Slashdot Mirror
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.
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".
Trolls lurk everywhere. Mod them down.
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.
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.
I have read them.
...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...
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...