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

[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

[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.

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...

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.

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.

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: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...