Slashdot Mirror
Michigan First With A Law That Could Outlaw VPNs
zaren writes "Holy frell, Taco, we're gonna be criminals! I was checking out Freedom to Tinker after reading the posting about that multi-state anti-VPN-style legislation, and I saw a new posting that says that Michigan has ALREADY passed such legislation, and it goes into effect on MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 . Guess I better tighten down the base station and batten down the hatches..."
Europe is a little further down the list. No worries.
Why would they want this law. I don't see the point
...so much for my enormous NAT-based pr0n enterprise! :(
Something tells me he likely won't be done by April 1st, so I think the EU is safe for a month or two, at least.
no offense but not everything is dropped because a war is on. if all we talked about was war then there would be more wars to satisfy our conversing.
I know you are psychotic, but please make an effort.
Michigan residents being arrested on april fools' day because of a law that's a joke.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service. What were legislators smoking when they wrote that clause? That's so ridiculously overbroad that it could even be interpreted to make it illegal to call someone from a payphone without telling them where you are.
Repeal the DMCA!
Hopefully Bush won't decide to invade Europe, once he's done with Iraq.
Fuck hoping,
You Europeans need to pool both your guns and all three of your tanks together for the common defense, otherwise Bush is going to pwnz0r you all.
I'm going to kill myself!!!!
What a VPN is and why is this a bad thing? I mean, come on if the general population has heard of VPNs, don't use them, and would never use them anyway, what's the harm in this outlaw?!
someone would get a nice little pile of evidence against these lawmakers and policy setters to prove that they are doing exactly the opposite of what they preach. For these anti-vpn people as well as the **AA's... Wouldnt it be marvelous just to get the specs on the no-vpn guy's "special connection" from his house in the hills to the office. oh crap, its a vpn connection... oooops... Imagine Hillary Rosen with an armload of bootleg cd's. I wonder if she has a burner in her pc. or 4, because its a 40x, and we know thats worth atleast 4 drives because its fast....
sorry... this is just another in the long line of wtf laws and policies that I see being proliferated...
[ot.. well, more ot]I hope there isnt another troll storm.. I see the beginings of one[/ot]
I'm a little tea pot.
If they dont like it, they can get the fuck out.
There is a simple technology letting employees make long distance or international calls from home. They call the company (local call) and after entering a code, get a dialtone and make another call.
Would it be also illegal?
I wonder if people who voted for this bill had a clue what it really means.
WTF?! I can't rip CDs to MP3s anymore and now it's illegal to use a VPN?
Honestly, I'm starting to feel guilty as soon as I start using a PC. I must be breaking some law as soon as I sit down.
It's about time for the otherwise useless ACLU to start some legal action. Finally, they'll have something to pursue that's worthy of their time.
Michigan doesn't seem to have made it to the 21st century yet.
so technically I am hiding the source, or Pac-Bell is doing it for me, I wonder if there is an extradition clause in the law ?
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
If I put three people behind a NAT'd firewall, the provider sees it as one paying customer and two thieves.
This doesn't only concern end users. This concerns any organisation that obtains an address range for a fee and use NAT to connect their network, including many ISPs.
This might be the end of NAT. Good riddance and welcome IPv6!
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
That's why it rawks to be Canadian. We haven't outlawed VPNs yet. And we're not dropping bombs on Iraq. Yup, it's a good day to live in the Great White North. If we weren't so damned apathetic, we'd help you change your laws and stop you from killing people overseas. But we are, first and foremost, Canadians.
Finally Microsoft windows is illegal!!!!
Any web browser can be used to access a proxy server making All web browsers illegal in Michigan. Since IE is so integrated into the software (that it can't possibly be removed), it makes all windows OS's illegal!
Of course this applies to all linux browsers, but we can remove those.
Ahh yes, the crap is piling up, and it aint the dairy cows.
THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
Hey, we didn't know Blob Slob had that e-mail address, and we sure as hell didn't mean to make him that penis enlargement offer!
Another step in the right direction.(not)
Every IP packet I pass through my ISP contains a source and destination IP address.
What else do they need to know?
"Your honour, at what layer of the OSI Network Layer model is this bill to be enforced?"
"Er, case dismissed."
this story reminds me of last year, when Greece had a country-wide ban on Video Games. funny stuff.
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
(Yes I did RTFA)
This law has not one but two offensive clauses-
1(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service.
1 (c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.
While 1(b) is probably the most obnoxious clause, 1(c) is not far behind... it makes it a "felony" to eg. hook two televisions on single cable connection and even make it a felony offense to put NAT boxen !! At our dorm, for World cup we put a computer with TV tuner card connected to cable connection and then used it to stream the transmission for people to watch in their rooms... HELL now we'll be criminals (and that too 'felony'!!) for that...
Fuck.
Who said "America- land of free" must now be turning in graves.
- mritunjai
> Hopefully Bush won't decide to invade Europe,
> once he's done with Iraq.
After we finally have rebuilt Dresden...
This post about legislation in various states to illegalize using multiple computers on a a 'Net connection without express permission from a service provider sounds like a combination of the mindless anti-piracy drivel we've been reading, and a bit of "legislation-for-sale" by various legislators not so scrupulous about campaign contributions... This really gets my ire, because not only is this technically misguided, it's so obviously legislation to, at a minimum, protect a business model!
It strikes me that the reason why this legislation appears in the states that it does is perhaps a particular ISP has something to gain by it. Close that loop, and you'll probably find who lobbied for it.
To defeat this kind of legislation sounds like it'll need some kind of federal-level class action movement against it. Perhaps something along the lines of a significant breach-of-contract in bad faith with your ISP, or the fact that the legislation attempts to explicitly modify a contract(s) in-force presently, which may be a no-no for states.
One thing that might wake up ISP's to this, is if people started requesting copies of their contracts in writing to be snail mailed to them as proof of that contract-in-place before the law comes into effect. I would think in most states you have a legal right to a printed copy of a contract?
This gets to the fundamental question of who owns the customer-end of the IP pipe into your home, and corporate America wants as much control over that as they can. To us geeks, it is readily apparent to us that once the wire gets to us, we ought to be able to hook up the coffee machine or the computer to it. This makes me wonder of how this set of legislation violates any anonimity statues, or guarantees of privacy businesses have offered on the web. If you can't VPN, or go through a proxy or firewall, and your IP address is your machine in some way, shape, or form, those sites cannot in any way state the information they collect is anonymous.
This is ridiculous. In a broad sense, this would outlaw an PPP connection that assigns an ISP customer a different IP address with every session. Not only that but the nature of such legislation would outlaw virtual domains using Apache and could be applied to the way the Internet has come to work in a limited IP space. I mean, in order to find out who is who on a shared IP web server, you would have to have access to the configuration files.
With so many domains sharing IP addresses or having IP addresses provided by big companies such as HE there is an amount of obfuscation built in to the DNS system to allow flexibility on the host side. Can't they get busy with spam legislation instead?
Maybe I'm insensitive but I don't really see how it matters to me? People die every day and for the most part I envy them. If your alive and want to stay alive then learn to kick ass and learn not to piss people off. Sure Bush is probably almost as much a psycho as Saddam but if it makes you feel better feel free to shoot some missles at him for all I care.
Such things like Nat, Firwalling even simple :-)
home routers are outlawed
Good luck fellows on tightening your companies network you will need it.
To make this a worldwide law:
FUCK TELECOMMUNICATIONS (and DMCA, non-POSIX) LAWS CONVENTION
Section 1.
(a) No darn goverment in the world will legislate any telcommunications laws.
(b) IPv4 Sucks. Everyone will be assigned a unique IPv6 address.
(c) There will be no DMCA-style legislation anywhere. Everything will be licensed under a GNU GPL-compatible license
Section 2.
(a) Any Operating system NOT implementing the POSIX standard, with exception of embedded devices is banned.
Section 3.
(a) A person shall not use a Fifty-Six Kilobaud analog modem device.
(b) A person must have access to an T3 line within 200 meters of residence.
Section 4.
(a) Every person over the age of 6 that is capable of operating a computing device will recieve free copies of the latest stable release of either FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Minix or Linux.
(b) Every person who is able to operate a SQL92/99 Server will recieve a stable copy of PostgreSQL every time a stable release of that 'computer application' is released
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service.
Apparently it is legal to have a concealed weapon, but having a concealed cell phone or disabling caller ID violates the law.
"I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
VCR's.
Tivo.
Answering Machines.
What, were they thinking???
The answer, of course, is "no!"
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I *hate* April Fool's Day. For that one day, it's *impossible* to get any information, because *everyone* has an April Fool's edition of their website.
I wish people that did AF special editions would also provide a link to the "real" April 1 edition.
May we never see th
http://www.ntlworld.com/legals/user-policy.htm
18. Use of Virtual Private Network (VPN)
As stated above, the ntl Internet and/or Interactive Services are for residential use only and we do not support the use of VPN. If we find you are using VPN via the ntl IP network we may instruct you to stop using it and you must comply with this request. This is in order to prevent problems to ntl (eg network performance) and other Internet u FO.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
who are these mysterious users impared by my VPN?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Well, perhaps Bush is going to start World War.
"Hi, this is Mike. You remember me from yesterday? Yeah, well, I was wondering if I could "facilitate the recipt" of another couple of packets today. I was kinda thinking about maybe checking the weather."
...
"Kid, I'm giving you express authority to send you all the packets you want. Get the hell off the support line."
"Hi, this is Bob. I was wondering if I could decrypt something...I was thinking about buying a CD for my sister using https. Also, I..."
"Blanket approval. Go for it."
May we never see th
This is easy for me to write, I'm in Europe so can't participate; however, there have been calls for geeks to politicise, to make their voices heard...
If every university and college student turned him/her self into the police on Monday morning for being in violation of this new law, the system would choke. It'd get a hell of a lot of media attention too. Something has to be done... these laws, largely unenforceable, continue to be passed... each one errodes the rights of ordinary people...
I simply can't fathom how a law this monomentally stupid has been passed... but it's got to be challenged. A mass protest would certainly expedite it and might prevent similar laws from being passed in other states where they're being considered.
Here I sit using at least two computers simultaneously for the simple reason that they both do different jobs. In my house there are four devices capable of being connected to my network hub and that in turn connects to the cable modem I have. Given that it is just me using all these at the same time why would it make sense to charge me for each computer? There's just me. Now, if I set up a dial up so that other users can run off my cable then yes that is bad and a law that said I could not resell the service I have bought would be perfectly reasonable, but this is my house, my connection and they are my machines. I pay for a fat(ish) pipe to the outside world. Does the water company charge me more because I have more sinks than my next door neighbour? They may charge me more if I use more water but having more sinks doesn't matter, it is the flow that matters. Same should be true with a network. I am happy to have a capped bandwidth (500Kbs) because I am paying a flat rate for that. However, the four computers I have can't get more data through than one on its own could so what is the problem? What happens if I want to play around with a beowulf cluster? Are they going to outlaw clusters unless you can get some special exemption? You certainly wouldn't want to have to get an IP address for every machine in a big cluster. Oh, and what about the company providing the connection, are they going to ensure that if I have to pay for individual connections for each machine they will still protect me from all the twits who probe my system on a daily basis and do a better job than I can myself with my gateway? This bill is only going to benefit the money grabbing service providers and those idiots who love to try to root machines.
:-)
IMHO of course
Back in the bad old days (prior to Jan. 1, 1984), you could only get a phone from AT&T. They owned Western Electric, which was the only manufacturer of telephone equipment. They owned the lines (there were some exceptions where GTE had a local market). If you wanted a phone, you had to accept the whole package.
You had to lease your phones from them -- you couldn't buy them. You had to pay extra for DTMF (Touch-Tone [TM]). Your monthly bill was based on the base rate times the number of phones plus the base local call charge plus the incredibly overpriced long distance calls, which themselves worked on a minimum of three minutes and charges were rounded up to the next whole minute.
They stifled technology much more so than IBM, even when it hurt them. It became cheaper and easier for them to have customers using DTMF, but because people wanted it rather than the damned dialing wheels, they kept on charging premiums, which meant they had to keep those old number nine crossbars in the COs rather than (or in addition to) the electronic switches.
The whole idea of ringer equivalence existed so they could shoot a charge down your line and know how many phones you had. If it didn't match, they'd come over for a "technical visit". If they saw signs that you had more than the paid/claimed number of phones, they'd either hardwire the phone in the jack or remove other jacks. You had to let them; it was their equipment.
People used to huddle around a phone to listen and talk at the same time because Ma Bell wanted you to pay twice as much to have two people at home talk to a caller at the same time.
ISPs are trying this game, requiring you to use their hardware, accept their version of "normal use", and pay per computer rather than for the amount of data transfer so they can claim "unlimited" or "flat-rate service. It may be illegal based on the same decision which finally allowed people to buy their own phones, have as many as they wanted and use them as they saw fit.
This needs to be stopped quickly. Lawyers need to compare these laws to the Orders from Judge Harold Greene which stopped AT&T doing this, and have this bad legislation removed. You people in Michigan need to get started!
woof.
This could outlaw transparent proxies at ISPs. After all, they lie about where the request came from, and where it goes to.
Perhaps this would interest you.
Well, well, well...looks like the phone companies are tightening the thumbscrews on new technology. Now that media covergence is drastically changing the landscape, turning voice data into just another type of packet on the network, the phone companies are surely in a tizzy. The whole concept of a "long distance call" is undergoing a complete rennaissance, since one can now pass voice data over the internet, completely bypassing the traditional call switching mechanism. One could conceivably setup a couple of PSTN gateways and pass calls end-to-end without any long distance charges. There's at least one thing they'll have to reconcile: It's not considered a "long distance" service if I interact with a remote server from my local ISP connection, but somehow, it magically turns into a "long distance" issue if voice data is involved. What do you bet that they propose slapping a charge on ALL interstate internet traffic- you know, just so everything is consistent?
If this law is in fact targeting this kind of technology, how are they going to prevent it? Are they simply going to outlaw voice over IP?
are we going to observe and comment on before there's some consensus on the root cause? Laws like this are not appropriate in the US. Something
important in our system has snapped, and all these bad laws are flowing out like so much blood from an injury.
The DMCA came about before 9/11/01. Carnivore too. The WTC attack simply energized those already making bad decisions to make more decisions.
This is a a different country than it was ten years ago. Not that ten years ago was a stellar period in history but that these times are historically significant in a bad way.
Compounding the lack of competance in the stewards of society, we've a lethargic, television-sedated populace. We have an odd war that has every indication of getting very complicated. Terrorism. Several nuclear capable countries on the brink of becoming drastic. Weak economy. Emerging pandemic that is SARS. The healthy beginning of a police state in the USA.
It's enough to qualify for good fiction but in so many ways I wonder if we're all about to face some approximation of the end of the world. Almost enough to make a non-religious person start to wonder. So many things coming to a head at the same time. It's too much.
Today the RIAA announced it was pushing for legislation that made the use of chairs illegal
"Pirates sit down to make these illegal copies that are destroying society" said an RIAA spokesperson "This is all about making it uncomfortable for the pirates"
When questioned as to the many valid uses of chairs the spokesperson replied "Sure this will have a minor effect on some people, but isn't that worth it to protect the American way of life and ensure the success of democracy that rides on the music and movie industries, what are you some sort of Communist or one of the Al Q'uada people.... guards arrest this person"
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
You have to wonder what would happen with the fact that for some people they are based in one country and then connect via a VPN to the US. Now does mean that they are breaking the law as well?
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
Lets see, Internet Connection Shareing (built into all windows since 98se) would also violate this law. That makes Windows Illegal.
I'm not really sure how you find 1(b) offensive, unless you think that you should have a right to privacy 'on the net (hint - you don't). As for 1(c), if your cable provider allws you to hook up multiple televisions, then you're not breaking the law. If your ISP allows NAT boxes, you're not breaking the law.
Now, rebroadcasting your cable feed to people who (presumably) haven't paid for cable isn't exactly the kind of behavior that's going to win you a boy scout patch - that's obviously an illegal act, and I dont know what would make you think otherwise... You think that you oughta be able to take your the cable feed from your neighbor? How about all of your neighbors share 1 cable feed? Wait, I know - let the entire city split the tab for 1 cable bill, then you could even afford all those fancy movie channels! Sheesh...
Think outside the... Hey, where'd the friggin' box go?
Now, what is an "unlawful telecommunications access device"? That is answered under 750.219a which is entitled:
Section 219 defines an unlawful device as:
I read this to mean to hijack someone else's "telecommunication device".
If you read the section further, this applies to illegal cable descramblers and stuff like that.
I think we can all agree that FRAUD is bad.
The
There may be a get-out here - if the parent post is giving the exact wording, it is the origin or destination of the *service*, not the telecommunication itself that can't be concealed. This means you can conceal your cell phone, but you can't conceal which teleco you bought it from.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Reigime change for Nashville! Bomb the Country Music Charts! Invade the Dixie Chicks! :-) H.H.O.S.
Hands up everyone who refuses to obey orders.
1) phone legislator
2) ask him his exact location
3) if he tells you, say thanks and hang up. Wait 5 minutes go back to step 1)
4) if he hangs up without telling you, get him locked up for concealing the destination of the telecommunication.
Repeat until all the legislators are locked up, then elect some people who are less dumb.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
Well, there goes the neighborhood.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
Every IP packet I pass through my ISP contains a source and destination IP address.
;-)
More importantly, define "source" and "destination".
This just means that, from now on, I "intend" every packet going through my NAT box to actually go to or come from that box. The fact that my NAT box has to talk to the outside world to serve that data doesn't matter, since the ISP can fully well see that part of the transaction.
Or, to put it another way...
I consider my ISP as nothing more than the "communication service provider" to my NAT box. I provide the service from my NAT box to my real PCs (did my ISP come in and lay CAT5 between them, or provide the power or the signal flowing over that CAT5?), and I can see the source and destination of everything on the internal LAN just fine. So no problem exists.
Somehow, though, I doubt the law will see it that clearly, and this crap will end up effectively yet another random-and-ubiquitously-enforceable-at-will weapon in the government's arsenal of ways to screw otherwise law-abiding citizens.
Damn, and I can't even blame Bush or Ashcroft for this one.
Well, that's America you know...
The land of the free.
The greatest country on earth.
If you envy them so much, then die..You'll make the world a better place. Maybe I'm insensitive too.
Don't worry too much though, it's been going to hell for the past 3000 years.
...And after the U.S. Military sets foot on Europe, they will be surprised that Europeans are not treating them a heroes come to liberate them, but rather the opposite. Then the Military states the war can take a bit longer than expected.
If your alive and want to stay alive...
That made no sense.
Some people make no sense.
Specifically:
(1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used to do any of the following:
Establishes that owning, creating, or publishing information on how to create a device that violates any of the following items is a felony. The item in question is:
(a) Obtain or attempt to obtain a telecommunications service with the intent to avoid or aid or abet or cause another person to avoid any lawful charge for the telecommunications service in violation of section 219a.
Yet the bill does not put a limit on what telecommunications services are allowed to charge for. Therefore, if you're local ISP decided to charge for say each HTTP request, they could sue Microsoft for Internet Explorer's ability to download an unlimited number of webpages (since it is avoiding any lawful charge for telecommunications service).
A half-way decent lawyer should have a field day with this bill...
int func(int a);
func((b += 3, b));
I fail to see anything in this amendment that applies to VPNs. It appears to be specifically designed to target phone phreaking. It's all about screwing with telecoms services. VPNs don't do that.
They don't obtain telecoms services without intent to pay (1a), they don't conceal the origin or destination of the traffic (1b), and they don't intercept, disrupt, re-transmit, or otherwise fuck with your, or anyone else's, service (1c).
Unless you've deliberately cracked your ISP in order to run your VPN, you've not fallen foul of this law.
Get some perspective.
[Interestingly, this does appear to make IP address spoofing illegal - but I consider that to be a good thing.]
Are there still people that think that GW2 is about "freedom"? The US is rapidly running out of oil and the best reserves left are under Iraq. It does not matter who gets the money, it is the oil that matters and this war is about getting that oil flowing. No one in their right mind would want an American impossed freedom as that is an oxymoron. Anyone with a little free thought can see the stupidity in the idea of forcing freedom on someone. The military have already got oil wells working again but the people are still without water.
This story may be an April Fools joke but the war is an obscenity against freedom.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Now that media covergence is drastically changing the landscape, turning voice data into just another type of packet on the network, the phone companies are surely in a tizzy. The whole concept of a "long distance call" is undergoing a complete rennaissance, since one can now pass voice data over the internet, completely bypassing the traditional call switching mechanism. One could conceivably setup a couple of PSTN gateways and pass calls end-to-end without any long distance charges.
Consider if you are an organisation (commercial or otherwise) who has offices in different places. You want to link your offices up either by direct leased lines or some kind of VPN over the public internet. For your telephones you get a modern integrated PBX. Which is hooked up to some phone lines and the network. Any interoffice calls go over the WAN, incomming calls might also wind up being sent to a different office and outgoing calls will use phone lines in the office nearest their destination.
There's at least one thing they'll have to reconcile: It's not considered a "long distance" service if I interact with a remote server from my local ISP connection, but somehow, it magically turns into a "long distance" issue if voice data is involved. What do you bet that they propose slapping a charge on ALL interstate internet traffic
International as well as interstate. Anyway it's quite often the case that telephone call charges have little relation to the route the call takes,
I hope we "Won't Get Fooled Again"
We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!
I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?
There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!
Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
This makes IPv6 tunneling and ip6-ip4 gateways illegal too.
We dared to ask for more
But that was long before the nights began to burn
You would have thought we'd learned
You can't make promises all based upon tomorrow
Happiness, security are words we only borrowed
For is this the answer to our prayers, is this was God has sent?
Please understand this isn't what we meant
The future couldn't last, we nailed it to the past
With every word a trap that no one can take
Back from all the architects who find their towers leaning
And every prayer we pray at night has somehow lost its meaning
For is this the answer to our prayers, is this was God has sent?
Please understand this isn't what we meant
A long time ago when the world was pretty
Standing right here in a different city
They're not coming back any more
They're not coming back any...
Is this the answer to our prayers, is this was God has sent?
Please understand this isn't what we meant
(Savatage, "This Isn't What We Meant")
I read this as legislation that is targeting the cable black boxes that give you free access to premium cable services.
REREAD the actual law with cable black boxes in mind and see if it doesn't make sense. At least that's how what it seems the original target was.
That said, of course, the law of unintended consequences comes into play.
Land of the free and the home of the brave...what utter crap. Do you not realise you'll have no freedoms soon and these are all being eroded because your Govt is crapping themselves? Anything that cannot be totally controlled and monitored by the U.S Govt is therefore deemed illegal as it might be used for terrorism. The U.S is slowly becoming worse that the USSR ever was. If the U.S Govt don't like something, they just completely bypass the constitution by including it in "The War on Terror". Dumbass Redneck Merkin buys it hook line and sinker and assumes it must be OK if it is for "The War on Terror" anmd to question it would be unpatriotic. There are startling similarities between what the current administration is doing and the actions the Third Reich took prior to starting WW2. Is G.W. Bush actually Adolf Hitler re-incarnate? I think so. The evidence mounts up. 1) WE good, everyone else bad. 2) Incarcerate people we don't like without charge. Deny them their rights. 3) Instil fear in the populous about a mass invasion from the impure (i.e non Christian Americans). 4) Erode liberties in the name of "righteousness" (War on Terror) 5) Declare war. Bush more than showed his hand when he came out with the immortal words "If you're not with us, you are against us". But I can say that because I'm not American and don't have to worry whether the "Home Guard" or whatever they call themselves are going to come kicking down my door because I dare to question El Presidente Bush.
Conor "You're not married,you haven't got a girlfriend and you've never seen Star Trek? Good Lord!" - Patrick Stewart
I have a cell phone, and I'm not afraid to use it!
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
The difference between the two is; NOBODY would try to steal your non concealded weapon..
:-)
/klang
America seems to be ruled by NRA people as opposed to NAT people
Dubya Dubya III
Man.. that'll be a blast.. but erm.. hasn't this already started?
Learn from the mistakes of others. There isn't enough time to make them all yourself.
Aside from the questionable English ("...decrypt...any telecommunications service" - you don't decrypt a service, you decrypt a message), all web servers (and clients) that conduct SSL sessions in Michigan are now illegal, because they decrypt.
back in the 60's and 70's when women wore T-shirts and carried banners saying "Keep your laws off my body." (or something to that effect -- and while I'm passionately anti-abortion as a means of birth control, the parallel remains.)
This makes me want to carry a placard that says "Keep your laws out of my computer -- and my networks!"
Honestly, WHAT is the FSCKING POINT?? Is this a ploy by Microsoft to show the legilators that having all that "extra" equipment for security is really unnecessary if everyone were to use Windoze XP?
MS: "Really, Congressman, if everyone would just switch over to Windows, there wouldn't be any more security issues with the Internet."
[gasp] [choke] [thud]
MS: "Congressman, are you OK? Sir? Can you hear me?? HELP!! HELP!! I think the Congressman has just had a heart attack!"
Sorry, just dreaming there.
But honestly, WHO benefits from laws such as these? The cable providers? HA! If RoadRunner pulls this crap on me, they can kiss my cable subscription GOODBYE. I'll cancel the whole damn thing and get a free satellite dish and service for the same price a month. I can connect to a local modem ISP at 53K because I'm so close to the CO, and while that's a WHOLE lot slower than the cable modem, it would feel good everytime I connected knowing that RoadRunner lost me as a customer.
I suppose if I had 5 computers in my house and was fully using the bandwidth 24/7, they have the right to bitch and moan because that's unfair usage -- get another ISP in the area that will help with that. The bandwidth isn't free, after all (of course, it's not as expensive as the money I'm paying them, either, but I guess SOMEONE has to support those poor Hollywood singers and actors!).
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
should have said "land of fee"
Whoah!
When's the last time you were able to do THAT?
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
All the problems you list are due to human stupidity. Even SARS. The patient zero was somewhere in China and the local politicians failed to take action in fear of falling into disfavour. More concentrated stupidity can be found in the form of Kim Jong Il, GWB, Chirac and other politicians worldwide.
Now, there is an excellent record of 6000 years of human stupidity that we call history. In fact, human stupidity most likely extends even beyond the written records and if we go really far back in time we arrive at the point when "human race" was just a little more advanced kind of an ape. And we definitely can agree that by human standards apes are pretty dim, aren't they?
So, in conclusion, most of the recent events can be blamed on stupidity and since the massive human stupidity in the past has not brought on the end of the world ago it won't do so this time either. So, don't worry.
The owls are not what they seem
maybe... now IANAL, but from my law-school wife, I get the knowledge of the "sanctity of the home"- that's why police can't barge in without a warrant, they can't peek into your windows, and this would be upheld by the supreme court.
,
So my thought is someone was just trying to brown nose some ultra-conservative constiuents in an effort to get more money out of them. It doesn't sound like there is a reasonable method of "getting caught"-
Again, IANAL, nor am I paranoid. I just have a low enough opinion of politicos so that I don't assume they want to fuck everyone over, I think they are just pandering "laws" for a buck. It'd be great to get some insight from Michigan police officers on this one.
It would be nice to also get the point of view of any lawyers, specifically those from Michigan.
p.s.- for those who care, some quick-o sanctity links:
social workers can't enter a home w/o a warrant , Kirk v. louisiana, you can't bust into someone's home and just arrest them
Illinois v. McArthur, even if I have some weed, you can't bust into my place without a warrant.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Amazingly that was written in 1971 and still no-one has learnt the sense in it...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Okay, so does this law make dialing *67 before you make a call (thus blocking the recipient from seeing your number on their called ID box) illegal?
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
The best way to defeat crappy laws (if this is indeed a crappy law) is to keep it from BECOMING law.
Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
The RIAA and MPAA get the same bashing here that republicans and religous posters do. Not everything these two entities do is bad.
I can see how this legislation could be misinterpretted often as seperation of church and state and free speech is. That said, the actual law is for stopping cable theives. The RIAA backs it because of the digital music channels, the MPAA backs it because of HBO(et al). Cable piracy is NOTHING like file sharing services. If you hook yourself up illegally to cable TV, there is no "other side" to the arguement. File Sharing on the other hand has another side - the first and foremost exposure and ease of use + less corporate dependency + you at least pay something in some way or another for the access to the networks in P2P.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
It would be helpful if someone with more time than I have would get a list of which legislators voted for this bill, their districtions, party affiliations, and contact information for the opposite major party in that district, so that people who are so inclined can help change the composition of the legislature.
The parent comment is only +5 now. Mod it to +10!!!
Excellent and totally accurate description.
You got it. You need to read this legislation in the light of all the other legislation out there, signed into law or proposed. A Police State needs for everyone to be a criminal on paper, to have that potential,to be able to use that against them. Look at oregons proposed policial demonstration law. Walk in the street in a demonstration, you are facing 25 years to life. Use a normal router, with how it normally works, you are a criminal. Go into patriot act 1 and now 2, which they are migrating to different other bills to get it passed. Misdemeanors can be classed as supporting terrorism. You really don't want to be classed as a terrorist. You can become an un-person very quickly, and it wouldn't be in there if they weren't planning on using it, even more extensively than they are now. The gestalt with computers in general is that computers allow anonymous and semi anonymous and easy communications for the average person. Police States don't like that.
This is REAL stuff in all our faces. You can't keep up with it now,laws, laws,laws and more new laws, daily. It's at the federal level and all the state levels, assaults against born-with rights, just being a normal person, are fully underway, it's not theoretical or tin foil hat. This article is an example of just another one. Add 'em all up. Pretty spooky.
Thanks for sending that letter, looking forward to see what they say, if you get a credible response.
The best thing about brain dead 'laws' like this is that civil disobedience gets around all this
Start a Wireless ISP company for your neighborhood. Get a T1, mount a parabolic antenna on the roof, find enough customers in your neighborhood to break even, and set your own rules.
http://www.wispa.org/
"The cup... the drop... it's a YES!"
Hey guys, how about reading the bill. This is aimed at cell phone hacking. It has nothing to do with NAT,VPNs or anything similar.
Paraphrasing, it says:
It is illegal to manufacture or posses an unlawful telecommunications device that can be used to steal service, intercept messages and hide where it is being used.
An unlawful telephone device (from the ammended article):
includes but is not limited to a clone telephone, clone microchip, tumbler telephone, tumbler microchip, or wireless scanning device capable of acquiring, intercepting, receiving, or otherwise facilitating the use of a telecommunications service without immediate detection.
Later in the article it exempts amateur radio equipment.
Now, since when is a router or firewall an unlawful telecommunications device???
All this does is make owning or selling phone freaking equipment illegal. It ha nothing to do with George Bush being the second coming of Hitler or any such thing.
+5 Informative?
Basicly, VPN gives you a secure and encrypted tunnel to some host (a VPN concentrator) somewhere on the net. All or some of your traffic will go through this tunnel and emerge at the concentrator, where it is sent to it's real destination.
The effect is that for the rest of the net, that traffic will appear to be coming from the concentrator (or the lan of the concentrator). This is useful for example for universities or companies that have some resources that are unsafe for the rest of the net, but is perfectly acceptable through an encrypted tunnel. Samba for example.
I haven't bothered to read the articles, since this sounds like complete and utter bollocks. But if they're targetting NAT too, then I guess that their thing is with "misdirection" through IP. Sounds to me like they would have to ban proxies etc. as well.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Ok you guys are just being a little to anal retentive with the words.
First off disguising origin. Anyone with half a brain knows you cannot get a location from an IP address. What they mean by it is IP Spoofing. If I'm a Comcast customer, I can't set my network to trick others into thinking I'm on Verizon, AOL/TW's, etc. If I am a Comcast customer, then I cannot disguise my IP to say otherwise. If the law needs my physical location, they can go through the legal channels and get it from Comcast.
CID blocking is iffy. I do not think this wouild be affected as it would force SBC and such to discontinue services like Privacy Manager. Second the biggest concern is telemarketing. The FCC is setting up the National Do Not Call list in July with enforcement in September. Why worry?
VPNs would be legal at this point because a) No state legislature is going to tell a corporation (Borders, the big 3 auto makers come to mind) that they can no longer use thier legit VPNs. And if they go after legit personal VPNs, one could claim discrimination based on that. Now if your ISP bans VPNs (which is thier right) then this law is moot anyways. b) Comcast et al do not ban VPNs to my knowledge nor do they ban use of NAT. I bet they love NAT because instead of charging you $10-15 for more IPs, they can charge you and others $40/mo for other individuals. Last I heard, Comcast only cares about multiple computers if they are hogging bandwidth or if non-customers are getting regular access (meaning sharing with neighbors via 802.11, etc.)
Can you think of any modern applications that this law is really targeting? Cell phone cloning and cable descramblers come to mind fast.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
When lawmakers actually make laws about things they understand.
I mean, I know nothing about deep-sea diving. So I guess I'll make a law saying it's illegal to have diving watches with you because they might break underwater and pollute the water.
-brain
Reminds me a bit of a segment on the public radio show This American Life titled "The Fix Is In." I do not recall the state or city, but in one of the first segments of that episode there is talk of a licqor distributor who managed to get legislation passed that made it essentially illegal for a seller to find a different distributor unless they had a really, really, really, really good reason. As a result liquor prices are $1-2 higher than anywhere else and that extra profit goes directly to the the one distributor who lined the politicians pockets and got that law passed.
I too do not see anything in this bill about VPN. What I see is an overtly broad bill addresses against telecommunications that in the hands of an evil genius could basically make everyone a criminal. VPN is just one possible interpretation in there. The bill also includes a line that specifically makes the majority of spam we receive illegal:
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service.
As most of the spam received is bounced off another ISP, it effectively makes any such spam illegal. Of course, that's probably not the true purpose of the law as written.
It's a badly written law. And badly written laws get dry humped to death by the ACLU.
NAT is similarly protected because it conceals nothing. The router is a computer -- I opened mine up and found a nice ARM CPU. It is a nice computer. When it wants to, it answers some questions for me by asking it's buddies on the internet.
i want my phone phreaking gear at radio shack, where its convenient :-(
Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
If you stop to think about it, this is really an attempt to ban things like Freenet. The whole spiel about obscuring source/destinations, passing information for unknown parties is targetted at the ideal P2P client which fetches bits and pieces of data spread out across multiple systems. No-one knows where the information is stored, nor what you're storing on your node; they want to ban the ability to post and retrieve content anonymously.
I mostly agree with your more sober analysis and this isn't all bad, except for one clause:
A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used to do any of the following:
I think the debate was soured in advance by mentioning VPN. It's not VPN being attacked, at least not directly, since in a VPN situation you're not trying to hide the source of the communication or the other bad things. That's just another use of the internet. There is some legitimate reason to be concerned that an overly aggresive lawyer might make a case out of it, but frankly, that's always a concern.
What's really being banned here is wireless. Right now, because of the known weakness of the security provisions of current wireless technologies, unless someone's fixed them and I haven't heard about it, you can't put up a wireless node without expecting someone to crack into it no matter how hard you secure it, at which point someone is capable of all the things the law is banning. If you know that wireless is insecure and you put up a node anyhow, you are in violation of this law. On the other hand, if you didn't know it, you aren't.
NAT isn't really being banned unless you're NAT'ing a whole lot of computers. I have three computers behind my NAT firewall, but as far as the law is concerned, my ISP is perfectly capable of telling which packets came from me, even if they couldn't pinpoint the computer. That's all the law (should) really care about. If you had a lot of computers, like NAT'ing a whole university lab or an entire relatively large institution, you might make a case that the person of origin is obscured, but generally you shouldn't be NAT'ing things that large anyhow.
Similarly for VPN... you have packets coming from your current computer and packets from your VPN'ed computer, but both are clearly identified so at least in VPN's most common use case there's no obscuring of location going on. On the other hand, if you're aware that your VPN software has insecurities, you're in violation of this law. If you install PCAnywhere in the old default of "no password", you're up for 4 years and $2,000.
I'm very tempted to forward this information to the Comp. Sci. Chairman at MSU where I'm a grad student, since they run wireless nodes, both on the theory that they have lawyers that might be able to sort this out, and the theory that the local legislature is more likely to listen to them then me directly if they have to go there.
This only serves to generate more money and taxes for actions that are really NO issue at all, as many will point out. But remember 2 accounts generate more $ and tax dollars then 1.
You pay for bandwidth today, what you do with it is up to you. That is today, tomorrow that will not be the case, it will be a far different arrangement.
It also makes it easier to monitor your actions, as encryption wont be on the approved list, and with no NAT's, there will be no 'multiplexing', where every ip = one pc.... encrypted data will stand out like a sore thumb..
Its all a matter of control of the populace.. and sucking us dry of capital.
Techincally can they stop it? Donno.. but if you get caught cheating, you get to spend time in federal prison...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
And laws that set men free." - Sean Connery as King Arther
Seems like our $hitty government seems to be passing more and more of the first kind, to enslave us to the Corporations.
they are referring to things like P2P/freenet, where the network's inherent replication of the 'service' (ie. your MP3s, DivXs and goat pr0n) means each node only knows of it's immediate peers, not the true source and destination.
Basically, The Man{Tm} considers P2P a greater/more likely threat (and more able to get it banned without Free Speech advocates going apeshit) to his control of us plebs than strong encryption. Encryption hides the content but not the source/destination, P2P hides the source/destination but not the content. One without the other makes life much more difficult for law enforcement. People have demonstrated they will not use encryption in day-to-day life (thereby making encrypted traffic special), but use P2P daily without a second thought.
Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
Tensions in the camp are rising after an influx of people having been involved in gross lewdness and lascivious behaviour, something claimed to be alien to the Geeks.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
And I'll say it again. The first thing that somebody with the know how needs to do is scan all the networks that the politicians are running. Then report the ones in violation of the law to the authorities and see how long the law lasts. For that matter, don't just stop at the authorities, find out what the Federal agencies and DoD contractors are using, and report them too. Is the state going to take the Federal government to task? The DoD? If they do then the law is toast, if they don't then evidence that the law is applied selectively will spell it's doom just as nicely.
For that matter, engage in some civil disobedience. Get some of the more prominent geeks in the area to do a "VPN Day" in protest. No reason to take that shit quietly.
Unbreakable toys can be used to break other toys.
Oops - the link should be this instead. Damn spastic posting finger...
Once the DMCA passed it became obvious that law makers actually ARE perpetrating the insane. Rights are destroyed when people hear about it happening and just hit the snooze button. It's happening right now.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
I would guess that this has been planted into the document, or retained in the document so that one could get then entire law revoked based on unconstitutionality.
life, liberty, and the persuit of hapiness? seems like 750.335 is risking that.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Thus, making everyone subject to blackmail by the state--"obey our every command, or we'll find something bad you've done and punish you. Bow before Zod!"
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
This form has been used already 10 minutes ago. You can not use a form and hit the back button to use it again. Chances are, you're behind a firewall or proxy. If the problem persists you will be tried and convicted in the state of Michigan for violation of state legislation.
they want a libertarian state. it'll just be a bunch of guys!
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I wonder about this piece of the legislation:
(c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.
If I read this correctly, doesn't it imply that an ISP could get you in trouble for viewing content that they consider unsuitable, thus without their "express authority or actual consent"? For example, if you're highly politically motivated, and view websites that your ISP considers inappropriate, they could have you arrested.
Welcome to the United States of Thought Control.
-- You have moved your mouse. Windows will now reboot.
I hope when you decide to become a lawyer that you'll do more for your client than skim the legislation and hope for the best, because your research skills SUCK.
...AND YOU DON'T THINK THESE BROAD DEFINITIONS DON'T INCLUDE MODEMS AND ROUTERS THAT HAVE NAT???
Note the following line in the ammendment.
(b) "Telecommunications access device" shall have the same meaning as in section 219a.
Here's the URL for Section 219a.
Section 219a
(b) "Telecommunications access device" means any of the following:
(i) Any instrument, device, card, plate, code, telephone number, account number, personal identification number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, counterfeit number, or financial transaction device as defined in section 157m that alone or with another device can acquire, transmit, intercept, provide, receive, use, or otherwise facilitate the use, acquisition, interception, provision, reception, and transmission of any telecommunications service.
(ii) Any type of instrument, device, machine, equipment, technology, or software that facilitates telecommunications or which is capable of transmitting, acquiring, intercepting, decrypting, or receiving any telephonic, electronic, data, internet access, audio, video, microwave, or radio transmissions, signals, telecommunications, or services, including the receipt, acquisition, interception, transmission, retransmission, or decryption of all telecommunications, transmissions, signals, or services provided by or through any cable television, fiber optic, telephone, satellite, microwave, data transmission, radio, internet based or wireless distribution network, system, or facility, or any part, accessory, or component, including any computer circuit, security module, smart card, software, computer chip, pager, cellular telephone, personal communications device, transponder, receiver, modem, electronic mechanism or other component, accessory, or part of any other device that is capable of facilitating the interception, transmission, retransmission, decryption, acquisition, or reception of any telecommunications, transmissions, signals, or services.
Note that telephone numbers, PINs, and account numbers are considered telecommunication access devices.
What color is the sky in your world?
BTW, This has nothing to do with being anti-George Bush, anti-corporation, anti-war, or anti-republican. This is about EVERYDAY corruption that's been happening in this and EVERY OTHER country since the dawn of civilization that infects EVERY political party.
Grow up and stop being naive.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
I guess they really want my kid and the kids at my neice's school to get into the pr0n. We use both use SquidGuard to keep them out of the nasty stuff.
And we most certainly have more machines than the five IP addresses we got with the business DSL account.
What?
Straw. Camel's back.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
the land of the free ... ROTFL - wait til MS MindReader1.0 gets out .
Everybody stop and THINK for a minute. All states are part of a bigger government. We need to find a small central/south American country or island that is in financial ruin, shouldn't be hard. Once a country is in consideration we need to speak to the government and see what they are willing to do to assist us in creating a successful technology park. They would need to grant us lifetime rights to block of land with stable power and telecom. They would need to offer bilingual people to translate and teach spanish. We would need to bring in business that would employ local people at a true living wage, and pay taxes of our true income at an acceptable percentage. We get to live our geekly lives in paradise, their government gets a nice boost to their GNP, everybody wins!
> The United States is not the freedom loving country that alot of people take us for. We jail a higher percentage of our population than any other country. Including China, Iraq, Iran, or North Korea.
Link please.
Ok, unless I'm missing something here (and I could be), how are they going to prove someone is using a VPN or firewall? The VPN should look like normal IP traffic between 2 machines. Same thing with the firewall. While you could interpret the proposed (or approved in MI's case) law as making these illegal, if they are setup correctly it should be undetectable. From the ISP's point of view, all traffic from that subscriber is coming from the firewall and they can't detect the protected machines.
It's funny...I went back and read the service agreement for my ISP and while it prohibits creating a LAN with "un-approved" equipment, it also states that it is the subscriber's responsiblity to secure the machines he/she places on the network. So, a firewall used to shield the subscriber from the ton of port scans received daily, but really shouldn't be there because the subscriber has 3 machines on the LAN? Seems like a paradox to me and pretty much impossible to prove. Not that it makes the law, written as it is, good or valid.
(b) "Telecommunications access device" shall have the same meaning as in section 219a.
Boy, you really have a problem reading and understanding basic english, don't you. Pay attention now:
There is a BIG difference between "unlawful telecommunications device", to which part (1) of this ammendment refers to, and "telecommunications device"
The fact is that this law applies to "unlawful telecommunication devices" NOT "telecommunication access devices". READ THE BILL!!!!
The FACTS are
a. that this does NOT apply to devices such as routes, firewalls, or use of VPN or NAT technologies, and
b. you are the most insultingly stupid correspondent I have ever had the misfortune to meet on slashdot.
(1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used to do any of the following:
Umm, doesn't this apply to the company manufacturing NAT and similar devices, rather than common citizens? If that's the case, Michigan would need to drag Linksys, Cisco, CompUSA, Circuit City, and about 10,000 other manufacturers and distributors into court.
_______
2B1ASK1
So then the phone on your desk at your company would be illegal too... because to the outside world, because your extension doesn't show up on caller-ID? THe PBX effectively performs a feature similar to NAT in the IP world.
Concealing the origin of a telecommunication service.. we need to look up the legal definition of "ORIGIN" as related to similar telecommunications laws.
I would think concealin the origin would be things such as telephone diverters (bridging two phone lines somewhere to hide your real location), hacking some network to hide where you really are, etcetera.
Then again, it's extremely big-brotherish to DEMAND that every conversation has to be recorded.
Soon we'll have to use networks of real people whispering to each other so that they can't pass laws about it.
Wonder how many people here have ever even seen a rotary dial
Interesting note - I read a newspaper article a couple of years ago about a high school that put a rotary phone in the office, to prevent students from using the phone to call out..
Apparently they had no idea how to use one.
I gather the vast majority of students in the United States are more concerned about whether to buy Britney or Aguilera, what to wear for the party next weekend and perhaps, at a push, their education. Really, the number of people who understand the implications of a law like this is very low, even amongst so-called computer literate people.
.NET. They leave college after three years with little more actual understanding than when they signed up for the course.
Even computer science students have little awareness of the social aspects of computing these days. Courses tend to concentrate on "practical" aspects of computing like how to write Web apps in the latest edition of Microsoft Visual Studio
Basically, nobody is handing themselves into the police because noone understands or cares. A sorry situation, but there you have it. There may be a valid way for the Americans to stop these laws from proliferating, but your suggestion will never work.
I've never used VPN, but IIRC, doesn't Windows 98 and later have VPN support built in? I know it has modem sharing built in, so does this make your Windows CD a circumvention device? Personally, if all the lawyers want to go off and circle jerk themselves into oblivion over this, that's fine by me. Those of us who produce useful work will just have to change our addresses every 6 months like work-at-home envelope-stuffing scammers.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
that the interest group that put Bush into office is the greatest defender of democracy by preventing a thorough vote count during the closest presidential election in history?
Or that this same group honors every American's citizens' right to privacy by urging the writing of laws to allowing them to be spied upon?
Or that it supports capitalism by protecting scum like Kenneth Lay and quietly reducing punishment for other criminals who pretend to be businessmen-capitalists but who are in reality only conartists?
Come on, dude.
The election of Bush to the presidency was the best thing that's happened to humanity since.... since...
The invention of The Stairmaster!
the manner in which lying about getting a blowjob was declared to be a "high crime". Clinton was/is obviously on somebody's shitlist.
"One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
They must have some juicy personal details to use to threaten Tony Blair...
This type of legislation is of course cutting into their bottom line. Linksys (who makes pretty good resedential Router, VPN, Firewall boxes) was just aquired by Cisco and I'm sure that Cisco would like to expand their presance into the residential market.
It seems pretty evident that this law wasn't written by datacomm interests, it was written by telecom interests - namely the satellite and cable tv industry. Look at the gist of this in the context of digital satellite and cable, and you'll stop worrying about your home IP networks and start worrying about your TiVO.
Obviously that won't stop a zealot from trying to use it to prosecute you for having a Linksys Cable/DSL router, but I think the money to buy this silly law came from the studios and the distributors of TV shows, not the (re)issuers of IP addresses, IPSs and GSPs.
As I read it, and as others have pointed out, the new law makes an instant criminal out of (probably) 95%+ of the DSL and cable DSU users in the affected state. Anyone who uses a NAT-capable device (myself included) could be in a most uncomfortable position due to crap like this.
That's the bad news. The good news is that, given the sheer volume of people that already have NAT-type hookups, I don't see how this can possibly be effectively enforced. Even if the affected states try to make an example out of a few folks, it'll probably get appealed until doomsday.
I predict widespread 'civil disobedience' at first, followed by an effective court challenge that will overturn such legislative lunacy.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
As my NWN Dwarf says, "To your weapons!" ...Not that a wireless keyboard for a shield and a stun-enabled screwdriver (w/ all the capaciters on my TigerMP board) is really going to hold them off, though.
Does this mean that Remote Desktop (single user with WinXP Pro or mutliple users with W2k Server) would also be illegal?
Say a company has their head office in MI, remote offices in other states, uses MS Terminal Services and their users remotely access servers outside of said company's network wouldn't this violate the law?
Or if someone at work uses an RDP client to connect to his WinXP Pro box at home and checks his email [remotely] wouldn't this also violate the law?
My company would be royally screwed by this.
pherris
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
If NAT is illegal, the ISPs would need to provide many, many more ip addresses than are currently available. The law would effectively shut down commercial Internet traffic in Michigan untill the whole state converted to IPV6.
I'm pretty sure most American citizens are in violation of the Federal Tax Code in some way or another. I think about everyone becomes a criminal or perjures himself when he signs next to the X on his tax forms :) So what's the big deal with violating this (obviously unenforceable) law?
Has no one read this article? Come on folks.
Security expert Steve Bellovin writes that he thinks this bill is intended by ISPs to fight off WiFi hotspots.
There has been a controversy in the WiFi arena about whether commercial WiFi services will take off or whether free access via "warchalking" etc is going to make it impossible to make a profit from commercial wireless access. Mostly it is the ISPs who are operating these commercial services (in partnerships with some national companies that set up the technology). And these same ISPs have anti-sharing clauses in their end-user contracts that are widely ignored.
This Michigan law, like the others that have been proposed, would make it arguably illegal to operate a free, public wireless access point without permission from your ISP. And if your ISP is trying to sell commercial wireless that you'd be competing with, you certainly won't get permission.
This law puts teeth in that prohibition. It could doom free wireless. A very big deal indeed.
1. One day after this law comes in, it's you.know.what day. 2. That website is not government owned as far as i can tell, and thus it is possible that it is all a joke (see above :P)
3. Even if this is not a joke, it will probably be dropped in a few days.
4. And even if not, IE/Windows is still legal, the law says that doing all of that stuff is illegal, however it does not ban anything that potentially can do that.
What if you are making a VPN connection from different states, and it travels through a backbone that physically resides in these states? Is this a crime as well???!?!?
The fact is that this law applies to "unlawful telecommunication devices" NOT "telecommunication access devices". READ THE BILL!!!!
... and under their definition of "place" when they say "Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination"...
Maybe you should RE-read, before you're so hasty to flame:
A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used to do any of the following:
I'm still trying to determine if using a NAT applies under this definition of "telecommuncations device"
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
We're gonna build ourselves a river...
"Here, we digust morality" Maurice Chaves
put the what in the where?
Seriously... what do they mean by "place"?
... they just lay the clause out there and seemingly hope for the best. We don't know what's illegal, until a judge comes along in a big court case and sets some precident. That's a big problem, in my book, sorta like ex-post-facto -- "we'll tell you what's illegal as soon as someone does it."
This is the problem with legalese... there's always key terms that they don't seem to bother defining.
If place means "approximate physical location" then NAT'ing your home is fine. But sharing wifi with your neighbors may not be.
If place means "specific computer that originated the data" -- well, then NAT might be in trouble. But come to think of it, doesn't that seem like an odd definition of "place"?
For example, when I use a cell phone, do you say the place of origin of my call is the cell phone, or the actual location i'm in when I make the call?
The problem is -- a good lawyer could argue either way. The law is, at best, AMBIGUOUS. The lawmakers don't specify what their intention was in the clause
This clause shouldn't be allowed to stand as it is.
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
'"Telecommunications device" means any instrument, equipment, machine, or device that facilitates telecommunications. Telecommunications device includes, but is not limited to, a computer, computer chip or circuit, telephone, cellular telephone, pager, personal communications device, transponder, receiver, radio, modem, or device that enables use of a modem. '
I don't see email headers as falling under this definition, which smacks more of hardware than software...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Lots or routers, etc, have an option to spoof a MAC address. So you spoff the MAC so it looks like a NIC, not a router etc. Maybe I am missing something, but seems like that would work.
Several years ago, the "Big Three" US auto makers, Ford, GM, and Chrysler, began promoting their idea of the Automotive Network eXchange (ANX), to cut costs of communications. See http://www.anx.com/ for more info.
The idea is to eliminate expensive leased lines, by aggregating all traffic onto internet connections using IPSec. The ANX was one of the big drivers IPSec's adoption as the VPN standard.
The ANX will eventually connect 10,000+ automotive supplier companies. Many of these 10,000 are also in Michigan, but the extend all over the world.
Outside of this project, you'll find VPN projects in a high percentage of corporations around the world. The cost savings of using cheap/ubiquitous Internet connections is very compelling. Using VPN's is the only way these companies can do it securely.. this is not going away. I would love for the legislators to persist in these plans, and see how fast they get bitch slapped, setting a cautionary example for future efforts.
I use a hardware firewall and occasionally tack
in my laptop from time to time. Sensitive
data from work is STRICTLY not allowed on
outside PCs. We are allowed to VPN from home
on the laptops. Should the company I work for
consider paying for the extra connection the
new law will impose?
On top of that, there's a slew of places that you cannot take one into. Namely schools (where they're probably needed most)
Cthulhu! What kind of schools do you have in Michigan?
Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
The end of SPAM???
/spam and or hide the origin of spam immediately become criminal. Also, wouldn't it now be illegal for the ISP to not provide you with the origin of the spam? I think there may be a shimmer of a silver lining.
If
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service.
They wouldn't any program which offers to distribute
you already were criminals. that's theft of service
if your buddies want cable, they pay for it, you don't just rebroadcast it to save everyone some money. that's plain illegal.
why is that so hard to understand?
Don't forget about the cable co's practices a while back either. They charged for every tv you had in your house as well. Cable splitters were the rage then, as you could share the same signal to multiple TVs. In the end, they don't really care anymore.
:)
Nowadays with digital cable, it's like they're purposely trying to turn the clock back agian. You want digital cable in the second room? You need a second cable box now. To be honest,(I have adelphia)I'm not sure what their policy is for having an unauthorized (as in, hey we didn't give you that to use!) cable box for use in another room is.
I guess i could go out and purchase another motorola box for my bedroom, but i'm a bit wary of doing that. I know they can practically ping the "authorized" box in the livingroom, so i'm sure if i hooked up a second box that I bought, they'd spot that and send me a nasty letter or something. This is all in theory anyway, any info about this would be appreciated.
A Penny for my thoughts? Here's my two cents. I got ripped off!
"It appears to be specifically designed to target phone phreaking"
Maybe, but it is nicely written to be very broad and include all sorts of other goodies that the telecoms may not like.
Re-read it and see this again:
section 1 starts with "A person shall not... or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following...."
So this targets users as well as makers of the device. But here's the kicker that kills VPN. It's in section 1(c)
"receive, disrupt, decrypt... any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider."
So it is so broadly written that decryption is not allowed unless your telco provider says so. This includes VPN's and SSL. The latter, your ISP likely will allow, the former only if they choose to. Point is, this gives the ISP and TELCO's all the power to determine what you can do.
PS IANAL, but shit, just maybe all that reading of the IRS code I've done has seemed to pay off
Devices covered under this bill are devices intended to:
- Obtain a telecommunications service without paying for it.
- Conceal the existence, origin, or destination of any telecommunications service.
- Do anything with a telecommunications service without the consent of the service provider.
- Hijack a subscriber's telecom access device without his/her consent.
- Counterfeit telecommunications (e.g., cable descramblers).
- A fraudulent or deceptive scheme, pretense, method, or conspiracy, or any device or other means; e.g.:
- Using a fraudulent identification.
- The use of a telecom access device to violate this section by a non-subscriber to exchange anything of value to the subscriber to allow that unlawful use of the telecommunications access device.
What the bill criminalizes:- The assembly, development, manufacturing, possession, delivering, offer of delivery, or advertisement of the aforementioned devices.
- The modification of a device to make it an aforementioned device.
- The delivery, offer of delivery, or advertisement of plans, instructions, or materials for the manufacture, assembly, or development of the aforementioned devices.
Criminal penalties for violating this bill:- Up to 4 years of imprisonment.
- A fine of up to $2,000.
- Both 1 & 2.
- The violator must forfeit the device and receive no compensation.
- The violator must pay restitution.
Important notes:- Violation of this bill is a felony.
- Each aforementioned device constitutes a separate violation. In other words, a person may be sentenced an additional 4 years and $2,000 for each aforementioned device (s)he owns.
- This bill does not affect amateur services licensed by the FCC.
Definitions:- Telecommunications (service provider) -- any service lawfully provided for compensation to facilitate the origination, transmission, retransmission, emission, or reception of intelligible information over a telecommunications system
- Telecommunications access device -- basically, anything which can access, utilize, manipulate, etc a telecom system.
- Telecommunications system -- any system, network, or facility owned or operated by a telecommunications service provider
Those are all defined in section 219a of Michigan's Penal Code. I went to Michican's home-page, and searched for 219a. Unfortunately, only the proposed wording of the bill was offered, and the final bill's language was not. So I had to go to LexisNexis. What a scam to privitive public information. So, this bill covers internet services, telephone services, TV-services, satellite services, an so on and so forth. Since it covers retransmission, it would criminalize the use of WiFi, creating an anti-social community (as RMS says), where helping your neighbor is frowned upon. Even though you are presumably paying for 24-7 full-time use of your broadband, you aren't permitted to use it 24-7 if that means letting other people access your system and use it. Furthermore, you could get up to 4 years in jail for this. Child molesters sometimes don't get 4 years in jail. Additionally, each subsequent violation (e.g., device owned) would get you an additional 4 years if the judge decided that you were to serve the sentences consecutively. This may also criminalize such things as TiVo, since they effectively re-transmit (time-shifting) programmed scheduling to the user at a later time, removing commercials, and do not have the TSP's approval.social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Certain IP numbers do not route, such as the 10.xxx.xxx.xxx subnet.
I always love this statement, like somehow 10.x.x.x addresses are unroutable over the Internet. It's not that they are unroutable, it's just that they aren't suppose to be routed. Routers have to be configured to ignore any routing for these subnets. Not everyone does this. Recently (and maybe they still are) ATT was routing 10.x.x.x traffic over their backbone which they sell to other companies. I know this because we weren't blocking 10.x.x.x traffic at our edge like we should have and kept seeing odd IP's showing up in our area. Finally tracked it down to cable modems in New England.
Once a word has been allowed to escape, it cannot be recalled.
I have an article on illegal activities under this law at: http://www.stearns.org/doc/networking-felony.curre nt.html.
Mason, Buildkernel and more: http://www.stearns.org/
I thought big brother would appear in Soviet Union, but the real thing, its being grown up in the US.
Don't let your gov play with your rights in the name of security, economics, and that crap. When you realize, you'll have no law left to protect yourself.
We've lost the country.
So if a telemarketer keeps their number from showing up on your CallerID screen you can have them arrested as a terrorist. Cool.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Not only does this make NAT illegal, but it also makes security by obscurity illlegal ;)
-Turkey
But how many times has "Die Faterland" come down on you?
If you take the stuff the average left-wing nutbag protestor does in the United States, and ship them off to Iraq, it would be a matter of minutes before one of Saddam's thugs took him or her, cut out his or her tongue, then shipped him or her off to prison where he or she would be tortured daily until eventually being executed or pardonned, whichever the local prison warden's whims took him.
People who claim the US is a police state don't have a friggin clue. They get arrested for breaking the window of a Starbucks coffee shop in their little "protest" (read: riot), and they bitch and whine because the food they get served isn't hot or doesn't taste good, the jail bed (that they spend one night in) is uncomfortable, and the policeman stared at them menacingly after they spit in his face and called him a baby killer.
There was a study that came out recently that documented that many protestors are, by participating in large protests, are essentially attempting to make up for social inadequacies experienced in adolescence. This sounds about right. So what inadequacy are you attempting to rectify Jah-Wren?
Laws are often redundantly written. You'll find that Section 750.540c and 750.219a are not exception.
If you read the bill a little closer, you'll note that not only does the bill apply to unlawful telecommunications devices, but it ALSO applies to LAWFUL telecommunications devices
A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications access device OR (assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device (THAT INCLUDES NAT ROUTERS AND EVEN PIN CODES. )) intending to use those devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of the following or knowing or having reason to know that the devices are intended to be used to do any of the following:
From my prior post, we know that a PIN code is considered a telecommunications device. Modems are routers are DEFINITELY fit under the definition. Now, if NAT fits ONE of these sub-paragraphs, then NAT fits the bill...
(a) Obtain or attempt to obtain a telecommunications service with the intent to avoid or aid or abet or cause another person to avoid any lawful charge for the telecommunications service in violation of section 219a.
(NAT may technically fall under this because it provides access to more than one computer by avoiding charges However, I'll be nice and not count this one.)
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service.
(This is how NAT works, it conceals the existances and origin by proxying a connection... That's #1)
(c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.
(Wow... Other than disrupting, decrypting, NAT does all of these other things WITHOUT the express authority of actual consent of the Telco. That's #2 )
BONUS INFO
I thought I would copy + paste the definition for an "unlawful telecommunications access device" while we're at it.
(e) "Unlawful telecommunications access device" means any of the following:
This one targets subcription violations
(i) A telecommunications access device that is false, fraudulent, unlawful, not issued to a legitimate telecommunications access device subscriber account, or otherwise invalid or that is expired, suspended, revoked, canceled, or otherwise terminated if notice of the expiration, suspension, revocation, cancellation, or termination has been sent to the telecommunications access device subscriber.
This targets unauthorized phone use
(ii) Any phones altered to obtain service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider, a clone telephone, clone microchip, tumbler telephone, tumbler microchip, or wireless scanning device capable of acquiring, intercepting, receiving, or otherwise facilitating the use, acquisition, interception, or receipt of a telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.
This one looks interesting...
(iii) Any telecommunications access device that has been manufactured, assembled, altered, designed, modified, programmed, or reprogrammed, alone or in conjunction with another device, so as to be capable of facilitating the disruption, acquisition, interception, receipt, transmission, retransmission, or decryption of a telecommunications service without the actual consent or express authorization of the telecommunications service provider, including, but not limited to, any device, technology, product, service, equipment, computer software, or component or part, primarily (Think: Primary pu
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
Stop this war!!!! The world hates you more each day.
Organize a mass turn-yourself-in day!
Gov't admins, business admins, K-12 admins... Get your butts to the capitol, plop down on the steps, and see how they try to deal with a couple hundred or thousand lawbreakers at once.
Bring boxes of Windows and Linksys routers for destruction.
Organizers: Find a good law firm to handle it ahead of time.
You still don't have it right - look at the wording AGAIN -
or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending to use those devices or to allow the
clearly "those devices" are the unlawful devices, i.e. you aren't allowed to assemble etc. a telecommunications device intending to use unlawful devices as components.
Once again, this law has nothing to do with VPNs etc.
Maybe you should RE-read, before you're so hasty to flame
I wasn't the one to start the flaming.
Good point but... Aiiiieeee now my brain's in a knot.
... I see three major problems with the second interpretation. First, how do you build a *legal* telecommunications device out of unlawful components? Second, it seems odd that posession or sale of a legal device is unlawful if you have knowledge that an unlawful device is intended to be used with it for these specific purposes. Thirdly, this wording doesn't actually connect the use or posession or sale etc of the unlawful devices to the list of "things not to do" in the rest of the section. It'd just be saying that you can't use or sell or possess etc the unlawful devices -- which seems redundant because they're already "unlawful."
I think we need to send lawmakers back go grammar class, because it seems to me that "those devices" is ambiguous. Gramatically speaking.
It still seems to me that the best interpretation of that clause is this:
- A person shall not assemble, possess, etc etc an unlawful telecommuncations device, or assemble, possess, etc, a (legal?) telecommuncations device, intending to use [either kind of] these devices/allow [either kind of] these devices to be used/or having reason to know that [either kind of] the devices can be used for any of the following:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your proposed interpretation is this:
- A person shall not assemble, possess, etc etc an unlawful telecommuncations device, or assemble, possess, etc, a (legal?) telecommuncations device intending to use those [unlawful] devices [as components] or allow the [unlawful] devices to be used [as components] or having reason to know that the [unlawful] devices are intended to be used [as components] to do any of the following:
The following sentence is true. The preceding sentence was false.
I work for an organisation who has offices in different places. I am required as a matter of international corporate policy to use a kind of VPN over the public internet when using the public internet to communicate with work.
I wonder if I can work in Michigan and communicate with my employer? ... On
the face if it, no (;-))
davecb@spamcop.net
Let us examine the item you consider interesting:
s ion
... for the purpose of providing the unauthorized ... of telecommunications service"
(iii) Any telecommunications access device that has been manufactured, assembled, altered, designed, modified, programmed, or reprogrammed, alone or in conjunction with another device, so as to be capable of facilitating the disruption, acquisition, interception, receipt, transmission, retransmission, or decryption of a telecommunications service without the actual consent or express authorization of the telecommunications service provider.....
Look at a portion of the text you bolded:
"facilitating the disruption, acquisition, interception, receipt, transmission, retransmission, or decryption of a telecommunications service without the actual consent..."
Lets see - a NAT and facilitating unauthorized:
Transmission
Reception
Decryption
Retransmis
Acquisition
Nope. A NAT can't faciliate any unauthorized stuff like this. A NAT is not a network tap, interface, hacked head end or whatever. All a NAT does is address translation.
And then, later you cited:
primarily "(Think: Primary purpose of Cable/DSL Modem with NAT) " distributed, sold, designed, assembled, manufactured, modified, programmed, reprogrammed, or used for the purpose of providing the unauthorized receipt
Now you really are off the deep end again here. A NAT is NOT:
"primarily distributed, sold
The primary purpose of a NAT is to provide an interface between a public an private network.
You are wrong, AGAIN. Give it up, you look doubly foolish arguing a lost argument. This law has nothing to do with NATs, VPNs etc.
And next time, don't start a discussion with ad hominem attacks. You really bring out the worst in people with that sort of approach.
This is going to make a number of RFC's illegal...
How entertaining.
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
To get stuck on what the definition of "rights" is would be to miss two important points:
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
"So, what are you in for?"
"Having five computers behind a NAT."
"How long?"
"Life without parole."
While you're being pedantic, you should note that I didn't claim (atleast not intentionally) NAT performed all of those actions. If I did, then I must have been rushing as I was trying to highlight the kep concepts for your benefit.
...and technically, YOU started the ad hominem attacks when you wrote:
While you claim that NAT "only does address translation", you're technically right, but you're conclusion is also technically useless (a moot point). Let me explain.
While the NAT technology (a component of a larger system) only provides address translation, a NAT enabled router/modem (the whole system) definitely transmits and retransmits, clearly qualifying for that specific clause, which is designed to be broad.
Secondly, I didn't claim the primary purpose of NAT (a technology component of many devices) is to provide unauthorized telecommunications service. I SPECIFICALLY said a NAT enabled DSL/Cable modem's (See how I didn't include ALL NAT equipment) purpose is to provide unauthorized telecommunications service (to additional computers).
This unauthorized used of additional computers is enabled by a NAT enabled modems address translation and retransmission capabilities, not to mention the fact is obscures the origin which is a clear violation of sub-paragraph (ii).
In other words: This law considers NAT benign, a NAT router benign, but it clearly states that a NAT device specifically designed to provide unauthorized access for additional computer (a NAT enabled modem) is in violation of the law.
I've already corrected a number of your assertions, which I'm assuming giving your lack of rebuttle you've agreed, so why don't you give me a little consideration for this point? I'm not asking you agree and abandon your critical thinking skills, I'm just asking for your consideration.
When dealing with legislation (especially legislation), you need to be very careful with the specifics of the language used. It's like a lot like software insofar as a small adjustment in semantics, defintions, clauses, logical precident here and there can affect the outcome dramatically.
You concluded with:
And next time, don't start a discussion with ad hominem attacks. You really bring out the worst in people with that sort of approach.
I can't remember using an ad hominem attack. I asserted your research skills were poor, your interpretation skills obtuse, and probably harshly critisized your other critical thinking skills.
All this does is make owning or selling phone freaking equipment illegal. It ha nothing to do with George Bush being the second coming of Hitler or any such thing.
Come to think of it, I probably wouldn't have responded if you hadn't resorted to an ad hominem attack.
I did intend to make your post look stupid so to make it appear as if I was punishing you. While I understand my "punishment" would probably do nothing to curb your behavior, I hope that my criticism turns your original post into an example of what not to do.
I never use ad hominem attacks as a substitute for a rational argument. Ad hominem attacks are much more suited for influencing attitudes, not opinions.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
And if i was not a slashdot reader, I would not know about this law! The typical lets-not-tell-them-so-they-will-be-screwed-when-we -catch-them mentality. Anyway, I thought that this link might be a good place for fellow Michigan slashdotters to look at. Remember the article on counting machines behind a NAT ? Well, at least counter-inteligence would be less likely to suspect you/me/user as a mulit-machine law breaker.
I guess I really don't care, now do I? Come and find me if you really care that much!
This useless space for sale, inquire at front desk.
They will only be breaking the law if they refuse to pay the new NAT fee to the ISP and use the ISP's new complient NAT that tracks the user's every browse and email. Gotchaaa! Carnivore and profit all in one swoop.
The future looks worse every day.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Let me see....
(c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.
This one looks interesting... (iii) Any telecommunications access device that has been manufactured, assembled, altered, designed, modified, programmed, or reprogrammed, alone or in conjunction with another device, so as to be capable of facilitating the disruption, acquisition, interception, receipt, transmission, retransmission, or decryption of a telecommunications service without the actual consent or express authorization of the telecommunications service provider, including, but not limited to, any device, technology, product, service, equipment, computer software, or component or part, primarily (Think: Primary purpose of Cable/DSL Modem with NA
If I am reading this right, then radio's, TV's, radio scanners, and WiFi (think wardriving) are now illegal.
Need it be said - IANAL!
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
All these scumbags can KISS MY ASS...
I could give a SHIT what law they pass.
I build firewalls from old PC's and run smoothwall on them.
I build them to protect my systems from hackers and BIG BROTHER.
If they don't like that they can take it up with the business end of my 12 GUAGE SHOTGUN...
Hey Big Brother, FUCK YOU......
Time to over throw the government folks, they have become tyranical.
So let me get this straight. You only care if people are being killed if they are Muslims? That if they were Jews, Christians, Buddhists, agnostics, Cao Dai, atheists, whatever, you wouldn't care? Or would care less than you do about Muslims?
Now, let me ask you an honest question. This is not a troll, nor intended to be flamebait. I often see expressed in the media Muslim opinions that essentially seem to be saying "The only thing that matters here is that the people in Iraq are (mostly) Muslims. Who is right and who is wrong doesn't matter, only who is Muslim." Do many Muslims actually believe that, or is it that only only those who believe that make headlines?
Another question: if two primarily Muslim countries have a war, how do you know which one to cheer for? The one that is the same sect of Muslim as you (Shia, Sunni, etc.), or what? Or does right and wrong come into the picture only at that point, but not if one of the combatants is a not a primarily Muslim nation?
Final question: There are a number of American Muslims, too. I'd be surprised if some of them are not in the war right now, fighting against Iraq. Uh-oh, now we have Muslims fighting Muslims, how do you cheer for?
Let me restate that none of the above is a troll or meant to be flamebait, I honestly want to hear your thoughts on these points so that I can better understand the Muslim point of view on this war. I hope you will respond in the same spirit, since the world needs a lot more understanding and a lot less flamebait, IMO.
Finally, let me make one point of my own: that no matter what some people may think, this war is *not* about religion. In fact, the United States has never been in a war about religion. This war is about politics, it's about (IMO) a personal grudge, it's about oil and money and weapons. To some extent, it's even really about Saddam Hussein's conduct. However, it is most certainly not about religion.
What kind of constitution let states make their own communications law? How f***ed-up is that!
Communications should be subject only to national/federal law. Standard setting and other co-operative efforts should be (and mostly is) international and then ratified by national/federal governments.
If you don't fix your constitution - you've only got yourselves to blame. Most western countries resolved this issue well over 100 years ago!
As a little girl from Kansas once said... "there's no place like home!".
This post is positively gagging for a 'funny' mod.
I can't understand the point of those laws. The United States of America are becoming paranoid with security. I hope this is just for a minority, as creationism. They can negate evolution, Eppur "Internet" se muove.
I seem to remember seeing something about this recently. IIRC, the court was handling a case where they didn't seem to agree with the law, but that's not what they are allowed to rule on. Congress is allowed to make stupid laws, and the Court can only rule on whether they are Constitutional, or not.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Don't most Local/State/Federal Agencies use VPN, NAT and the like? Wouldn't some of these bills make teir own security proceedures Illegal?????
I am wondering, since the michigan law is so broadly written as to almost be completely unenforceable (sp?) - maybe it was just to shut up whining broadband providers - but bears no legal teeth?
I don't see in that MI legislation where VPN and/or NAT is disallowed. I have 5 machines running on my connection -- but I am not concealing the origin of the message, since the origin is still my house. I could see that this might ban wireless offloading of bandwidth -- but how does it prevent me from using VPN or NAT?
Malachi
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
And all at once, at computers all over America, thousands of /. readers felt their knees jerk uncontrollably all at once.
I'm glad whenever a new law is posted regarding telecom, there are so many people ready to damn it. What, are you people anarchists or something? Laws are *supposed* to be broad. If they weren't, there would be millions of laws dealing with specific issues, and they would be even more impossible to learn - thus making them ineffective anyway.
Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE, does this law state that using any type of hardware to create an internal network, through VPN, NAT, or whatever, is illegal. Yes, it has the POTENTIAL to be used poorly, but so does every law.
Use some common sense, people. Would any ISP *really* want to waste time and money to prosecute hundreds of college kids and computer hobbyists who wanted to have more than one computer online at home, and make ineffectual hundreds of thousands of dollars of hardware that they themselves (the ISP) might be using? The answer is 'fsck no'.
Michigan Goverment Need to remove all their firewalls.
Or break the laws today.
Michigan goverment need to remove all their firewall or break the law.
Their firewall hide there real address.
I work at a large ISP here in SouthEast Michigan. And I for one know of customers of ours that use VPN on our dial-up and our wireless internet service. I don't understand why Michigan would decide to make such a law, or let alone fail to notify a company such as ourselves to let us know about our possibility of violating such a law and our new rights under such a law. I for one do not support this matter. We sell you bandwidth. We give you an IP address. Why should we have rights for what goes on past your router or bridge? This is our network, that is your network. That is how it SHOULD work. GOVERNMENT SHOULD LEAVE TECHNOLOGY ALONE AND QUIT HURTING PROGRESS!
Whether that is an argument that the Michagan AG would accept, is another question. But, without valid source and destination addresses, the packets are just not going to be useful on the network.
This law seems to apply much better to spam with forged and/or altered headers, in which the actual source address is not easily recoverable from the message.
Often the cities charge a user/connection fee when a house is built and attached to the system. It can be based on the number of bedrooms, or on the size of the pipe, which itself is sometimes regulated. In some places, there's a surcharge for a fatter pipe. 3/4" used to be fine for an average family, but now we have larger houses with more water-saving devices in it, and some smaller families, but the plumbing unions like putting in higher capacity 1.25" pipes, and the municpalities like charging more.
It isn't as if the same 4.5 people use 77% more water nowdays, and also the larger pipes build up scale faster, but it is a scam perpetrated by the plumbers and municipalities to increase their charges and fees, with the justification of the increased numbers of access points (more showers baths, tubs, sinks), against the new home buyers.
Trying to charge for more access points is the same sort of scam.
This law doesn't just pertain to IP traffic. Other proctocols going across it (SMTP is a good example here) also have to adhere to this law. I wonder: does this make AIM illegal, since you don't really know where your IMs are coming from?
Did anyone take the time to read the whole law??? 750.219a.amended - Section 219a(1) A person shall not knowingly obtain or attempt to obtain telecommunications service with intent to avoid, attempt to avoid, or cause another person to avoid or attempt to avoid any lawful charge for that telecommunications service by using any of the following... The law only applies if you are trying to get by without paying for the service.
I have a DSL connection with Verizon, and they actually advertise networking your broadband connection as a FEATURE. On their web page, they have FAQ's about setting up a broadband router, and I've even gotten spam from them advertising how they will sell you the hardware that you need.
They don't charge on a per-computer basis. You can hook up as many computers as you want for the same price. They do cap your bandwidth, so it's not like hooking multiple machines up costs them anything.
Anyways, I wonder what effect a law like this would have on my situation. I mean, my ISP allows it - in fact they ENCOURAGE it. Would they be in violation of the law, too, because they are, in effect, conspiring to break this law?
------
www.moneybythenumbers.com
Unbelievable.
The USA has taken the lead in the incarceration rate.
It's prison population rate was between 686 (in 2001) and 702 (in 2000) prisoners per 100,000 of the national population, according to various sources.
Also see here and some additional info here.
I wonder what were the rates for 2002 and what they are today.
What are the ramafications of section 3 as bolded above. this could be taken that delivering the indivudual parts to build such a device could be a felony. this has Frightning possibilitys for electronic parts company's and there liability for what may or may not be built with the parts sold and Delivered to a person who may or may not be creating a Illegal device with the parts.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."