Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Broad Bills to Protect 'Communications Services'

Posted by michael on from the overreaching dept.

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.

2 of 524 comments (clear)

  1. Re:I'll clue you in on something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    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.
  2. Re:what the bills actually say by Specter · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    "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