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.
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.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
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...
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.
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.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
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?
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."