "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO

I don't have the time to quote and translate each and every bill out there, but I do certainly recommed actually reading them before deciding the bills will make it illegal to brush your teeth. Knee-jerk, anyone? Know what you're having an opinion about, before forming that opinion.

Re:what the bills actually say

[brickbat]

So, you have to, with "intent to harm or defraud," "[use] a communication service without""obtaining the authorization of the provider; or making a payment to the provider in the amount normally charged by the provider for the service; or tampers with, modifies, or maintains a modification to a communication device provided by or installed by the provider."

Well, bully for Texas. I've read Colorado's bill, and it doesn't contain that language. It says, as best as I can tell, that if you don't have permission to use such technologies from your service provider, you can go to jail.

Here's the link to Colorado's bill; please tell me I'm wrong (PDF format):

House Bill 1303

Re:what the bills actually say

[Anonymous Coward]

Does ssh "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO

Rogers Cable internet (Canada) thinks so and bans people who operate it.

they are mainly after webservers and ftp but the get ssh too.

Their logic is that it degrades other peoples service and so gives them a bad name.

Re:what the bills actually say

[Shugart]

Good point! Although sharing a cable modem among several PCs may "defraud" the ISP if the ISP charges for extra internet connections.

Re:what the bills actually say

[jackjumper]

What's the definition of a "communication service provider?" I can see this being used to prevent the user of a "communication service" (say, Gnutella) with intent to defraud a "communication service provider" (say, a record company)

Re:what the bills actually say

[sjlutz]

Although you are correct in your posting the way things stand now, what if Comcast decides it wants to provide a business VPN type account? Then, using your own VPN will be defrauding Comcast, because I know you won't be paying comcast for VPN access. Also, currently, comcast charges extra for IP addresses, the point being that you can add more computers to the network. If you add more computers to your network, without paying for it, then you are defrauding Comcast of it's fees.
You see. this is the problem with lawyer'ese speak, there is always an interpretation for each side of the issue.

Re:what the bills actually say

[jedidiah]

Don't be so sure of yourself.

"harm" and "defraud" may very well be achieved with something as simple as NAT or VPN if you cable provider chose to define things that way.

If cable providers don't word their contracts that way now, they certainly would be emboldened to do so once a bill such as this passes.

This is a new and interesting club that companies can brutalize consumers with. One must ask WHY they need a new one and what is wrong with all of the old ones.

At this point, ANY new law should be met with extreme skepticism.

Re:what the bills actually say

[dAzED1]

damn pdf crap. Makes it a littletougher to cut and paste.

Start with section 1, part 1. The purpose of this act...[is to address] the phenomenon of maliscious 'hacking.' This act is not intended to punish innoscent users.

Section 2 is just definitions, and deals with defining "cloned cellular equiptment" and "cloning equiptment." Section 2, parts 1.d and 1.e are the parts that probably are causing the most confusion. Note though that these things are for "obtaining service." Its for people who make it look like they're coming from somewhere so that a communications provider will give them service. That is NOT what you're doing with ssh, vpn, posting anonymously, etc.

Then there's section 2.j: to "intercept signals" means to...without the permission of the communications service OR the person receiving OR initiating the signal. (empasis mine)

GUESS what. You are ALWAYS either receiving or initiating the signal, unless you're capturing someone else's traffic (spoofing, sniffing, etc - which is, after all, one of the things they're trying to outlaw). Do you have your own permission to start a VPN connection to work? Do you have your own permission to start an ssh connection? Do you have your own permission to post anonymously? Well, then you're perfectly ok.

Like I said though...I haven't the time to do this to all the bills(or even all of this one), especially ones that are pdfs. Gota get back to working. Just read them. This bill is for spoofing cell phone calls! Its not for making NATS, firewalls, vpns, etc illegal. Those are all legal, "innoscent" activities.

Re:what the bills actually say

[dAzED1]

go ahead and tell me how part 1 or 3 (part 2 is already killed) can be accomplished by a cable provider against someone using vpn. Please.

it can't.

Re:what the bills actually say

[bourne]

Does a VPN "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO

Many Cable Modem/DSL providers exclude VPN use from their "Residential" service. That usage is covered by their "Commercial" service, which generally costs 3 times as much.

If you are not "making a payment to the provider in the amount normally chargd by the provider for the" Commercial "service," then you are harming and defauding the ISP.

Some cable companies have a similar rule about multiple machines - they have standard access (one machine) and "home network" access (often 3 machines). There have been limited attempts to use this to restrain use of NAT for home networks. I would hate to see such attempts with a law like this behind them.

Another more legitimate target of this would be people freely sharing their connection via Wireless.

Re:what the bills actually say

[Specter]

"Does a VPN "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO"

Well that depends on the Terms of Service now doesn't it?

As an example, it's pretty well known that Comcast's policy on VPN is that you can't use VPN on a normal "consumer" broadband connnection. If you want to use VPN then you need to "upgrade" to the very much more expensive business class cable service; which happens to be exactly same as the consumer service just with a higher price and without the VPN restriction in your ToS.

Thus, if you choose to VPN to ANYWHERE (even if it's a VPN for personal use!) and you've got a consumer service agreement then you're in violation of your ToS and are technically defrauding the company.

Which falls under the actions prohibited by this bill.

D'oh...

Jared

Re:what the bills actually say

[ConversantShogun]

Uh, looks like you only read SECTION 1 of the bill. Go back and read the rest.

Re:what the bills actually say

[dAzED1]

I did, and I also referenced why I wasn't going to cut and paste the whole damn bill here. The rest is just further definitions based on the first.

Re:what the bills actually say

[Anonymous Coward]

Your beef should be with the Cable/DSL provider that charges extra for VPN use, not with a law that says you should only get what you pay for.

Re:what the bills actually say

[GigsVT]

[(3)] tampers with, modifies, or maintains a
modification to a communication device provided by or installed by the provider

Yet another expample of the law dictating how you may or may not use the devices you paid for and own. Property ownership rights are becoming a thing of the past, because of a few companies who need government protection to be able to compete.

Re:what the bills actually say

[superflippy]

[(3)] tampers with, modifies, or maintains a
modification to a communication device provided by or installed by the provider

The TimeWarner Cable guy didn't know how to install the cable modem on our Mac. So we did it ourselves. It seems to me this would be illegal according to the above wording.

Re:what the bills actually say

[Tokerat]

Our Time-Warner guy did, and in fact gave me tips on how to add more Macs to our setup once we had it running. So, you're not defrauding the ISP because they allow Macs to be connected. It was just a simple matter of undertrained personel, not company policy.

You are also not modifying the cable modem in any way, simply connecting a different device to it. You can't get in trouble for that unless the device you connect is designed specifically to mess with your cable modem or the Time-Warner service itself. Therefore, a computer wouldn't count, because it has other, valid uses.

Gettting busted for hooking up a Mac would be like the electric company busting me for pluging in a toaster which they "do not support" (unless my toaster was designed to overload the grid or cause some other kind of damage, which a Mac certainly isn't).

You're a fellow Mac user, use your head.

Re:what the bills actually say

[Mr. McGibby]

This bill is for spoofing cell phone calls!

Then maybe they should write the bill that way.

Re:what the bills actually say

[samdu]

Does a VPN "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO

It would depend on who the lawyer is. Seriously, though, an ISP could make an argument that a vpn does cause them harm because it is bandwidth intensive. Moreso than the average web surfing/emailing that most people do. Some ISPs even offer vpn service at an additional cost. To set up your own without going through your ISP could, again, if they have the right lawyers, be interpreted as causing harm to the ISP.

Re:what the bills actually say

[Anonymous Coward]

WHY they need a new one and what is wrong with all of the old ones

This is a crime bill. Maybe the old ones are only civil laws.

Re:what the bills actually say

[UncleOlethros]

Are you arguing that if you sign up for a service that specifically excludes the use of VPN or the connection of more than one computer, you should get to do it anyway?

I mean, I'd agree with you that it's silly of an ISP to make such rules. But if the rules are there, we don't get to circumvent them just because we disagree with them.

Re:what the bills actually say

[Piquan]

Keep reading. Get down to 6.a.1.b.

Re:what the bills actually say

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that most of the Judges, who will enforce the Law probably aren't as smart as you and will find their own interpretations

Texas Bill

[mbourgon]

Found this damn interesting, especially the stuff stricken out.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/78R/billtext/ SB 01116I.HTM

Re:Texas Bill

[Anonymous Coward]

Cute, buddy. What's the actual URL ?

Did you fail to notice a space in there ?

when I pull the space out, it still doesn't work.

Why bother...

Yah, I read something really cool somewhere, and it proves all of this wrong, it was... umm... maybe...

hfttp:/sumware.overtharainbow.norg/checkyerurlsb ud dy!

Re:Texas Bill

[mbourgon]

Um, don't pay much attention round here, eh?

1) URL is exactly what I posted, minus spaces. Slash code breaks up URLs, so that you can't hijack the page and make it ultra-wide. This way an ultra-long URL will take up several lines, not one extra-long one.

2) I just copied the URL, removed the space, and it showed up fine for me.

3) .norg isn't really useful either.

For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

Mods - I cannot speak officially so I have to do this anonymously. Please mod this up.

I am a chief engineer for SBC's ISP, and believe it or not, we oppose these sorts of laws. We really don't care what someone does with their IP, and in most cases actually encourage the use of NAT devices.

Most of this cruft comes from the cable companies, who are still stuck in the pay-per-jack mentality.

Re:For the record

[mkldev]

I definitely believe it. Most ISPs with half a brain among them support the use of NAT. It just makes sense. I mean, after all, why would they want to waste five IP numbers on a single customer who is likely to only have one machine turned on and downloading files anyway when they could give him/her one IP number and keep the other four for more customers?

In an era where most ISPs are seriously having trouble getting enough IP numbers to fill the demand, we're seeing more and more ISPs suddenly being very enthusiastic about NAT....

The cable companies, however, have a different mentality, often because they have different limitations. If you don't allow servers, there's nothing preventing you from giving everyone a ten-net number (10.x.x.x) and NATting it at the ISP level. Some ISPs do this.

Since they then have virtually an unlimited number of IP numbers that they can assign, they have no financial incentive to allow customers to use NAT.

On the flip side of this, though, the cable company's use of NAT would then be a violation of the law, as it would hide the source of your traffic from -their- upstream provider. If this ever becomes law and goes to court, I suspect people will point that out. :-)

Can't be

[Anonymous Coward]

If I connect my Zaurus via infra-red or wireless should I first file a motion with the ISP? I don't think the intention of this bill is as stated in the article.

IPv6

[EclipseU]

Here's a thought. How about they implement IPv6, so that my ISP can acctually sell me some IP addresses so I dont need a NAT.

Freenet

[lylum]

What they target are probably more networks like FreeNet. That's stuff they really can't control.... As for NAT they would either prosecute the administrator/organization running the NAT router or - in bigger corganizations - they would have logs to trace traffic down anyway.

Please write

[geekoid]

If you are a resident of any of those states, please write all your representitives and tell them what is wrong with this bill.

Please.

Re:Please write

[Anonymous Coward]

So they can ignore your intelligent comments and respond with some generic bullshit that isn't even relevant?

No thanks. I learned my lesson already!

When I say radio....

[wowbagger]

When I say "radio", I mean it most literally - any radio transmission, be it land mobile comms, cellular, TV, broadcast FM, WAN - if it involve tossing photons through the air, it's radio.

But yes, that is exactly my point - this is not (as much) for wireline comms as for wireless.

Re:When I say radio....

[Telastyn]

Oh indeed. My mistake then for the narrow interpretation. :]

Re:When I say radio....

[kk5wa]

If it involves tossing photons through the air, it's light, not radio.

73

Re:When I say radio....

[Moofie]

Uh, please explain the difference between "light" and "radio" using something other than the concept of electromagnetic frequency (or wavelength).

Different words. Same thing.

Re:When I say radio....

[Apaturia]

Any electromagnetic radiation consists of photons.

Re:When I say radio....

[mpe]

If it involves tossing photons through the air, it's light, not radio.

Photons are generic to EM radiation. You can just as easily have RF photons as visible light ones or at the other end of the spectrum X and Gamma ray photons.

Mo money

[chrismacmahon]

I wonder if other cable/broadband companies are doing this... In maine (portland) RoadRunner is offering for an additional charge a month, to install a wireless network in to their customers house, and share one internet connecition thru-out. Kinda like shooting easy money away, (i heard have heard a bunch of poeple do use this). Also would'nt this make the proxy/firewalls kinda obsolete...i guess schools, the goverment and also companies are going to screwed!!!

Coming soon...

[Anonymous Coward]

...a law requiring our brains to be modified to reduce memory retention to, say, 3 hours, which will prevent the storage of any significant data. This will benefit the industry by causing the population to repeatedly consume material for a nominal fee, and the government will benefit as they will be able to revise history on a daily basis.

/sarcasm, or cynicism?

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Choice! I criticize religion for basically doing what they all do best... damn anyone who doesn't follow them. You did exactly that. "you're gonna be fucked without God."

Sorry but I would rather think on my own than be told what to believe and forced to follow it.

I hope they have IPv6 ready if NAT is illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

If they outlaw VPN's and firewalls with NAT/PAT we wouldn't have enough IP's on the internet....

After this, and the congressman from California pushing CDMA for IRAQ because GSM is a "European" technology, I honestly have to wonder why we let these airheads into office in the first place?

Read these *drafts* more carefully

[Gudlyf]

The key words in these draft bills is that these are in regards to the user acting "with intent to defraud" and is written to imply that it is the use of technologies "to defraud" that is the crime, not simple possesion. The bigger risk is that this bill could be used to tack on additional charges to some other crime (e.g. if you submitted a fraudulent tax return via an encrypted channel). Unfortunately, some cable vendors have very restrictive usage agreements so it may be quite easy find yourself technially guilty of "fraud".

Re:Read these *drafts* more carefully

[Specter]

"Wait, there are yet more words here..."

The specific phrase actually says:

"with the intent to harm or defraud a communication service"

What's left unspecified is the definition of "harm." Is it harmful to a broadband ISP who offers a VoIP phone service if I choose to use another VoIP service vendor? Economically speaking, I think it's rather apparent that the my use of an alternate IP telephony company results in lost revenue for my ISP. That's harm; does it rise to a level prosecutable by this law?

Am I attempting to defraud my ISP if I use intentionally use "too much" bandwidth?

Is the mere posession of a wireless access point (where the possibility exists that someone outside of my household might be able to use it) enough to imply intent to harm or defraud? What if my WAP is running on one of those Linux boxes all those evil terrorist h4x0rs use?

And to your point about Terms of Service from your ISP; those are often changed without any notice to you. Does that open you to "intent to defraud" if yesterday P2P was ok, but today it's not and you inexplicably weren't rereading your ToS daily?

The problem with this is that, as usual, the reason for writing the bill (stop people from stealing things) got completely lost in the authoring process.

Jared

Re:Read these *drafts* more carefully

[Happy go Lucky]

The key words in these draft bills is that these are in regards to the user acting "with intent to defraud" and is written to imply that it is the use of technologies "to defraud" that is the crime, not simple possesion.

Not in the Colorado bill. In ours, "A person commits a violation under this section if he knowingly [commits a prohibited act, which would take me about ten pages to transcribe and does appear to include the operation of an otherwise legal VPN or IP-masq firewall.]

Colorado residents: This late in the session, it shouldn't be too hard to make sure this thing dies. Call your state rep and senator (it's been introduced in both houses: you can get the numbers through www.vote-smart.org if you know your own ZIP code.)

Right now, it's in the State House Information and Technology Committee, and the (god only knows why) Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. You can gripe to their chairmen, Rep. Shawn Mitchell at 303-866-4667 and Senator Doug Lamborn at 303-866-4835. Sen. Lamborn is the bill's Senate sponsor, so I don't know how much good that particular phone call will do.

Re:Read these *drafts* more carefully

[usotsuki]

Yet something more to pass on to stanley2002.org (he has beefs with the state of CO as well).

-uso.
Keep and bear arms: Strap a bazooka launcher to your back.

Re:Read these *drafts* more carefully

[Piquan]

The one I read also made it illegal to buy, sell, import, etc. devices that are designed to...

Re:Read these *drafts* more carefully

[rizzo420]

the problem with your argument is that your ISP does not have any revenue from you if you use VoIP from someone else. if you steal VoIP from your ISP, then you are both harming and defrauding them.

using too much bandwidth is not defrauding anyone, in fact, unless you are specifically altering hardware to "get more bandwidth" or stealing a connection from the ISP, you aren't doing anything wrong. they provide you with the internet connection, it's their decision as to how they limit your use (some ISP's block P2P connections). if they want to shutdown your service after you transfer "too much" information to or from the internet, they can, but it should be written in the terms of service.

running a NAT box or router so more than one computer can connect is not a violation unless it is specifically stated that your connection is only for one computer and you must pay for each additional computer connected. if, and only if, your ToS says that, then yes, you are defrauding or "harming" your ISP.

as for changing the ToS, i have never seen it change drastically without them notifying you. usually a change is something small like the way they word something.

and a final comment. when getting broadband, i had the option of going with SBC DSL or with AT&T cable (which is now comcast). we got DSL because AT&T said you could not run servers using your connection (servers being ftp, http, telnet, ssh, whatever, probably includes P2P applications as well). i didn't like that, so i went with SBC even though the upstream sucks. so read the ToS before you sign up for anything anyways. but if i had AT&T, and tried to run my ftp server or "share my bandwidth" with others (since that's what they called running a server, i would be "harming" them. the bill gives more legal rights to teh telecommunications companies, but i don't see any questions as to what harm means. i think in this sense it's meant almost the same way as defraud.

Re:Read these *drafts* more carefully

[john.r.strohm]

You need to take your own advice.

The key phrase is "with the intent to harm or defraud". This implies a requirement on the part of the prosecutor (in a criminal case) or the plaintiff (in a civil case) to prove said intent.

The kicker is that there is language later in the bill that creates a PRESUMPTION of intent, if the defendant does not respond within 30 days to a letter from the communications service provider alleging a violation.

That provision HOPEFULLY would not stand up to Constitutional scrutiny.

Re:Read these *drafts* more carefully

[thogard]

Is this a case of more laws to cover existing crimes? Fraud is a crime already. We don't need more laws describing fraud. If your into ripping off your cable company, It seems that right now the you can get more time depending on how its done. If the crime is ripping off the cable company, then the fines should be the same no matter how its done if physical damage to the company is non-exsitant.

Older laws had these concepts. For example burglary is entering a place your not suppoed to be in (no its not stealing stuff), while breaking and entering is a different crime. Many people are charged with burglary that aren't chared with theft because its easier to prove. So if you break into someones house, steal their TV and get caught with the TV, you will find your self charged with at least 1) Breaking and Entering, 2) Burglary and 3) Theft.

Re:Read these *drafts* more carefully

[ohzero]

If that's the case, then is it possible that makers of nat boxes and other such devices commonly sold at your local computer stuperstore could be considered accomplice to your actions in intending to defraud your ISP? Truly funny would be the string of lawsuits traversing from ISP->consumer->hardware makers->ISP.

Re:Read these *drafts* more carefully

[rizzo420]

although it woudl be quite amusing to see that happen, i think that the ruling would be that the makers of the nat boxes are not accomplices because you just need to make the judgement as to whether or not you can use one legally according to your isp's tos. it's like that marker trick to get around those copy protected cd's (http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2002may/gee2002 0521011807.htm). you can't sue the marker-makers just because you can use a marker to do something illegal. and since there are isp's that do allow you to have home networks at no extra charge, selling nat boxes would be completely legal. just buy at your own discresion.

Re:Read these *drafts* more carefully

[Specter]

" the problem with your argument is that your ISP does not have any revenue from you if you use VoIP from someone else."

Well, that's the point actually; the cable company WOULDN'T be gettting any revenue for my VoIP use. So the argument of the ISP would be that I'm harming them by using their resources (bandwith) to compete with a service they provide. I'm not saying it's a good argument but it's certainly not an argument that not been advanced before, especially by the telcos:

"I, the incumbent last mile carrier, do all this hard work to provide all the infrastructure necessary for VoIP to happen, and incur all the costs then these upstart VoIP companies come in an just take advantage of it! It's not fair! We can't compete when they get to have the infrastructure for free!"

Replace VoIP with local/long distance service and you've pretty much got a mirror image of what's happening right now with the telcos and the FCC.

The telco's are certainly claiming harm from the competition for local/long distance calling, why would you not expect an ISP to attempt to block competitors to its own VoIP service in a similar way?
(Yes, I know that the whole local/long distance fiasco is a result of a regulatory nightmare but the point remains the same.)

Jared

Re:Read these *drafts* more carefully

[rizzo420]

well, the problem that the telco's have is that the government promotes competition, regardless of who owns the infrastructure. SBC has been taking a lot of flack because they charge high prices and have come in and taken over a lot of local telephone companies (happened here in CT with them taking over SNET). then they go and charge higher prices than the local company did. well, they've been running TV ads saying how people go and complain about them, but they're the real telco because they take care of the whole infrastructure. they say that most telco's are a bunch of marketing and sales people, but when it comes to fixing the telephone lines and stuff, SBC is the one that goes and and does that. i, personally, don't see a problem with using someone else's lines for a cheaper service. i'm a consumer, i shouldn't be bullied into a monopoly over the local telephone service or cable tv service or broadband internet, or whatever it is. that's why the government has these regulations. and because the regulations hold true for the local/long distance thing, i'm sure once VoIP becomes mainstream, the same thing will happen. i'm pissed that we now only have one cable tv provider in my area. we used to have TCI cablevision, then SNET (the local telephone company) offered it at a much lower price. it was great until just before SBC bought out SNET. then they got rid of the cable tv and we were forced to use AT&T for it. i consider that a monopoly, but the government doesn't. it's a problem. i think we pay like $50 a month for extended basic cable tv service (not even digital cable). there's no choice for just basic service that just gets the major networks either. of course now comcast bought the cable tv service from AT&T, so we'll see what happens now.

"I, the incumbent last mile carrier, do all this hard work to provide all the infrastructure necessary for VoIP to happen, and incur all the costs then these upstart VoIP companies come in an just take advantage of it! It's not fair! We can't compete when they get to have the infrastructure for free!"

the problem with this is i don't think the other services get to use the infrastructure for free. they pay like a "rental" fee for using it. but the reason they can charge less for the service is because they don't have to pay technicians to repair the infrastructure when it goes down.

it's all just stupid, but either way i don't think this bill will cover things like routers or cable tv splitters or anything like that, unless your terms of service actually say that you are only paying for the use of one computer/tv/whatever and any additional ones cost more.

use it again spam

[lfourrier]

to conceal ... from any communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication

Or go back to dial-up

[yerricde]

And if my ISP tells me I can't use my wireless router, they'll simply lose my business.

And if both the local DSL monopoly and the local cable monopoly include such a restriction in their acceptable use policies, your Internet connection will become ten times slower.

Illegal to own TV??

[WaxParadigm]

So does this mean it would be illegal for me to own a TV if I cancelled my cable subscription (since a TV is able to recieve cable signals)?

--
Buying stock in Comcast today.

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are the facts:

1. All faiths agree that God says don't kill people.
2. People of Faith A kill people of Faith B because their method of worshipping God is bad.
3. People of Faith B kill people of the Faith A because their method of worshipping the same fucking God is bad.
4. God has not appeared to say any of the following:
   • Look, I really meant don't kill anyone. I like you all and think that you should all live long, full and happy lives.
   • Faith A is correct. Therefore you infidels in Faith B need to die, and my believers are just in their efforts to kill you.
   • Faith B is correct. Therefore you infidels in Faith A need to die, and my believers are just in their efforts to kill you.

The fact that He hasn't said anything at all on the subject in a couple of thousand years--and even then only to a handful of unverifiable sources--ought to clue you in to the fact that it's a fucking fairy tale.

Learn to view the world without your brainwashing, and you'll see that faith is a kludge for actual understanding.

The fact that the people who set up and governed the US believed in God does not necessarily prove anything other than that they believed in God. The fact that they allowed us the freedom to choose how and if to worship God, however, speaks volumes about their wisdom and foresight.

Oh, and you're fucked with or without God, my friend.

What ever happened to civil law??

[WaxParadigm]

Copyright used to be a civil matter (you could be sued by holder for infringement). Now we have the DMCA that makes it CRIMINAL.

We used to have terms of service (a contract) with our providers, now it's CRIMINAL to posess the ability to do things which only maybe would have been a violation of the TOS.

Seems that instead of letting companies and consumers come to agreements and settle things between themselves, the move is to, by default, set the bar really low for what is called a "crime" and do it in favor of the company (and not the consumer).

Define "origin"

[xyote]

IANAL either but you could interpret "origin" as meaning what ISP account the communication is orginating from, in which case NAT is not a problem since it does nothing to disguise that. So is there really a problem here or is this just an exercise to burn off all that excess sugar and caffeine?

Maybe caller ID will become useful!?

[s4f]

It seems like this might make per-call blocking ( *67 ) illegal.

Perhaps this only conceals it from the called party, and not the service provider, but it makes you think what else?

Re:Maybe caller ID will become useful!?

[jlaxson]

Coporate (or home even) PBX's. They're just like NAT, except for telephones. Now every phone terminal at work has to have it's own phone line purchased from the Telco.

someday..

[Anonymous Coward]

Dateline 2008:
"The US government has outlawed the use of the internet for personal or private reasons. You may only use the internet to buy things. Furthermore all US citizens will not be allowed to use any form of communication except for goverment run and monitored telephones. Talking between each other in public places will be banned. And lastly the bill of rights as been ruled as "terrorist propaganda" and will be destroyed. I must now shoot myself because I said "US citizen" and they are a myth and don't exist."

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then what exactly was he complaining about? Buddihsm? Taoism? Because I can see how faithless religions can become a concern.

TANSTAAFL, tanjdammit!

[ceswiedler]

if your ISP charges per computer connected, using a router/NAT device would be illegal if these became law.

If your ISP charges this way, then it's already a breach of contract to use NAT. If you want to use NAT, either pay up or find an ISP which doesn't charge additional per computer. What you'll find, of course, is that most likely the ISP which doesn't charge per computer will charge more overall. It's the same thing as when ISPs used to charge for dialup by the hour. People hated that, they wanted a flat rate per month. But the laws of economics state that the ISP's monthly charge will be equivalent to the hourly charges, averaged across all users.

Generally, if several companies in an industry start to charge extra for a service which was once included ('free'), then if people complain, they'll just roll it back in by including it in an increased base cost ('free'). So what you're left with is either 1. averaging the increased cost across all users, whether or not they use the feature which increases the cost, or 2. charging only the users which increase the company's cost. Obviously, then, people who would be charged want it included in the base cost ('free') and people who wouldn't be, want it as an extra. When it comes to NAT, I can guess where most Slashdotters will be...

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Also known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Re:TANSTAAFL, tanjdammit!

[bnenning]

If your ISP charges this way, then it's already a breach of contract to use NAT.

My argument would be that there is precisely one "computer" connected to the ISP: the NAT box. Sure, once it receives the data from the ISP it may send it to another machine on my internal network, but that's none of their business, any more than it would be if I typed a message on one machine, copied it to another machine directly connected to the ISP, and emailed it from there. All NAT does is make that process more efficient.

charging only the users which increase the company's cost

It is not at all true that use of a NAT inherently increases cost to the provider. One could even make an argument that it decreases costs; Code Red would have been far less damaging if most ISP customers had firewalled NAT boxes.

The obvious solution is to charge by actual bandwidth used; the ISP has no reason to know or care what you're using it for or the configuration of your internal network.

Re:TANSTAAFL, tanjdammit!

[mpe]

My argument would be that there is precisely one "computer" connected to the ISP: the NAT box. Sure, once it receives the data from the ISP it may send it to another machine on my internal network, but that's none of their business,

Typically with a utility there is some kind of demarcation point. Any cables or pipes one side are theirs any the other side are yours. You don't expect the electricity company to count up the number of electrical appliances you have; the gas company to count up the number of gas appliances you have or the water company to count up how many sinks/showers/baths/toilets you have.
What next telephone companies want to outlaw PBXs or make a charge based on the number of extensions one has. Because by using one you are depriving them of the money they could be making if every telephone was directly connected to one of their lines?

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

You say you'd rather think on your own, but in reality you're just going to disagree with Christianity. What a relativist joke you are!

Happy.

[Renraku]

I'm happy with my NAT. The ISP isn't forced to give me one of their oh-so-expensive IPs, and I'm not forced to set up my network any differently. Why the fuck should I pay more for the 'privilage' of connecting more than one computer to their network? Then they better start paying me for the 'privilage' of spamming my inbox with messages from every company who has the $$ to buy their mailing list.

Re:Happy.

[josepha48]

Not sure about your ISP, but Earthlink actually says that they wont help you if you set up your own network, but they also don't say you cannot (AFAIK). However they do provide you home network support for extra if they set you up one. Personally I don't want their support, I don't think their staff could figure out how to connect my heterogeneous network that consists of Win, Mac, BSD's and Linux. Not that its hard, just that they seem windows centric. Yes they support Mac, but kinda secondary, and they have pointer to Linux support, but they have no BSD support that I've seen.

Personally I see this as one of those laws that people make cause they are clueless about technology, and at some point they will go to court. Maybe in 5 years if any of them pass.

Re:Happy.

[hpa]

Personally, I picked an ISP which sells you a NATting gateway (enabled by default); I actually ended up turning it off since I got a decent-size static IP space from them.

That being said, I think this kind of law is part of the distressing series of "monopoly enforcement laws" that we're seeing out there -- DCMA being, of course, the most egregorious ones. Somehow gov't seems to have forgotten that it's supposed to *prevent* monopolies...

Re:Happy.

[MImeKillEr]

Road Runner in my market (Austin, Texas-area) charges an additional $14.95/mo for additional PCs on their network.

Damned straight I'm using a NAT box and have two additional (for now, soon to be three) PCs on their network. RR knows I have a NAT box and has been made aware of the additional PCs (one at least) on the network. No one's dinged me for this (yet) and I imagine that if/when this is passed in Texas, I'll either be forced to pay the additional fees or find another ISP.

For the record, one of the PCs is my son's (he's not even 3 yet, only goes to PBSkids.org) and the other is my wife's. She only uses it for email/browsing, so its not like my additional systems are consuming 500GB/mo in bandwidth.

TWC Austin's charge of essentially $15/mo for additional PCs is above what other markets apparently pay over what others are paying. TWC NYC users are only charged $4.95/mo for additional PCs.

Re:Happy.

[josepha48]

I'm wondering why all these corporations are not worried at all about this? It would seem to me that any corporation that uses NAT would fall under this. I know the company I work for does. And to notify your ISP each time you hire / fire an employee that you need another IP or whatever would be a huge pain in the butt. I think that these laws will go to court if they pass. Also realize how many people will be under fire as well.

"conceal from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication" ... I asked earthlink if I could do this. They said yes, but they wont support it. For 9.95 THEY would set me up with NAT (http://www.earthlink.net/home/broadband/homenetwo rk/pricing/). If asked if I am doing this I'd say yes. I'm doing this to save IP address, but also to provide a firewall to my network of systems.

If they were to force me to pay the 9.95 for the service then I would require that they support my network. ALL of my network including my BSD and Linux machines. Also if ANY machine got attacked from a hacker or any machine got a virus I would then expect them to take care of this as well. I think I'd be able to make a good enough consumer case against ANY ISP that required me to pay for NAT.

Aside from that I am not 'hiding' anything. ALL machines are coming from my home. The cable box they gave me does NAT internally. I do NAT to their cable box. As far as they are concerned if I have 1 or 10 machines at home they are all 1) coming from my home; 2) coming from the IP address that thier cable modem assigned me.

I think the real juxt of the bill is to prevent IP spoofing. Like if you have a firewall that allows traffic from 207.19.12.3 to your IP and someone spoofs their IP to say that they are 207.19.12.3 to hack the network. Not seeing the actual text of the bills this is all speculative.

His argument "If you send or receive your email via an encrypted connection, you're in violation, because the "To" and "From" lines of the emails are concealed from your ISP by encryption. (The encryption conceals the destinations of outgoing messages, and the sources of incoming messages.)"

Is kinda flimsy. Part of SMTP is MAIL FROM and the other part is RCPT TO. You relly can't conceal this as most good SMTP systems are set up to only allow valid users to issue the MAIL FROM. Again in order to send mail through earthlink I need to be connected to their network through my DSL or a dial up. I've tried at work and it does not work, unless I use their web mail program.

It is good that he is informed and if these laws do apply to NAT then things like IPSEC, ssh / scp, and all encrypted telnet and sftp programs would also violate these laws.

Re:Happy.

[Anonymous Coward]

I aggree with the use of nat those oh so expensive ips are starting to become very rare, so rare one client I do work for has a t3 and SBC told us at first they could not give us a public ip becuase they were out of them. It took 2 weeks before they could give us 1 public ip. Thank goodness they didn't need to run any servers on it and just needed it for image transfeing off site.

Re:Happy.

[mkldev]

Based on my experience, Earthlink support doesn't even know the structure of their -own- network, much less know how to debug yours. My favorite was that, living in the south bay (San Jose area), every time Oakland went out, so did my network connection (an hour away or so). Or maybe that it took one of their support people an hour just to figure out that I needed to include "@mindspring.com" at the end of my bloody PPPoE login name....

Did their system status message say the San Jose area? Is Sunnyvale remotely the Oakland area? No, and no. I called them about the first two multi-hour outages. By the third one, I gave up. Why sit on hold for an hour waiting to tell them what they're too clueless to figure out on their own?

EarthLink tech support---another one of the top ten reasons I left Earthlink. Wow, the way this thread is going, I will have listed them all by the time I get to the bottom.... :-)

Re:Happy.

[mpe]

"conceal from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication"

If this is the actual wording then not only can a business not use NAT (or any any proxy server which a HTTP_X_FORWARDED_FOR) they also might have to replace a PBX with a centrex...

Re:Happy.

[josepha48]

Hmm .. now that I think about it what about all those Linksys Netgear, dlink, etc devices that have built in NAT? Would it be against the law to sell or buy one of these devices? Lots of companies could be f*****, by stupid politicians if this is how this law is interpreted. I see this going to court.

Is this law even needed?

[mivok]

I'd warrant that a lot of the terms of this law that apply to computers and are actually valid (i.e. not arreasting somebody for ssh chaining withing their lan or something ridiculous), are actually already enforcable.

To use the example of using NAT when the provider charges per computer, this will be spelled out in the contract, and therfore the company would be within their rights to sue you for breach of contract, and most likely have criminal charges brought against you for fraud.

While I'm on the subject of now allowing NAT on the network (which my current provider does - for mostly valid reasons - the intent is to prevent one person in the halls of residence paying, and the others freeloading off the same connection), I have a main computer, and a headless, openBSD box to act as a firewall/NAT, I also have a networked printer (connected via ethernet, and accessible through port forwarding remotely), and a handheld with ethernet card. All of these are used by me and there is no intent to screw the university out of money, and yet technically, just browsing the net on my handheld through the main computer is a breach of contract.

Okay.. rant over.. move along

Re:Is this law even needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you seems to me that freedoms are ending.

USA the land of the FREE??? my a$$

The patriot act version I and soon version II, ucita, dmca.

Plus I dunno how many great ideas this the dumbest administration ever will get

Soon we will enter the new information "dark" age.

Hmm..

[C_Kode]

I pay Verizon to traffic my data, not to know where and to whom I'm sending it. I pay for a service, not to be spied on. Why in the world would Verizon need to know where I'm sending my email and what it said? This appears more of governmental privacy breaker, and something that would be pushed by lobbist. (RIAA)

The only thing Verizon should be worried about is how much bandwidth I'm using since that is costly to them. Other than that, it's none of their business. If I have 500 computers NAT'ed at home, it's shouldn't matter as long as I'm not using 500 gigs of data transfer a month. It's not how *many*, it's how *much* that cost them.

it's time to ....

[Anonymous Coward]

it's time to starting killing these politicians who want to degrade democracy and freedom.

Here my suggestion "Mr.Bush"!

Re:it's time to ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just vote them out of office? If you can't convince your neighbors to vote the way you do, kill them, not the politicians.

They...

[Anonymous Coward]

They can take my NAT when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that they allowed us the freedom to choose how and if to worship God, however, speaks volumes about their wisdom and foresight.

They never said anything about ``if.'' What they wanted was freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, so that's what they codified.

Counterpoint

[gillbates]

Wouldn't this also make SPAM illegal? Or at least provide the legal means to force spammers to provide accurate headers?

</fantasy>
In a dark basement, the door is suddenly kicked in by state troopers. A man surrounded by computers with a broadband connection is busted as a terrorist for 'concealing the source of communications'. In tears, the spammer is taken away to rot in jail.
<fantasy>

Okay, it's not like the government would actually use this law for something as useful as busting spammers, but sometimes it's nice to dream....

But on a more serious note, anonymity has been considered a constitutional right by the Supreme Court for quite some time now, and I don't think this law would stand up to constitutional scrutiny.

Re:Counterpoint

[Joe the Lesser]

That might be a nice dream for say, a dictatorship. However, as an American, I prefer to dream about freedom.

Sad truth is, this law is to protect the profits of the telecommunication industry by outlawing more stuff that the company's don't want Americans to have access to.

Re:Counterpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote] ...snip...

[/quote]

Um, does that mean you were describing your fantasy in reverse?

Re:Counterpoint

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops - goofed up the post. Let's try that again...

</fantasy> ...
<fantasy>

Um, does that mean you were describing your fantasy in reverse?

Re:Counterpoint

[gillbates]

Oops - goofed up the post. Let's try that again...

Exactly. Just like you, I goofed up.

Re:Counterpoint

[mark-t]

Nice in theory, but it's unenforceable. Since the spammer disguises his origin, there's no way to nail the him for "concealing the source of communications".

Re:Counterpoint

[gillbates]

Which makes me wonder if this law can even be enforced. It could be argued that if the authorities can find you that you weren't "concealing the source of communications"...

How quickly we forget...

[mabhatter654]

Why we broke up AT&T in the first place!

The public already decided once that the "Common Carriers" provided wires not services when they broke up AT&T and deregulated the Baby Bells. Why does it seem that there's a purposefull effort to undo all that effort? Could it be that the media companies that needed deregulation to get off the ground now don't want to play with the same rules that let them get in the game in the first place?

What's needed is a real person in charge of the FCC [Lessing anyone!] To streamline the processes and remove some of the contradictions [i.e. ATT banned from local phone but owning cable w/o sharing, etc.]

That Dog Won't Hunt

[blunte]

Ignoring any issues of stupidity regarding this proposal, there is one practical point that cannot be ignored.

The IP address space isn't big enough for all the nodes on the internet. NAT alleviates this problem by "sharing" IP addresses. Remove NAT, and you're going to have to disconnect most computers from the internet.

Re:That Dog Won't Hunt

[Edball]

Ignoring any issues of stupidity regarding this proposal, there is one practical point that cannot be ignored.

The IP address space isn't big enough for all the nodes on the internet. NAT alleviates this problem by "sharing" IP addresses. Remove NAT, and you're going to have to disconnect most computers from the internet.

... or force them to migrate to IPv6 ;)

Re:That Dog Won't Hunt

[entrigant]

Perhaps people will finally start adopting ipv6. Perhaps there's a bright side to this.

Ethernet

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't this make ethernet illegal, since all machines on a traditional ethernet LAN recieve all packets and ignore those not intended for it. The machine still recieves them....
Goodbye protocol analyzers

Yes !

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least advertising C&C:Generals isn't restricted withing the US, lets bash some Germans!

when will we get the big picture? Too late for sure!

Will radio and TV receivers be illegal ?

[terminal.dk]

Technology like radio and TV are designed to be stealthy devices that receives communications anonymously, and thus conceals the destination of the comunications.

The same goes for radio scanners, GPS receivers etc.

Will all one-way comms be banned ?

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck are you talking about? I was involved with Chritianity for 25 years.

ALL OSI (or similar) network stacks ILLEGAL

[Hooya]

if you think about it, the endpoint is actually an application. not just the machine (or more precisely the IP in the TCP/IP world). but the application is not advertized in the communication. ie. the kernel acts as the proxy for the application when the application wants to send and recieve info over the network. more clearly, when the kernel recieves something back in a certain port, the kernel looks up which application it should send the packet to etc. so this too is in violation of non-disclosure of the source/destination of the communication. this means that ALL modern OSs are in clear violation of this bill. i wish i was a lawyer. i could sue every damn OS maker.

Re:ALL OSI (or similar) network stacks ILLEGAL

[mark-t]

Wow! If I had I mod points, I honestly don't know whether I'd mod you up as insightful or funny. That's bloody brilliant!

Ummm... caller-id blocking?

[mjh]

Does that mean that I'm no longer legally allowed to block outgoing caller-id on my phone (a telecommunicatoins device)?

Hmmm, sue Microsoft?

[Sebby]

Let's see: if firewalls wouldn't be legal (as per an article on that site), and Microsoft tells you to use a firewall, then they're telling you to do something illegal. Can't you sue for that? (assuming this bone-head idea even gets passed)

VPNs & Cable

[b0bby]

I know that the cable services available to home users around here specifically does not allow you to use a VPN, I guess because it's a "business" service. So, if I let a user who's home with a sick kid make a PPTP connection so they can VNC to their desktop the cable company could argue that that user defrauded them by using the service without buying the businees level service (which, last I checked, they won't provide to residences). Which is one reason I've stuck with my speakeasy dsl connection so long even though I get a lot less speed than my cable buddies get, for more money. They let you run servers etc with no problems.

Try shaking your head in disgust

[87C751]

introduced by technology-clueless law makers

You mean there's another kind?

What is really scary to me is that, even though these bills were introduced by the ignorant, the fact that lots of legislators had the mind to introduce them in the first place is shocking. Particularly on the note of encryption, this is largely unconstitutional and hopefully, if ever passed, these bills will be challenged by (financially) enabled individuals.

Don't look now, but that pesky Constitution is on its way out. As soon as we see a few retaliatory terrorist actions inside our borders, the threat level will go to Red and the Feds will punch the panic buttons. All of them. By the time the dust settles on that little imbroglio, you're going to wish that encryption and NAT were all that were illegal.

Interesting times, indeed.

Re:Try shaking your head in disgust

[ec_hack]

introduced by technology-clueless law makers

You mean there's another kind?

There are a few. My former state rep. here in Texas, who now is in another district, is an EE that does web design for political sites when not passing laws. I worked with him to kill the UCITA from being adopted in Texas.

I am writing him today to try to get this bill killed in Texas.

Doesn't seen that extreme to me...but IANAL

[frdmfghtr]

Reading over the TX legislation, I come away from it with the following thoughts:

(1) It is equating "stealing bandwidth" to "stealing cable"...i.e. using a service without paying for it. OK, this would mean then that I can't open my WAP to the public. Fine, I don't do that anyway, I don't feel like opening my home network to the world.

You don't run a cable from your house to your neighbor's house for cable, do you?

(2) It doesn't let you tamper with things such as cable modems provided by the ISP. Fine' it's not my property if I rent it anyway, so I shouldn't be messing with it in the first place. If I OWN it, then that's another story. If I can uncap my bandwidth in a modem that I own, then that's the fault of the ISP, not me.

(3) This is all also assuming that the ISP doesn't authorize things like WAPs, home routers, etc. ANy ISP that has any shred of business sense won't prohibit Internet sharing WITHIN THE HOUSEHOLD. A broadband connection's strongest feature is being able to share bandwidth on a home network. Now, using a WAP or long Ethernet cable to extend your connectivity next door is a different matter.

Should a ISP decide to prohibit these devices, that's their own business. I retain the right to prohibit them to provide me with Internet service.

All in all, it's not as overbearing as it may appear on the surface.

Re:Doesn't seen that extreme to me...but IANAL

[mkldev]

Now, using a WAP or long Ethernet cable to extend your connectivity next door is a different matter.

Just to clarify a point... as long as it's your connectivity, it is perfectly reasonable for you to use it, even if you happen to be next door, down the block, or in another state. Where it should become illegal is when your next door neighbor uses it from next door, down the block, or in another state....

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be an idiot. If I'm free to believe that the whole of creation came from a lump of putty found in the left shoe of the Holy Lord Antikiwan, then I'm certainly free to believe that there is no god at all.

Say good by to multicast and broadcast traffic.

[Anonymous Coward]

"to conceal ... from any communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication."

Massachusetts

[ravi_n]

According to this the MA proposed super-DMCA bill has been referred to the committee on criminal justice and there is a public hearing scheduled on April 2. Doesn't sound dead to me (as one other poster claimed).

Does anyone know how people can get into that meeting and testify? I'd hope some quick grass-roots opposition could kill this.

Would like link to GA version of this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone post a link to the Georgia version of this?

Ohhhh my.....

[Warthog9]

Is it just me, or has the US government gone nuts about trying to regulate things they don't really understand, particularly the technology around us?

I mean how many of them truely understand the far reaching implications of this? And considering that the rest of the world will not be held against this horrific piece of legislation they would be doing more harm to Americans than good. I mean a nat/vpn/tunnel/network mucker/security software/firewall is now illegal to run in the US, which makes all the computers MORE vulnerable to viruses and attacks, and would do nothing but line the pockets of lawyers (and possible the telco), along with giving the world access to whatever we are doing. I mean the USPO doesn't look at my mail when I send it, so why should someone see the e-mail I send?

I for one would start looking for a job in Canada if any more of this ludicrus legislation gets passed, I mean... at least they don't SEEM to be quite as stupid. That and the fact if this was passed it would take quite a while to re-work all the setups I have :-\

"express' permission?

[nurb432]

So **ANYTHING** not specifically stated in your contract would be illegal..

Simple rule.. make everyone a criminal.. like there isn't enough REAL crime already.

Best buy won't help and you NEED HELP.

[Erris]

Imagine for a second Bestbuy's reaction to the fact that it's popular cable-modem routers and wireless access points have all become illegal.

The device won't be outlawed, using it without a fee will be. BestBuy sells cable modems too.

The problem is that this outlaws anything not explcitly alowed by your telcom. While doing some things has already got people Raided by the FBI, this will extend things considerably. It essentially redefines the alrady broken definition of "common carrier" to the point where you can't do squat. Instant messaging, VoIP, secure shells and more will all be outlawed or provided as a $ervice open to your provider's clerks. Looks like we won't have to worry about the internet making a real free press or helping people protect their fourth amendment rights.

The smarter you make the internet, the less you can do.

Georgia?

[wolf-]

Anyone have a link to the bill being referenced for Georgia?

Re:Georgia?

[wolf-]

Well, I sent mail to Mr Felton after this story posted seeking his source for the claim of a bill on the table here in Georgia. To date, no answer.

I spent a couple of hours last night browsing the general calendar of the House and will take some time this afternoon to scan through the Senate.

Kind of hard to fight a target that isn't found.
Is Felton working off hearsay or what?

Re: It's going into the pockets of the rich!

[cbreaker]

It's Money. Money is the driving force behind 99% of all these types of electronic "laws" or bills.

The telecom/ISP/whoever companies want to make more money, so they pull strings where they need to, and we see bills like this appear. It's not more complicated then this.

The problem is, how to fight it. It's not easy - this is why we should all be voting, and voting for whom we believe will do things in the best interest of the public, not whether it says "Republican" or "Democrat" next to the name.

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Very well summarized!

New laws just in...

[pubjames]

1) No whispering
2) No wearing dark glasses and big hats
3) No hiding

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a trolls thread.Not to be taken seriously.

How can they tell?

[Unregistered]

I'm running a NAT netowrk. However when i run port scans and such on my system it says i'm running one FreeBSD 4.6 box. How will they now i'm using NAT?

Also, if i only have one box connected (the router) and route band internally, who cares. I'm only using one connection.

intent

[Genjurosan]

And exactly who is going to determine "intent to harm or defraud"???

Do they charge you first with a crime, then force you to defend yourself?

Also, if they decrypt your transmissions, doesn't that violate the DMCA?

Freedom doesnt fit in with the new order

[nurb432]

If history has taught us all anything, governments overtime cant tolerate individual freedom of any kind.

Information freedom is just another thing under attack.

Look around you , all freedoms have an all out assault on them..

wake up people..

Umm... No, it doesn't.

[MultisSanguinisFluit]

Allow me to rip this article a new one...

Both bills would flatly ban the possession, sale, or use of technologies that "conceal from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication".

1. A home user is likely NOT modifying the hardware address on the cable modem. Thus, the origin of the communication is always known to the ISP, even if the source IP is spoofed.
2. The destination IP must be known to the ISP, or else how can the communication be routed? Even if said destination is, say, some privacy-protecting proxy server, then that is the destination of the communication as far as the ISP is concerned.

I mean, how far up the OSI model does the article's author think this bill can reach? What if my unencrypted e-mail said, simply, "Please give this message to 'you-know-who'?" Am I concealing the destination of the communication? Hardly.

I suppose a liberal interpretation of the bills might allow for prosecution for people using NATs, but unless your agreement with your ISP prohibits it, you are clearly not doing any "unauthorized reception."

MSF out.

Re:Umm... No, it doesn't.

[srowen]

Agreed... the ISPs probably don't know or care about anybody's ssh-enabled-proxy-NAT-linux kingdom on the other end of a DSL line. It's really not as if this is what is keeping Evil Corporate Suits up at night.

Even if you believe this law could cover your home network, it's not as if it is going to force ISPs into spending lots of money to even think about prosecuting anyone over something they don't care about.

Florida House Bill

[luzrek]

The bill in the Florida house is House bill 0079.

Write your congress people and govenors explaining them why this would be bad. A good point would be that this will provide a disinsentive to technically savy workers.

Re:Florida House Bill

[blurp]

And the senate bill number is S-1078 (following the parent comments mention of H-0079).

The thing is, in the florida bills I don't see the language that Felten is complaining about. It just seems to expand the current cable laws for having/making/selling devices for stealing cable service to all communications service. There is no text about "conceal[ing] from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication".

See for yourself and tell me if I'm wrong. Here is a link to the text of the florida bill.

-blurp

Re:Florida House Bill

[luzrek]

I was wondering, is it even legal for a state to pass these laws? Doesn't data trafic fall under then realm of interstate commerce?

Hey you knee jerks...

[Call Me Black Cloud]

...settle down. Did you actually read the bills? As in, click on the link, read them, think about what they mean? Or did you rely on the third hand summary?

The bills are intended to prevent theft of service or service disruption, not keep you from having a home network or sending encrypted e-mail. Now put your knees back down, go read the bills, then find something real to worry about.

Re:Hey you knee jerks...

[TrevorDoom]

I have read them.
IANAL however I have friends who are...and have been educated in the ways of legalese...

These bills are written exceedingly ambiguously and could be applied to almost any manner of data communicaitons...
There are several key points (and subpoints of more restrictive points) which if read in the state of mind they are attempting to address, are rather fair and intellegent...
However, if you read these points with an open interpretation of what these laws are being applied to, they are ambiguous enough to potentially be applied to encryption, port forwarding, and many other privacy and security related means of data transmission... ...and all it will take is one lawyer to interpret these laws in the general mindset as opposed to the assumed mindset for these to be abused...

Re:Hey you knee jerks...

[minard]

yes, I read them. Did you? "Intended to prevent theft of service" they may be, but in doing so the text scoops up anybody using NAT (aguably, the language is vague, but could certainly be interpreted that way) or a VPN client (definitely - there's absolutely no question about that)

Suggest you go read the text again. There's one of the offenses defined that doesn't include any of the "intent to defraud" language. Merely possession of equipment that conceals origin or destination of communication from the service provider. That's what all the fuss here is about.

Re:Hey you knee jerks...

[Call Me Black Cloud]

NAT is theft of service, at least as defined by the Comcast user agreement:

Theft of Service: You will not connect the Service or any Comcast Equipment to more computers, either on or outside of the Premises, than are reflected in your account with us.

I'm sure others are the same. Also under "prohibited uses of the service" is "an end-point on a non-Comcast local area network or wide area network."

Now let me put the reading burden back on you. The TX bill reads, "A person commits an offense if, with the intent to harm or defraud a communication service provider, the person possesses or uses a communication device or unauthorized access device..." So yes, you are right, possession is an offense. You left off the crucial part, however, the "intent to harm or defraud" phrase. Same thing is in the MA bill, just in a lot more words.

Re:Hey you knee jerks...

[minard]

scroll down a bit further - that wasn't the offense I was referring to. This is from the TX bill:

SECTION 6. Sections 31.14(a), (b), and (d), Penal Code, are
amended to read as follows:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally
or knowingly manufactures, assembles, imports into the state,
exports out of the state, distributes, advertises, sells, or
leases, or offers for sale or lease:
(1) a communication device with an intent to:
(A) aid in the commission of an offense under
Section 31.12 or 31.13; or
(B) conceal from a communication service
provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of
origin or destination of any communication;

Note the "or" at the end of section 6, part (a) subpart (1)(A). The offense I was referring to was 6(a)(1)(B), which has no language about intent do defraud, harm or anything else. Just concealing the origin or destination from the service provider. Actually, just distributing, importing, etc etc equipment that could be used to do so.

Re:Hey you knee jerks...

[Call Me Black Cloud]

I guess it all hinges on to what "communication" refers. From reading the posts it seems as if most people think it refers to e-mail, for example, with the origin being the sender and the destination being the recipient. I think "communication" refers to the travel of data from the person/customer/end user to the service provider (ISP, satellite TV company). Perhaps a prohibited device would be something like pay-per-view filters.

We'll see what comes of it all...clearly the law needs to be clarified in some places. Thanks for the intelligent discussion.

Re:Reducing Security and Utility == Profit & J

[Gonarat]

This is ludicrous. Where will the fascism stop?

This stupidity won't stop under they kill the Goose that lays Golden Eggs (tm). Seriously, if I can't run a VPN, do P2P, ssh-tunneling, or run a server, why then spend the money for high-speed internet? If all I can (legally) do is browse the web and get e-mail, 56K dial-up is fine.

What all the *AA's and other big companies forget is that most people only have a limited amount of income to spend for entertainment and other "extras" -- they can make all the laws they want and charge all they want, but there's only so many dollars per month in the budget. If the cost of ISDN or cable internet cannot be justified, then it will not sell. No sale, no money in the Corporate coffers, and this law will end up costing them money. Only when the bottom line suffers will the fascism stop )or at least change.)

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure you can believe that..If you want to.But there's no need to play tough guy with God.Believe me,he DOES strike below the belt,I've felt it first hand,the first time I left his side.But I feel more buddy buddy with him now,after he started being cool again.

It's all about hunkering down and focusing on faith.You'd be surprised what a few like minds can accomplish when focusing prayer on a single idea.Now imagine the kind of power we could command if we had all the good souls contributing prayer.We could rock the shit out of this planet.We have our run of this place!

You guys should just take God and run with it.It's great!!

Question of definitions...

[OmniGeek]

IIRC, the FCC recently defined Internet service as an "information service" rather than a "communication service" so that they didn't have to apply common-carrier fairness restrictions to ISPs, notably cable providers. Is that subtlety likely to torpedo some of these bills that refer to "comminucation service provider", or does the bills' language sudestep this trap?

Re:Question of definitions...

[harmless_mammal]

The Texas version of this bill has its' own definition of a "communications service" that would make every home pc with a jabber server a "communications service provider". The FCC definition of a "communications service" is completely irrelevant.

Re:Reducing Security and Utility == Profit & J

[HeelToe]

• What all the *AA's and other big companies forget is that most people only have a limited amount of income to spend for entertainment and other "extras" -- they can make all the laws they want and charge all they want, but there's only so many dollars per month in the budget. If the cost of ISDN or cable internet cannot be justified, then it will not sell. No sale, no money in the Corporate coffers, and this law will end up costing them money. Only when the bottom line suffers will the fascism stop )or at least change.)

I think I have to agree with you. The ??AA ignore the fact that more choices in entertainment also create a dwindling demand for any single choice. I'm hopeful they all get taught a lesson by hurting their own bottom lines in a big way with some of their purchased legislation.

I really don't want to be in an America that goes something like: Plop on the couch, stop thinking, enjoy the latest episode of xxxx. If you fancy something, check out any of the products you've seen tonight on this episode of xxxx.

I know I spend my entertainment dollars cautiously. If my net connections stop providing me the ability to have fun, they'll eventually go away until I can find something fun again. Heck, maybe I'll get into packet radio or something.

Re:Dear Slashdot: Does God feed trolls? Y/N?

[Anonymous Coward]

They get hungry too ya know.

Quote is wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

"any communication device to receive ... any communication service without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider"...

Should be "any communication device to receive ... any communication service without the express written consent of Major League Baseball"...

Paraphrasing the MA bill text:

[mkoehr]

Removing some of the legalese, I read the text of what an Unlawful access device as:

"Unlawful access device." Any type of device which is primarily designed for the purpose of defeating or circumventing any technology used by the provider to protect transmissions from unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, access, decryption, disclosure, communication, transmission or re-transmission.

I don't know how NAT/SSH/Proxy server can be classified as an Unlawful Access Device under this definition. Sounds much more like they're going after cable descrablers and the like...

Huh?

[CaptainSuperBoy]

It appears you've completely missed the section we care about, (6)(a)(1)(B).

SECTION 6. Sections 31.14(a), (b), and (d), Penal Code, are amended to read as follows: (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly manufactures, assembles, imports into the state, exports out of the state, distributes, advertises, sells, or leases, or offers for sale or lease: (1) a communication device with an intent to: (A) aid in the commission of an offense under Section 31.12 or 31.13; or (B) conceal from a communication service provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication;

Read these *drafts* more carefully - they are OK

[MyTwoCentsWorth]

The MA bill just says "Whoever, with intent to defraud, etc...". I guess our lawmakers are a tad more educated than Colorado's... Seriously speaking, using the technologies to defraud should be illegal - stop whining, it's not the technology, it's the way you use it. Have fun, Daniel

The the moders

[Anonymous Coward]

To whoever modded the parent post Interesting, pay attention to its contents.

Yes, perhaps it can be used on forged email headers. But at what cost?

MOD PARENT UP; HE IS 100% CORRECT

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Visualize yourself a pot roast all day, but until you actually get up and make the damn thing, you will receive no nourishment. Daydreams and wishful thinking have no documented effect.

Um...this is already illegal

[guacamolefoo]

In effect, they would extend the already-extant laws relating to theft of cable TV services to any telecom service. For example, if your ISP charges per computer connected, using a router/NAT device would be illegal if these became law.

If your ISP charges per machine and you circumvent it, it is already theft of services and it is already illegal. Congress is, as usual, piling on when existing laws are sufficient.

The reason that you don't see many prosecutions is probably that police are doing things like, you know, arresting rapists and murderers. Snaking $5 from your ISP is hardly grand theft, and I don't think that federalizing the crime is really going to help out society much.

It is too bad that legislators too frequently look to the quantity of work as a benchmark of how "well" they are doing rather than looking to the quantity. Before too long, our society is going to need a law angioplasty to clear out all the crap that is clogging the arteries of discourse, commerce, and general life.

Coming from a lawyer,
GF.

Re:Um...this is already illegal

[guacamolefoo]

frequently look to the quantity of work as a benchmark of how "well" they are doing rather than looking to the quantity.

Speaking of quality...ugh. Strike that second "quantity" and make it "quality". Damn preview button.

GF.

Consider the following...

[mark-t]

Consider the following scenario: You receive an unsolicited email from a spammer who has somehow concealed his origin. Your ISP gets on your case for receiving a communication whose source was concealed.

"Woah!" you say, "I never asked for this communication in the first place!"

What happens then?

My guess... since they have no way to enforce it, this law will fall through the floor.

Re:Reducing Security and Utility == Profit & J

[Dawn Falcon]

"This stupidity won't stop under they kill the Goose that lays Golden Eggs (tm). Seriously, if I can't run a VPN, do P2P, ssh-tunneling, or run a server, why then spend the money for high-speed internet? If all I can (legally) do is browse the web and get e-mail, 56K dial-up is fine."

Broadband uptake is the US *is* slowing, no?

Don't forget those return addresses!

[TheSteve]

2) "Communication service" means a service directly or indirectly provided to facilitate the origination, transmission, emission, or reception of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature by any means, including:
(A) telephone or cellular telephone;
(B) wire or wireless, radio, microwave, electromagnetic, photoelectric, photo-electronic, fiber optical, photo-optical, cable television, satellite, or data transmission; or
(C) an Internet-based distribution system, network, or facility.

This bill appears to be focused primarily at digital services, but the current wording is so vague that it seems to also cover snail-mail in general, as well as other delivery and courier services.

You'd better not forget to put a return address on your letters. That could be considered concealing the existence or place of origin of your communication from a communication service
provider

Re:Don't forget those return addresses!

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. Place of Origin is the post office box on the corner of Fourth and Main.

Factual, but has very little value.

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, this fools a lot of people. Something bad happens so they search for something they have recently done that displeased $THEIR_DEITY. When something good happens they again try to find a specific event that must have pleased $THEIR_DEITY.

It's all psychological!

I doubt any ISP in these states are for this

[Anonymous Coward]

It wouldn't make it illigal to use NAT it owuld make it illigal to own and run a firewall system that could do NAT. This would include all ISP's, most companies, most govermental bodies. I don't know whoes lawers came up with these bills but it obviously wasn't an attempt to stop home networkers, it was just basic stupidity.

At the risk of being modded redundant...

[GojiraDeMonstah]

Are you a member of the EFF yet?

(You even get a Bitchen hat and t-shirt if you give a certain amount... chicks dig it, too...)

Do something about it

[Eggplant Wizard]

For those of you who disagree with this bill living in MA, attend the public hearing on April 2, 2003 at 10 AM. For those of you living in other applicable areas, find out what you can do about it in your neck of the woods. Lawmakers can't be expected to pass sensible legislation without the input of knowledgeable people.

The MA State Website has the location details.

The recipe for revolution!

[Ayandia]

I say we overthrow this crap! Then we could write some very simple rules that even the narrowest minds can grasp.

1. Don't kill anyone unless they're trying to kill you. Even then, aim to disable or maim.
2. Don't hurt/damage anyone unless they're trying to hurt/damage you (or that person has asked nicely).
3. Don't lie / cheat / steal.
4. Don't screw with other people's stuff without permission.
5. Don't have sex with children. (Unless you ARE a child...then make sure there's less than a 2 year age difference). (Under 18 = Children)
6. Everybody pays the same percent in taxes, or works to maintain our stuff if they can't afford it.
7. Don't piss people off on purpose.
8. Ignore things that other people do that piss you off unless they break these rules.

Obviously, this needs fine tuning. I think I covered the major issues though: Life, Property, Sex, Taxes, and Free Speech. Let's not have the same morons that are fine tuning the rest of our stuff do it though.

Dammit, if I was in charge....well, we'd really be in for it, but we could do it wirelessly.

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Dawn Falcon]

"Choice! I criticize religion for basically doing what they all do best... damn anyone who doesn't follow them. You did exactly that. "you're gonna be fucked without God."

Sorry but I would rather think on my own than be told what to believe and forced to follow it."

That's Christianity. Don't confuse it with all religions.

Fex Judaism has a specific block on preaching to non-Jews to make em convert...

I feel your pain

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the co-eds still have the option of just grazing on the lawn to save residence costs?

they're not OK

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you on at NATed network downloading music on Kazaa? You've just defrauded the RIAA bunch.

Re:they're not OK

[harmless_mammal]

Yes, but RIAA isn't offering me a communications service. You'd only be defrauding or harming RIAA if you subscribed to one of their services and were redistributing their content on Kazaa/Gnutella/Freenet...

Re:they're not OK

[Anonymous Coward]

and were redistributing their content on Kazaa/Gnutella/Freenet... ...or downloading content whose owners they represent.

Re:they're not OK

[Apro im]

i.e. Buying a CD and ripping it to your shared Kazaa/etc. folder?

Should lawmakers just do nothing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Article = reactionary drivel. Read the proposed bills yourself and do some critical thinking.

Its a tough call. Make the wording too broad, and other (legal) activities are negatively affected; make it too narrow and clever boys with minimal computer/electronics skills will find ways to circumvent it. I'm not saying I agree with the wording or scope of the bills, just that I think the intent is good. As law, legislation like this should only affect those who perform these actions "with intent to defraud". (spare me the slippery-slope print cartridge argument please).

Common sense comes into play here. No one cares about me and my little NAT device as long as I'm not stealing services, attacking other systems, or posing as someone else in an attempt to defraud someone.

All I hear are moans and complaints when anyone tries anything to combat thievery or misuse. What would you have the lawmakers do? What are your suggestions as to how to stop "theft of or tampering with certain communication or information services"? Have you communicated your ideas to your representatives? If Government never gets it right, what is your plan to fight this kind of activity?

Re:Should lawmakers just do nothing?

[minard]

I disagree very strongly.

The argument of "it's ok, because they won't care about your little NAT box" is absolutely, positively, definitely, not good enough. If you're ok with being made a criminal just as long as nobody comes after you, fine. But it's sure as hell not good enough for me.

As you say, this kind of law should only apply when actions are performed "with intent to defraud". But that isn't what it says (and yes, I did read the bill. Suggest you do the same). The article written by Prof Felten points to the relevant clause, which says none of that. Possession of equipment which conceals the intended origin or destination of a communication from the communication service provided is proposed to be made an offense. Period.

What is seems to me is, this law looks like a classic trojan horse: there's stuff about preventing theft of service, yadda yadda, with intent to defraud, all of which looks perfectly reasonable. But then there's this other, mostly unrelated and egregious stuff buried in it.

Suggestion to ISPs: if you're really concerned about theft of service by people "splitting the bill" start charging by the megabyte actually transferred. Then it works the other way around. The more bandwidth people (or their neighbors) use, the more they pay. If people want to open up a Wi-Fi access point to passers by, ok. All good. More revenue to the ISP whenever anybody actually uses it.

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Christianity.

No, it's not. While some Christian religions are less "pushy" than others, they are all a type of cult that basically says "do this or God will kill you."

There is such a thing as having strong morals because you know it's right. Morals don't have to be forced on people.

IAAL (I Am A Layperson)

[poot_rootbeer]

What's left unspecified is the definition of "harm."

Lawyers and lawmakers understand specific connotations of the word 'harm' as it relates to commerce, even if we laypeople don't.

I think it's rather apparent that the my use of an alternate IP telephony company results in lost revenue for my ISP.

That's lost potential revenue. You're not depriving the ISP of anything they would have otherwise had an inalienable claim to.

Re:IAAL (I Am A Layperson)

[Ryan Amos]

A bit OT, isn't the argument you used for potential revenue the exact opposite of the one used by the RIAA/MPAA/BSA?

Re:IAAL (I Am A Layperson)

[PyromanFO]

" A bit OT, isn't the argument you used for potential revenue the exact opposite of the one used by the RIAA/MPAA/BSA?"

Yes, but they are lying.

Re:IAAL (I Am A Layperson)

[mpe]

That's lost potential revenue. You're not depriving the ISP of anything they would have otherwise had an inalienable claim to.

It the RIAA and MPAA can make the argument that loss of potential revenue equates to "harm" then any other corporate entity can probably claim the same kind of thing.

Airwaves are not free.

[AB3A]

There are laws such as the Electronics Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1996 which actually do make it illegal to receive cellular telephone signals with a scanner.

Those of you who are a bit older may remember the likes of SuperTV which used to broadcast an encoded signal on the air. Many built receive decoders. SuperTV didn't last long. HBO used to broadcast on the Multi-Point Distribution service on 2154 MHz. Anyone remember those "stopsign" boards and coffee can antennas? Those were illegal too under a twisted interpretation the FCC made using certain clauses of the original Radio Secrecy section of the Communications Act of 1934.

No, the FCC is not your friend. The airwaves are not free in the USA. Ask any Scanner enthusiast what they think of the holes in the coverage of their scanners. Ask anyone who tries to receive Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) police traffic these days.

Here in the USA, the airwaves are not free for you to receive legally. I guess practical realities such as detection, enforcement, or even the old maxim of radio ("never say anything on the radio you wouldn't want the whole world to hear") are lost on our legislatures. This is where ignorant "feel good" legistlation will get you. I don't know whether we should laugh or cry in the face this kind of stupidity.

Re:Airwaves are not free.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are laws such as the Electronics Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1996 which actually do make it illegal to receive cellular telephone signals with a scanner.

This is still one of the best/worst examples of "security through obscurity" ever. Unblocked scanners were "in the wild" long before the act passed, and those legally made or imported before the ban was in effect remained perfectly legal to own (if not use). For those with malicious intent, the technology to make a receiver for analog cellular frequencies is relatively trivial--the frequencies are comparable to UHF TV channels, so suitable parts are widely available. It made people feel better that their neighbors weren't listening to their expensive (at the time) cell phone, but it offered no real measure of security. A few years later, network TV news played tapes of a congress-critter's incriminating conversation during a re-election campaign--a conversation that was illegally intercepted on a scanner and divulged to persons not a party to the conversation (an act which was illegal before passage of the ECPA, under the Communications Act of 1934. The only way cell phones became semi-secure was the deployment of CDMA digital phones. The chipping codes for the spread spectrum handsets provide at least some measure of privacy, as the code must be cracked to get at the content. Casual interception is not possible, it takes a conscious effort to aquire the message.

With the decline and looming end of in-the-clear analog cell phone service, will they finally dump this piece of legislative silliness? I'm not holding my breath waiting for it!

Re:Airwaves are not free.

[Hacker-at-Large]

First, IANAL. Strangely, though, the FCC may be our friend in this. If I'm not mistaken, regulation and legislation of communications is limited solely to the FCC. One might successfully argue that the states do not have jurisdiction to prosecute such a "crime."

Of course, if the FCC buys into this sort of thing, it's an entirely different game.

Re:Airwaves are not free.

[MntlChaos]

I don't know whether we should laugh or cry in the face this kind of stupidity. The world is a comedy to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel.
Or, in terms the average /.er understands:

if(you.think()==true)laugh();
if(you.feel()==tr ue)cry();

Foot! Aim! Fire!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

How much do you want to bet the state, local, and federal government are in violation of this proposed bill? I can almost gaurantee they are purchasing their Internet access through an ISP, and therefore would be affected by this bill.

In other news, the President is serving time in jail for aiding and abetting terrorists who use NATs and firewalls, well know Weapons of Mass Destruction.

GPS is Sprint phone

[wynlyndd]

"to conceal ... from any communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication."

I live in Texas and have one of the new sprintpcs phones with GPS inside) There is currently an option to turn it off. What if I am not allowed to in the future. (ooo what if it is not really off now?)

Not going to happen....

[tweakr]

Think about it - if they REALLY did put this law through, unless they have IPv6 *fully* ready to use at the given time (the song "Dream" comes to mind at this point), we'd run out of IP addresses instantly, and there would be hordes of people and companies that would have to shut down...

After all, how many businesses (that have even just email and basic networks set up) do you know of that do *not* use NAT or Proxy servers, specifically b/c they can only afford 4-24 IP addresses from the ISP, and have dozens or thousands of computers behind their connection server(s) [NAT or Proxy] in order to support these? There are even ISP's that do it this way, as I recall....

Not to mention such companies as Microsoft, Dell, and others that have so many users that they have to operate in such a way (eg NAT/firewall/Proxy)....

If the legislators (*cough* idiots *cough*) were to actually put through this law, it would kill any company that had more computers than IP's that needed to be online. It can't happen w/out DRAMATICALLY affecting the entire business structures of the USA, which they're not going to do....

*ponders* come to think of it, I wonder how many government agencies use NAT/firewalls or proxy servers - it would be hysterical to find out that the group of legislators who put this bill into consideration use such technology in their own office, wouldn't it? *hehe*

Re:Not going to happen....

[mpe]

After all, how many businesses (that have even just email and basic networks set up) do you know of that do *not* use NAT or Proxy servers, specifically b/c they can only afford 4-24 IP addresses from the ISP, and have dozens or thousands of computers behind their connection server(s) [NAT or Proxy] in order to support these?

Or who have hundreds/thousands of telephones connected to a PBX, even a private telephone network. Consider a company with several sites and a telephone system which routes outgoing telephone calls to the nearest site before connecting to the public network. That would be covered by these kind of laws and the telephone companies can moan about all their lost potential profit.

If the legislators (*cough* idiots *cough*) were to actually put through this law, it would kill any company that had more computers than IP's that needed to be online.

It could do in any company which needed telecommunications. Nothing here appears specific to IP.

*ponders* come to think of it, I wonder how many government agencies use NAT/firewalls or proxy servers - it would be hysterical to find out that the group of legislators who put this bill into consideration use such technology in their own office, wouldn't it? *hehe*

It certainly wouldn't be the first time legislators have shot themselves in the foot.

MA Draft Legislation

[Anonymous Coward]

After having read the draft legislation that is currently under consideration by the Committee for Criminal Justice, on the outside it appears to be an attempt to create penalties for breaking encryption or other forms of protection for communication services, perhaps to set fines for activities like cable modem uncapping.

On closer inspection though, it would make it illegal to hide the 'origin' of any communication from the service provider or law enforcement. Since 'origin' is vague, I suspect that this could include any security or routing scheme that did not directly identify the machine or person that the communication came from.

Even worse is the tiered penalties for these activities. If you use more than 5 devices, including software you are subject to greater and greater fines. Each device can be a separate charge as well. Over 10 the penalties get worse.

While the legislation is probably supported by one or all of the major telecommunications providers, and is likely directed towards theft of service, it could very well be used to make your home router or wireless network illegal.

Re:MA Draft Legislation

[mpe]

Even worse is the tiered penalties for these activities. If you use more than 5 devices, including software you are subject to greater and greater fines. Each device can be a separate charge as well. Over 10 the penalties get worse.

Not good news if you are a company with a few hundred employees. Each of which have a computer and telephone. But you only have a handful of IP addresses and a handful of PSTN phone lines.

Definition of origin?

[amalcon]

I'm not all that fluent in legalese, so I haven't read the bill, but does it clearly define "origin?" What prevents the "origin" of the communication I'm sending from being "my lan," and thus allowing NAT to avoid the scope of this law?

ISPs

[Dark Fire]

The internet is just that, an inter-connected network of networks. The endpoint of one network is a network containing one or more devices. Phone service provides a phone line, and end point, you can hook as many phones up in your house as line current permits (more with special equipment). The primary value in the internet is the utility of it as general purpose network. All kinds of new services can be added. The cornucopia of possible services have different requirements, some need a lot of bandwidth, some need low latency, and some need both. ISPs have several areas in which to differentiate there services:

(1) Reliability of Service (how much down time will you accept?)
(2) Bandwidth (5GB/month, 10GB/month, upstream? downstream?)
(3) Latency (40ms, 80ms, 100ms)
(4) Consistency of Service (do you need a certain minimum transfer rate to always be available? do you need a certain minimum latency to always be available? how often?

Some other important items:

(1) When I hit my bandwidth cap, do you shutoff my connection or bill me the amount I went over. What if I pay for 5gb/month and then I am willing to pay for up 2gb/month over before the connection is shutoff?
(2) I need to be able to control all my account information via the web (and maybe a phone menu) and make adjustments as needed. If I want to know how much of my 5gb/month cap I used, I can just go to the web and find out easily.
(3) If I want lower latency or more bandwidth over my per monthly fee, make it easy for me to see the cost and buy it quickly if the price is right.
(4) Sell or lease VoIP equipment and local/long distance phone service via my connection. For this particular case, I pay a monthly fee for normal broadband and a fee for local service. Whenever I use VoIP, give that particular service low latency and bandwidth priority whenever I use it on my connection. That can be the value add of the VoIP service over just trying to do it over my normal broadband connection. Selling services that bundle a bandwidth or latency upgrade for just that service provide the value add.

The phone network will be used less and less frequently. If the internet doesn't kill it, the cellular networks will. The internet is a general purpose network and this fact will continue to devalue the current phone network. The value in the old phone network is in the part of it that cost the most $$$ to setup, the wiring and fiber that was run to all the homes and businesses. There is alot of opportunity for those who can accomplish the items listed above.

Re:this is NOT patriotism

[symbolic]

There is a big difference between a patriot (someone who willingly supports whatever are efforts required sustain a country's constitutionally-defined structure, and constitutionally-guaranteed freedom), and a nationalist (someone who blindly accepts whatever atrocities their government wishes to enact). This begs the question as to who the 'patriots' really are - the people protesting this kind of legislation, and perhaps even the war effort in Iraq, or the ones who blindly accept it as a 'cost of doing freedom.' Oh, the irony.

They Be

[Anonymous Coward]

Technoniggers. Just moron politicians who need to be shot at dawn. Write to these people and let them know they are shitheads.

One more excellent law to ignore

[Michael McGinnis]

I think that the most appropriate response to a legal restriction this stoopid is to just ignore it. Secure your VPNs and if anyone complains that they can't read your data, sue them for trying to read your data.

In communist Massachusetts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Adelphia has the Cape Cod area. ATT has the other major areas. Verizon is big for DSL.

This bill will pass with flying colors here. I have no doubts on that.

mod parent insightful!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

mod parent insightful!!!

Aside from how stuipd it is...

[taustin]

... it would at least make it illegal to run an open relay mail server for spammers to rape.

Not that is has a chance of passing, or surviving a legal challenge if it does.

Even worse.

[booch]

TV and radio. They didn't explicitly give you permission. Well OK, you could still watch/listen, since the proposed law says "with the intent to defraud or cause harm". But the stations could convincingly argue that skipping commercials is intentionally causing them harm.

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

While some Christian religions are less "pushy" than others, they are all a type of cult that basically says "do this or God will kill you."

This is not what Christianity is. This is what ignorant fools think Christianity is this. Christianity's basic message is this:

"We are all totally hosed because we choose to do evil things. Every human being who has ever existed has always chosen to do evil things. We may do some good things, but we also do evil. God is perfect. Perfection cannot coexist with evil. Therefore God cannot coexist with us. God has provided a way to bridge the gap, but it is not forced on us. We retain the right to choose: to accept or reject. Those who choose not to accept the bridge will remain hosed.

Do you see the difference? Check it out.

Even worse....

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever move into a house or apartment where the old owner called and cancled cable service, but the cable service did not come out and disconnect it? Happens all the time because if the cable guy fails to disconnect you, no one complains to the boss. When I worked for a company that the cable company farmed out work to, we all the time logged disconnects as done when we didn't actually go out and do them.

Under this bill's language, occupying that home would allow the cable company to sue you to collect cable fees for every month you lived there, even if you didn't even know the cable was connected!

yeah, those dumb Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny you should mention how dumb Americans are when you can't even spell the difference between THEY'RE, THERE, and THEIR. Your punctuation is way off; you have run on sentences and sentences without subjects.

Fscking idiot.

How to spread your own "Gang Logic"

[JohnDenver]

DISCLAIMER: I'm not going to be so presumptuous to say I know what should be done with Iraq. The only thing I know is that almost everybody else is full of shit. (That John Denver's full of shit...)

Having said that, I'd like to point out that this is the same EFFECTIVE logic used by gang leaders, warlords, and other criminal elements to incite their people to war. You're probably asking, "How can I use this exploit this logic on my own band of thugs?" Maybe I want to use this sort of logic to have people unwittingly agree to unfair circumstance, by using an engineered scenario. How do we do it?

Here's how it works

1. Create a specific situation that's "impossible" to disagree with... (This is a good situation)
2. Explain the situation so the listener doesn't pay attention to the specific circumstances of the situation.
3. Exploit this lack of attention to details so that your situation seems analogous to the argument you REALLY want to make.

Let's see how it works in this situation. Let's engineer a scenario.

SCENARIO: Total Pacifism exercised by a single person will NEVER stop total tyranny in another single person. (How can you argue with that?)

1. Use neo-violent slapstick humor to engage the reader into a funny scenario with a stupid pacifist, and a clever "realist" posing as a tyrant.
2. Let reader assume this is anecdotal of ALL pacifist/tyranny interactions.
3. Demonstrate it. *PUNCH*
4. Reader should be laughing. THAT was unexpected!
5. Have the clever "realist" recite worn out rhetoric used by the pacifist.
6. Demonstrate the moot point of the rhetoric with an unprovoked *PUNCH*
7. Ha! Ha! What a boob!
8. DON'T mention the availability of Economic, Political, and other disincentives against an unprovoked attack.
9. Follow up humor with dramatic effect. Quickly changing to a serious tone tends to accentuate the seriousness of the moral.
10. Do not provide in-depth analysis, numerical data, or cite further information to allow reader to explore the complicated dynamics of full scale wars, gang wars, political wars, economic wars, family conflicts, feuds, the nature of fear, tactics, etc.

Allow the reader to conclude the most primitive obtuse rules-of-thumb :
The less information you provide, the dumber the conclusions.

HAPPY (GANG/POLITICAL/ECONOMIC/FULL SCALE/FEUDAL) WAR MONGERING!

All too true...

[wowbagger]

What you say is all too true - what they don't know they cannot misunderstand.

A couple a weeks ago I was down south (Arizona) and hit an INS checkpoint. All they did was wave me through, but I was a bit worried - I'd just come back from the International Wireless Communications Expo, and had three Motorola trunked radios, 2 Thales radios, and two IFR 2975 communications service monitors in my trunk (I work for IFR), and I dreaded having to explain that.

'Course, I'd have told them to call their communications center in Washington, DC. and ask for the manager. He'd have recognized my name....

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah,it's pretty tough to get one over on God.It's nothing like cheating on your taxes.I see him kinda like Saurion with that eye.Not in a bad way though.Like in a kick ass take names kinda way,but for your own good (salvation).
So get out there and test those scales..Try to balance those fuckers.We humans have been trying a long time.Will YOU be the one?

Remember it's not about trying gain Gods favor in a vain sense..Only Satan would attempt move so bold as this.
So if your down,you have my support (prayers).

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

If your provider charges per computer, and you use NAT to host multiple PCs, then it is ALREADY ILLEGAL. You are violating the contract which outlines your terms of service, and can be sued or have your service terminated

Nope. It isn't illegal.

It might be a breach of contract, but you haven't committed a crime. The ISP may wish to make you THINK that is the case, but ask any lawyer. Breach of contract isn't a crime, just a tort that the ISP can sue you for to collect actual damages.

Re:Reducing Security and Utility == Profit & J

[HiThere]

I already haven't seen a justification for upgrading, though I consider it several times a month. Recently I've been thinking that if I fix things so that my wife can be on at the same time that I can, that might justify it. ... Oops!

They won't know, though. The loss of potential markets doesn't show anywhere. (That's why the Untied Linux folk can say that SCO isn't hurting them.)

Single System

[rusty0101]

All of the discrete components of the computer at my house may on their own function with or without the active participation of the other components of the system at my house. On their own, they do not perform all the the tasks that I can accomplish as they are constructed at this time.

This means that the single mac address that my internet service provider observes when viewing my network connection is fundamentally representative of all of the devices that are considered a part of, or peers of that device. I happen to own a cluster computer doing independent processing of a variety of functions.

I may own a functioning 10 node cluster, however the number of nodes in the cluster is variable, and the participants are all acting at my behest.

As the nodes are not all running the same operating system, nor are they running some form of failover, or even common management system, this cluster is anything but a beowolf cluster. Further if I sum the discreete processing power of the components of my cluster, it does not approach the processing power of a single system built with the newest fastest processors, but at the same time I can afford it, and it works.

-Rusty

A good thing?

[Anonymous Coward]

See, my net contract explicitly allows all of that what most of you are crying for. (p2p: yes, connection sharing: yes, servers: yes, static ip: yes for a few extra bucks, whole ip blocks available as well... etc) And doesn't cost heck of a lot.

To me, this is way better than some crap that either forbids or is unclear about the stuff you use anyway.

Now, i know i'm lucky, but the point is that laws like this and some enforcement might actually make some demand for providers that give even home users "the real thing". There's no reason for non-monopolistic ISP to limit its legal use besides bandwidth issues. And for that there's a thing called traffic shaping. (which is really a good thing when done well)

No no no no no

[tkrotchko]

" Mechanics liens are very old, and common. They may even originate in English common law."

Mechanics liens are not old, although they are common.

I assure you they have no basis in common law.

No, I am not a lawyer, but yes, I have considerable experience with liens.

They're a costly joke on homeowners. They secretly shift financial responsibility to a homeowner. Effectively, it makes a "contractor" an "employee" of the homeowner without the normal control of receivables and payables that an employer normally has.

Accept Accept Accept ....

[OldHawk777]

Corporate Welfare must be supported in a Constitutional Democracy oppressed by a Capitalist Republic. Separate Church and State, and Separate Corporate and State.

OldHawk777

Reality is a self-induce hallucination.

Nice use of the word...

[Anonymous Coward]

... extant.

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not what Christianity is. This is what ignorant fools think Christianity is this.

I know this is was they teach. But what they practice is something else. I know what Christianity is... I messed around in it for 25 years. I'm done; it's a joke.

Define "computer"

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if my ISP charges me for internet service on a per-computer basis, what does that really mean? Say I've got a dual processor PowerMac. There are two CPU's, but that's only the beginning. There are also processors in the keyboard, mouse, power management system, printer, scanner, digital camera, etc. The number of processors that are connected in some way to the internet varies, but it's significantly greater than 1.

And how does this situation differ significantly from one where I've got two single processor units connected through an AirPort hub that does NAT? Or better, say I've got three dozen machines networked together and working as a cluster, all of them working together on some task?

You could take this the other way, too... maybe I've only got one single processor machine, but I'm using several of those nifty tablet things that let me use my machine from other places in the house. Heck, maybe I'll even lend my upstairs neighbor a tablet so that he can do some research over the net.

Breach of Contract != Crime

[EldritchGeek]

A breach of contract is not a crime. In fact, a basic tenet of modern contract law is that there is such a thing as an "efficient breach" -- that is, there are situations when it is economically efficient to not perform on a contract.

There is a *huge* difference between the ability of your "communication service provider" to sue you in civil court, and the ability of said provider to sic the prosecutor on you.

You are Fodder - Shit in the Making

[Anonymous Coward]

You are fodder for the corporations. Thats it.

Your purpose in life is to work for them, to fund them by investing, to buy from them and to shut up and be nice otherwise.

In short, you are to be treated like shit - after all thats what fodder becomes - and the corporations and governments are just anticipating that transfiguration a bit early.

Orwell had it wrong in "1984" - it is not the governments that are seeking ultimate control over your body and mind, it is the corporations. Governments are only convenient fictions - puppets to impose the notions coming from the corporations. Governments that get in the way are just obstacles to be removed.

oh, great...

[minard]

...a law that would make VPNs illegal.

NAT is probably arguable - depends on how stringently you interpret the language about "origin". The question is "origin of communication to what level of detail?". Arguably, NAT doesn't contravene any of that stuff, because you don't conceal which premises the traffic is coming from or going to, even though you can't see the specific machine.

VPNs are a different matter. In that case, the ISP has absolutely no idea what the eventual destination of the communciation is. So, forget about any kind of remote corporate network access, like Wi-Fi hotspots, or even encrypted dial up. Not only that, if your laptop has software capable of doing VPN, or has dial-up software that does encryption, it would be illegal to take it into any states that pass such a law, irrespective of whether you even use it.

Nice one. Great job, guys! Keep making sure corporate networks are completely insecure!

Harm is too broad

[Anonymous Coward]

A person may have their reputation harmed by a article describing true events. An anonymous article on Freenet doing this would therefore be illegal. Harming someone is not always wrong.

Furthermore, using download services may be seen as harming the RIAA as a whole even if any one user is not performing any illegal action. Thus they could be seen as illegal. This is a sideways attempt at attacking these type of services.

About time...

[PJPorch]

It seems to me that this makes the mere possesion of any device that hides the origin of a communication is illegal. So as it has been said many times before, NAT would be illegal. Since windows includes internet connection sharing using NAT.
Is windows finally illegal?

we can only hope....

Dual use... I do it every day...

[CBravo]

Questionable? I never ever use telnet these days, for good reasons. Secondly, certain accounts I have only accept my home IP number... for security reasons.

I don't care about the abuse. It is dual use... I do it every day for the right reasons... I would say this is necessary for me.

I don't understand !

[Anonymous Coward]

Every day that pass by I understand less and less all these stupid laws.

I'm feeling that I'm begining NOT to care about all those things. If things continue this way, I'll not care if I outlaw myself by using security programs (for encryption of data or communications) that I want to use.

Nobody will stop me. Prefer to go in jail before stoping using responsibly my computer!

It doesn't outlaw NAT

[edwardd]

NAT isn't outlawed by these bills, but any VPN technology is, as well as any access to proxies via SSL, since that 'conceals' the souce/destination.

Laws like this are quite disturbing, and if enacted could cripple business.

- Imagine not being able to do business at your local bank, because they can't use their VPN to communicate with the main office?

- How about not being able to fill a prescription at the drugstore, becase they can't have a secure channed as requireed by HIPPA back to the main office?

- Imagine not being able to execute a trade through your broker, because the financial industry has a HEAVY reliance on encrypted communications channels, partly to comply with teh GLBA.

Laws like this contradict so many existing laws that if it does get passed, it wont against any legitimate bush-back by a large company. The real problem is that small companies and individuals are ripe for persecution.

Does anyone remember Dimitri Skylarov?

Re:It doesn't outlaw NAT

[harlows_monkeys]

NAT isn't outlawed by these bills, but any VPN technology is, as well as any access to proxies via SSL, since that 'conceals' the souce/destination

I disagree. Every packet that comes out of my computer on a VPN or SSL connection has both the source and destination unconcealed. They are both in the IP header.

Re:It doesn't outlaw NAT

[edwardd]

Well, VPN's tunnel traffic. Without decrypting the traffic, you can only see where the VPN terminates, not where the actual traffic endpoints are. If I VPN into my office, I can establisg an RDP session to a server in the internal network, ssh to my desktop & all kinds of things. Anyone in the path can sniff the traffic all they want, but they won't see where I'm going, because the application layer endpoints are encrypted within the VPN tunnel.

As far as SSL & proxies, if you use an SSL proxy (such as anonymizer's commercial offering) the IP endpoints will show that you're connection to the proxy, and the encrypted payloads will not show the actual destination of the traffic involved.

The law works both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

The MA bill defines a communications service as

'(2) "Communication service. " Any service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation to facilitate the lawful origination, transmission, emission or reception of [any kind of data transmission]'

So if I recieve any compensation for using the internet (possibly including working at home, but IANAL), then I am providing a communications service.

The bill defines a communications service provider as
'(ii) any person or entity owning or operating any fiber optic, photo-optical, electromagnetic, photoelectronic, cable television, satellite, Internet-based, telephone, wireless, microwave, data transmission or radio distribution system, network or facility;'

which includes anyone that connects a computer to the internet. This means that I am a communications service provider.

The section on offenses says:
'Any person commits an offense if he knowingly: [uses] any communication device:

(i) for the commission of a theft of a communication service or to receive, intercept, disrupt, transmit, re-transmits, decrypt, acquire or facilitate the receipt, interception, disruption, transmission, re-transmission, decryption or acquisition of any communication service without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider;'

So if I am recieving any compensation for using the internet to send data, nobody is lawfully allowed to intercept it without my express permission. I have an agreement with my ISP which probably allows them to snoop on my traffic, but I don't have any agreements with their ISP, or with my friends' ISPs. So if my friend's ISP snoops on my traffic (sent to my friend), they are in violation of the law. I wonder how far this could actually make it in court.

Caller ID

[Esion Modnar]

OK, I don't have it, don't want it.

When my phone company tries to sell it, I tell them that the only people I want it to work for (telemarketers), it doesn't. You want to sell it (I tell them), make it so I can target the dirtbag trying to sell me a Bahamas vacation or vinyl siding.

There is a legal avenue of response.

[BraveLittleHamster]

This is ridiculus. After you punch me, I simply go to my nearest LAW ENFORCEMENT BODY/AGENT and have you arrested. There is no deep lesson here other than violent attack is best handled by the proper authorities.

It seems to me that this is an argument for going to the UN. As it stands, the encounter you postulate is perfectly managable without a violent response. Vigilate responses are only justified when there is no functional legal avenue of resolution. Obviously, functional is a subjective term and thus our current situation. In Bush's estimation, the legal avenue was too slow to be effective... I hope his estimation is more polished that his vocabulary is.

-BLH

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[Anonymous Coward]

that criticism is unfortunately true a lot of the time. I wish it weren't but I can't claim that that's not the case a fair bit of the time.

But I can say that it's also false a fair bit of the time. Most of the Christians I know practice what they preach. I do. This is not to say that I'm pefect, (see above for comments about humans and perfection), but I know that God isn't looking to kill us for our sins.

If you're done with Christianity, that's unfortunate. But I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't tar me and my friends with the same brush as the people in your past.

Thanks. (And sorry about the anonymous posting, but this thread is just a LITTLE off topic) :)

More self contradictory laws

[Crashmarik]

Anyone else notice our legal system continuously contradicts itself and the lawyers seem to work very hard to add to the confusion.

From the sound of it all these state laws will be in direct opposition to existing federal statutes.

Examples
1. The federal bank privacy regulations governing online banking and wire transfers allready mandate secure communications. I can't wait to see banks making swift transactions in the clear.
2. The upcoming reforms for health insurance and all transactions concerning electronic transmission of patient information, require secure encrypted protocols on both ends.
3. Almost all remote work on government projects requires secure encrypted and firewalled communication. I am not talking NSA spook stuff either, if you work for the IRS, the SSA, or just about any other federal agency and most state agencies.

Ahh well its always been a tennent of american government that being elected is defacto qualification to make law.

VPN illegal?

[canajin56]

Lets see, the first part of the bill deals with redefining access fraud. It defines it to be obtaining a service by giving fradulant information, or by charging it to another's account without express permission. This makes it illegal to make a long distance phone call from somebody elses house without asking them, among other things. It would also make signing on to AOL with somebody else's ID illegal. It has nothing to do with NAT or VPN or anything like that.

Part 2 is the interesting bit. It deals with unlawful devices, kinda like the DMCA
The bills class "Unlawful device" as any device which is primarily designed, built, or used for, or is advertised as capible of, defeating or circumventing a service providers attemps "to protect any such communication, data, audio or video services, programs or transmissions from unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, access, decryption, disclosure, communication, transmission or re-transmission."

From what I can see, VPN does none of those things. You are authorized by the ISP to send and receive data. You are not re-transmitting data. Decryption. Well...that is tricky. Do the data from the other end belong to the ISP, or the person sending it? If the person sending it, then you are fine, because you have permission to decrypt this data. And I don't recall anything in my ISP's contract that says any information I send through their network becomes their property...although with lawyers you never know...

NAT, on the other hand, violates the part about re-transmitting data. Again, this is only a problem if the ISP owns or licences all data sent through their system. If not, then, by the nature of how TCP/IP works, the sender must grant implicit permission to retransmit, or the data would never make it past the first node.

So, depending on whether or not an ISP has ownership of all data transmitted through their system, this either will cause no problems, or will make the Internet itself illegal, because it WORKS by re-transmission of packets. Also, if the ISP owns the data, then it would be illegal to download a password protected .ZIP file, or connect to an SSL site.

One thing it DEFINATLY will make illegal is something I just saw on /. yesterday. Somebody has written a nifty little webpage that tunes into the radio in Miami and streams it to you. That is illegal due to the re-transmission limitations.

Another thing that would be illegal under this law is a cordless phone, also due to the re-transmission limitations. Your telephone service contract would need an additional clause that specifically permited you to use a cordless phone.

As a side note, here is what I get from my Cable ISP:

2 Dynamic IP addresses. +5$ a month for each additional one

Permission to use NAT

5 megabit downstream (I usually only get 3, but oh well ;)

500 kilobit downstream (Although the network is choked, so rarely get more than 200)

No hard limits on bandwidth, although they send polite letters asking you to try and cut back if you use more than a few gigs of upstream bandwidth in a month.

7 e-mail addresses
Price: $37.50CDN per month, which is around $25USD

Re:VPN illegal?

[minard]

as per an earlier post, this is the bit that I think VPNs would violate (from the proposed TX act):

SECTION 6. Sections 31.14(a), (b), and (d), Penal Code, are
amended to read as follows:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally
or knowingly manufactures, assembles, imports into the state,
exports out of the state, distributes, advertises, sells, or
leases, or offers for sale or lease:
(1) a communication device with an intent to:
(A) aid in the commission of an offense under
Section 31.12 or 31.13; or
(B) conceal from a communication service
provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of
origin or destination of any communication;

specifically, 6(a)(1)(B)

Re:VPN illegal?

[canajin56]

I see, I looked at the other one because the document was formatted better... IANAL, but that still may not apply, since the packets themselves, which are the data you are sending though their service, still contain the origin and destination.

I see it this way. You have a big business, with more than once office building. Memos are passed around within an office in little envelopes. These envelopes have a "To" and "From" indicating the person it is to, and who it is from, and their respective departments. Once a day the little envelopes intended for people in other buildings are put in BIG envelopes which are mailed to the different buildings. All these big envelopes have on them are the business name, the address of the building that sent them, and the address of the building that they are for.

Are they hiding origin and destination information from the postal service?

Re:VPN illegal?

[minard]

IANAL either, but my interpretation is that a VPN tunnel, by embedding the final destination of the communication inside an encrypted wrapper, is hiding the destination. Actually, I'm pretty sure that the kind of thing that a VPN tunnel does is precisely what what meant to be covered, although clearly the drafters didn't see the other implications.

Then...

[Aexia]

the "idiot" pulls a gun out and caps your ass.

This is called escalation.

Lesson over. Class dismissed.

Re:Then...

[bmalia]

Ok, lets say they "cap yo ass" after you punch 'em in the nose. Don't you think this would be a huge deterrent for the next guy who wants to come along and punch 'em in the nose? The point is, if you let people get away with punching you in the nose, people are going to keep doing it.

Almost everybody has missed the point

[ralphclark]

The proposed legislation is bankrolled by the telecoms industry and is intended to stamp out small companies offering VoIP (Voice over IP) services.

If VoIP takes off in a big way, the price of long distance calls will fall through the floor and the telecoms companies will not be able to sell metered voice telephone calls any more.

Needless to say they will fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening.

The proposed legislation will give the force of law to their T&C when (as your ISP or your ISP's ISP) they give you a broadband service contract which bans VoIP calls over your internet connection.

What about RIFD tags

[bozobob]

My guess is that you wont be able to disable/destroy RIFD tags on clothing/packages. They seem to be covered under this proposal

Questioning authority is helpful.

[jbn-o]

If you're not attempting to cheat your ISP (running 6 machines for the price of one if the ISP you use charges per machine or something) you should have no problem. If you do want to run your 6 machines just pay the extra or switch ISPs.

At what point do you begin to question your ISP's policies? If there's no technical reason to need more than one WAN-side IP address (such as using NAT), what's the point of paying for additional IP addresses? Why shouldn't the ISP change their business model to charge for bandwidth used or limit the bandwidth any user can use so they can't use more than the user's service fee can pay for?

Re:Questioning authority is helpful.

[mrscott]

It's up to them. If everything works like it should, market forces will dictate their policies. If enough people leave because of this, then they'll have to change -- if not, their policies are working for them.

If they're the only game in town, then I'd have a problem with it, but if I can just switch ISPs, no skin off my back.

the internet is free

[Anonymous Coward]

There is this story that the internet used to be free. Actually, I don't think that it is a story. The internet is free. The bottleneck seems to be these slow-speed ISP's that people pay money to.

Tell two friends. Run long Ethernet cables, set up switches and cheap Linux boxes, power it with solar, get off the grid, disconnect your phone, turn off the TV, use the internet in your neighbourhood at 10Mbps to 100Mbps. And run wiring house to house, neighbourhood to neighbourhood. The internet is free.

Re:This is intended for Radio....BS Logic.

[Anonymous Coward]

"People that boardcast satellite TV realised there's no way to charge for that, so they did it anyways and manipulated the government into policing it for them."

You know, I hope that someday you produce something and slap a price sticker on it, so I can wave my fanny in your face and say "there's no way to charge for that" and walk away with it. Bonus points if you con the courts into making what I did illegal, and have them come after me. Double Bonus if they side with me, after they've heard my impeccable logic (I don't have any. Can I borrow yours?).

Re:For the record-Plug n' Pay

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most of this cruft comes from the cable companies, who are still stuck in the pay-per-jack mentality."

I believe that's the same model the porn industry uses.

Extremist are you listening?

[Anonymous Coward]

NOw is your chance! Storm washington, hang those sonsabitches by their balls and take lots of pictures!

Re:this is NOT patriotism

[mpe]

There is a big difference between a patriot (someone who willingly supports whatever are efforts required sustain a country's constitutionally-defined structure, and constitutionally-guaranteed freedom),

One definition of "patriot" is "someone who supports their country always and their government when it deserves it". Governments tend to view things differently with the FBI listing supporting the US Constitution amongst its definitions of "terrorism".

and a nationalist (someone who blindly accepts whatever atrocities their government wishes to enact).

"nationalist" is more commonly applied to governments than people.

This begs the question as to who the 'patriots' really are - the people protesting this kind of legislation, and perhaps even the war effort in Iraq, or the ones who blindly accept it as a 'cost of doing freedom.'

You also get in to issues such as cults of personality surrounding political figures here.

FINALLY

[pyrote]

Finally Microsoft windows is illegal!!!!

Any web browser can be used to access a proxy server making All web browsers illegal in Michigan. Since IE is so integrated into the software (that it can't possibly be removed), it makes all windows OS's illegal!

Of course this applies to all linux browsers, but we can remove those.

Ahh yes, the crap is piling up, and it aint the dairy cows.

Re:FINALLY

[Anonymous Coward]

bloody stupid multi window browser, should be over here: other article

Flat rate

[TheMidget]

The difference with your examples (well, most of them...) is that ISP's in general are flat rate, i.e. don't charge per bandwidth consumed, whereas the water co charges by cubic meter consumed, the electricity co charges by kilowatthour consumed, and the phone co charges per communication (in many parts of the world, at least. Free local communications as in the US is the exception).

If you pay for what you consume, there is no reason to restrict how many outlets you have (on the contrary...). If you pay flat rate, the provider has interest to not make it too easy to consume excessively.

Re:Flat rate

[Creep73]

ISPs do use flat rates and so do local phone companies. ISPs advertise and offer bandwidth. They sell bandwidth and I do not feel it is out of bounds to use what I am paying for. I would be will within my rights to max out my bandwidth 24/7. They company does not provide any additional service to my other computers. Nothing new is added. I am providing the second computer. I am providing the equipment needed to connect the second computer. There is no reason they should receive any additional money. If I pay for a service I am paying for my home to have that service. I do not believe that a company has a right to micro-manage what goes on in my home.

Re: it's really not that hard to figure out.

[Panzergheist]

a reasonable guess would allow someone to determine that if a corporation or group was behind this (likely), then it would be someone with a fear of encrypted, anonymous communications. This could be multiple parties, including the MPAA, RIAA, and others. This would help to kill off file sharing. More interesting is that by the wording of the document, this could potentially extend to make using any software to connect to a service not explicitly permitted by the service provider an illegal activity (and yes, this includes making it illegal to use an unapproved web browser to view a given website)

Just my two cents.

Nothing to do with 9/11

[overunderunderdone]

You see all the pussies that can't get over the fact that our towers came down. Are using there fear as an excuse to pass thousands of laws, that don't affect them because there non-technical ninnies...

It has nothing to do with towers coming down - they have been passing such laws LONG before 9/11. Remember the legislator in New Jersey that had the bright idea of requiring programmers to be licensed? That law got repealled real quick once IBM realized it existed and would cost them significantly more $$ than simply moving all their highly paid high tech employees out of state. Granted to a legislator that knows the laws in her state requires hairdressers* to be licensed because that task is so critical it just makes sense that programmers should be licensed as well. *(The risk of hairdressers giving people bad hair is aparently such a severe one with such catastrophic social costs that the state must step in to make sure that only licensed professionals can give you a bad haircut - I'm sure the $$$ from licensing fees and pressure from already licensed hairdressers to restrict competition has nothing to do with it)

The problem is that we have several thousand legislators & their aids who's job it is to "legislate". It's their full-time job to write new laws! And they do. Every year there are thousands and thousands of pages of new laws on top of the thousands and thousands of pages of last years laws on top of the thousands and thousands of pages of laws written the year before that going back 200 years. This doesn't even get into the millions of additional pages of regulations written by the various executive branches that fill all the details. It never seems to occur to anyone that the laws we have are generally sufficient and probably much more than enough. I greatly respect those states that at least *try* to stop the flow by severely limiting the time they give legislators to do their work.

Re:I'll clue you in on something...

[VanillaCoke420]

Religious wars is like fighting over whose imaginary friend is better.

Well,

[bplipschitz]

there goes radio. . .

Well, there's only one way to fight it ...

[ninewands]

I don't object to anyone block-copying this to their own state legislators.

TO: Senator John Whitmire
Subject: SB 1116

Dear Senator Whitmire,
I am writing with EXTREME concern about the subject bill. I am a Computer Systems Analyst and System Administrator employed by the University of Houston. Senate Bill 1116 would outlaw the use of certain technologies that are CRITICAL components of some computer security systems. To enact this legislation while the United States is engaged in a global war against terrorists would place vital components of a large portion of the nation's information infrastructure in a posture of increased risk of compromise. As such, SB 1116 is in direct conflict with much of the homeland security legislation passed by the US Congress
since September 11, 2001.

Firewalls, Network Address Translation, Virtual Private Networks and encrypted data connections through the use of programs like SSH would all be outlawed by SB 1116. This would result in highly sensitive information being sent over the public network as clear-text, so that system crackers and cyber-terrorists will have a much easier time of obtaining unauthorized access to computer systems. This bill would make it a crime for me to work from home because some of the data I have to
send to the computers I work on is SO sensitive that I cannot, in good conscience, send it over an unencrypted connection.

This bill will also do great harm to e-commerce because websites that sell goods and services over the internet will not be able to use secure connections for the transmission of such information as buyers' personal information and credit-card/bank account numbers. The security and privacy of online banking transactions will also be destroyed by this bill.

Please work to defeat this bill, or at least reduce the amount of damage it will cause. I do not know who is lobbying in favor of this legislation, although I have heard that the Motion Pictura Association of America may be helping promote it. I fail to see what benefit they
will gain if it beccomes law. I do foresee grave harm to the state and the nation if legislation of this nature becomes commonplace.

Please think before you vote, Senator Whitmire.

The Colorado Law

[michael_cain]

After reading the marked-up version of the Colorado bill, several things seems clear:

• The original intent of the bill was to go after people stealing cellular phone service, and possibly DBS video service. After mark-up, it has become much broader.
• Using a NAT firewall to allow multiple computers in your home access to the Internet would not appear to be a violation unless your ISP is somehow deprived of money or forbids such arrangements in the TOS. So long as all of the computers are in your home, YOU ARE NOT CONCEALING THEIR LOCATION. I think you might even make an argument based on distributed processing that YOU ARE NOT CONCEALING THEIR IDENTITY. Consider the case where the browser process runs on the server but the display is rendered on another machine somewhere on the LAN. Would that be illegal?
• Stealing service is a misdemeanor, but you have to pay for the service you've stolen. Providing equipment or knowledge that allows someone to steal service is a felony.

For me, the last item is the scariest. So long as one cable company in the state forbids the use of NAT firewalls, once someone buys a cable router at Circuit City and uses it illegally, it would appear that Circuit City has now committed a felony offense. Similarly, anyone who writes a FAQ on how to use a Linux box as a cable router will be guilty as soon as someone uses such a box illegally after following the instructions. Ditto for Microsoft and sharing Internet connections.

The earlier version that applied to cell phones and possibly DBS video appeared more reasonable, at least in the sense that actions would clearly be either legal or illegal anywhere in the state. Particularly with regard to cable modem service and the variations in TOS between cable companies, some actions would be legal in one place and not in another, which strikes me as being bad law.

Opposite effect

[Anonymous Coward]

If we assume for the moment that this bill is intended to be for the greater good (whatever that means in today's paranoid homeland environment...), the actual, literal result would be exactly the opposite.

For example, assuming that the use of firewalls, NAT, and/or encryption was illegal as a result:

a) worms, trojans, et. al. (such as Code Red, Nimda, SQL Slammer... the list goes on) that exploit weaknesses in Windows OS's would proliferate. These products only worked because of the number of Windows-based machines hanging their proverbial asses out in the wind. Without the use of firewalls and NAT devices, there would be a larger number of such systems exposed, and exploits would be more devastating and frequent.

b) the number of hacks against corporations would increase. Right now I maintain a IPSec VPN connection between my home and company's network, as well as use WEP on my closed 802.11 network, and use SSH to connect to any host that needs attention.
If this bill becomes law, I have to change all that so everything I do is unencrypted, so now anyone can sniff my connection and obtain all the keys to my business.

c) indentity theft incidents would go through the roof.
Just think of all the credit card numbers, SSNs, username, passwords, etc. that will be flying around the net on unencrypted http links (since surely, https is another of those evil tricks terrorists use to hide their identity and comunications!)

This bill is clearly drafted by someone having a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that doesn't exist, and who doesn't understand the real issues. If they did, the bill would DEMAND that every user use firewalls and encryption for all communication.
Let's face it, the government can already decrypt anything you have to say online anyway, so all this is doing is making it easier for the little guys to listen in.

Pertinent Quotations

[jtheory]

"Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hermann Goering, before being sentenced to death at the Nuremberg trials.

"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will
preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

Adolph Hitler, My New World Order, Proclamation to the German Nation at Berlin, February 1, 1933

I'm not saying Bush = Hitler. But you should be damned sure you put some thought into it before you blindly follow your govt into support for such a questionable war.

I wonder how well that "you punch me, I punch you!" morality would work to resolve the Israeli-Palistinian problem... oh, wait, that's what they've been doing already for decades. I guess it'll work eventually, right?

No one's saying Saddam's a nice fellow, or that we should send Bin Laden a fruit basket this Christmas and ask if we can't just let bygones be bygones. But we cannot just blindly follow Bush (who got a C- in his Intro to International Relations class at Yale!) into an action that causes such rage in the rest of the world... I don't know the right answers, but at least I'm trying.

Spam

[Anonymous Coward]

Could this be used against spam?

Its an interesting though, comments on this.

totally unenforceable

[samantha]

Exactly how would my ISP manage to crawl down my line and grab the routing information off of every static IP that I currently pay them for? Exactly how would they determine how many boxen might be using my in-house AP? If they can do that and can do it legally then we have bigger problems than brain dead politicians.