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.
Why are mindless humans still drawn to religion? Shouldn't it have been eradicated by now?
Answer: Religion is for the weak minded. They seek answers to questions that cannot possibly be answered. Religion gives them answers and makes them so arrogant that their answers are right that they criticize everyone else, bash other religions, and try to push their shit on everyone else.
CmdrTaco recommends we nuke all religions ASAP.
Well, the 386 was a nice machine, but I didn't like the fact that the SX had a crappy 16-bit external bus. At least the DX had a 32-bit bus. And the fact that for a mathco you needed to add a 387. That sucked too.
I'm not trying to be mean or anything,you're gonna be fucked without God.There,I said it.
And I hope I don't have to spell it out for you..
And do you remember this? United States Under God? Relearn it if you have to. Dig it. It's for real.
"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