Slashdot Mirror
"Super-DMCA" Outlaws Ph.D. Thesis
zenquest writes "SecurityFocus reports in this article that a recently-enacted Michigan law makes the graduate work of Niels Provos illegal. (His honeyd project was discussed here a few months back.) According to the article, "Among other things, residents of the Great Lakes State can no longer knowingly "assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise" any device or software that conceals "the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service." It's also a crime to provide written instructions on creating such a device or program. Violators face up to four years in prison." Provos has had to move his website and research papers to a server in the Netherlands. Similar bills are under consideration in seven states, and have become law in six others. The EFF has more information about the individual states. So, does this mean that Caller-ID block now illegal, as well?"
Someone should inform the telcos that they cannot offer this service anymore. Then the army of telco lawyers will kill the bill.
... is that the US will use it's diplomatic muscle to force laws like this on those of us who live in the free world.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
It will go as far as we allow the politicians to take it. Tell them what you think via snail mail or by phone, if that does not work tell them at the polls!
-------
Bite Me Fanboy!!
The law is of course idiotic - I won't bother to comment on it.
But why does he think he can just move the stuff to the Netherlands? He is still a US citizen and a Michigan citizen, and he is still producing the documents that are illegal. It doesn't matter where he publishes _to_, it's where he publishes _from_.
If a Dutch citizen published it then fine - it's legal there, but he's not accomplishing anything by putting the documents in another country, and I don't know why he thinks he is. If they wanted to prosecute they could.
The law makes it illegal to hide the information from a service provider without the service provider's permission. In the case of caller ID, the service provider is the telephone company. You are not hiding the onformation from them, and even if you were, by using the service they provide, they are giving permission.
So I can legally post software that tells people how to create a bomb. Posting how to create a bomb on a web site has been to federal court and protected. But I can't write software to conceal a communications device? Which is more dangerous? And where does it end? Will anyone in the federal government be able to say code is a form of speech any time soon?
Developers: We can use your help.
Does this make nearly all Spam coming in or coming from Michigan illegal? All the Spam I see has the originating address hidden in some way.
lexbaby
"Be Brave, Be Loyal, Be True." -- Hawkeye Pierce
Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler. -- Albert Einstein
It is now illegal to use your telephone, record player, computer, and PDA, in a any manner whatsoever. Thank you.
More news views and things that amuse at pajonet.com
Yet another win for Anti-Terrorism. I feel much safer now.
This is outrageous, how far will the DMCA go before those in charge realize what it's doing to us. How much will it take before soemone decides to put an end to it.
Hitler made a policy of eradicating intellectualis in order to quell dissent within germany. George Bush and friends are promoting laws that do the same thing within the United States. In an ideal republican world, there will be no "end to it". Or, as Orwell put it, "the future is a boot stomping on a human face forever".
Clinton may have passed the DMCA, but like any other sensible human being he would re-evaluate its effect, listen to his public, and make changes that were better in accord with the spirit of america. There is little hope of that within the current regime.
Intellectuals, professionals, and the middle-class are the enemies of republicanism. Just as republicanism is the enemy of the american dream.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
electronic voting machines. Guess we'll be stuck with good old paper punch voting machines in Michigan, since it would be a felony to allow democratic voting practices via any electronic medium under the new law.
> It will go as far as we allow the politicians to take it. Tell them what you think via snail mail or by phone, if that does not work tell them at the polls!
Votes are anonymous; your plan is probably illegal in Michagan.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Can the phone companies in Michigan offer caller-ID block? Should be illegal to do that too.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Originally I was upset that Canada, where I live, did not follow the US, its close ally, into Iraq.
This single post change all that.
I believe that anonymity is the basis of a healthy democracy. It takes a lot of guts to stand up and say something controversial without being anonymous. I believe that the benefits of anonymous statements far out way the costs.
The "...this is illegal because terrorists can use it..." argument is getting stale...
There is a fine line between safety and police state and the US is passing it in a hurry.
So hats of to living in Canada the home of the free.... until the US invades because we are thinking of legalizing possession of marihuana. As you know marihuana is a drug and drugs support terrorism.
You will have to pry my proprietary software $$$ from my cold dead hands!
The problem is everyone votes for democrats and republicans.
There is no significant difference between the two. Neither one has any intention of doing anything other than enlarging government and reducing freedoms.
Anyone who doesn't yet realize this has a screw lose, or their head buried in the sand.
Most will grab a single issue and say "I can't vote Libertarian because they like pot!" So they'll agree on 98% of the issues, but instead, vote for a republican that they disagree with on 7 5% of the issues because of pot, or abortion, or one other authoritarian leaning in them.
Does this mean that ALL cell phone must provide the phone number to caller ID.
-- Linux Consultant
However, this Michigan case doesn't really relate to the DMCA, does it? It sounds like it's targetting towards cable theft, but is written overly broadly and catches a huge array of legitimate activity within its net.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Is the caller ID blocked by my service provider, or the callers service provider?
Does the callers cell phone company, or mine, or the long distance provider in between block the caller ID?
What if I run a company switchboard, I am routing calls for them, I am their service provider, the phone company is hiding the origin of the call.
What about an answering forwarding service who answers my phone?
> Intellectuals, professionals, and the
> middle-class are the enemies of republicanism.
> Just as republicanism is the enemy of the
> american dream.
That is ludicrous. Obviously you want to take this issue and make it partisan, so if that's the case, you actually want to replace "republicanism" with "the democratic party". This is more correct for two reasons:
1) The Democratic Party wants more people on welfare, therefore intellectuals, and the middle-class are actually what Democrats want to get rid of. Only those uneducated, lower-class "citizens" can properly suck on the big mommy government!
2) The American Dream? By that do you mean the dream that everyone can work hard and make a decent living for themselves? The Democratic Party sure doesn't want you working hard for yourselves! They want the big government to give you what you need.
So, truthfully, youre statement was a pretty sad attempt to lash out at Republicans.
--- witty signature
This law will be used like many others. According to the law caller ID blocking and NAT will be outlawed however you will probably not see the removal of the DSL router from the market. What you will see however, is the hypocritical application of a law that shouldn't be in existence. Law makers and companies will use this law to further their wants and desires while ignoring any possible blow back the law could have on them. I personally would get highly upset if I were to find a Michigan resident complaining on /. who has not sent a strong letter to their legislature. For some reason I can not see this type of law lasting long if people were contacting their representatives to tell them what they thought of their voting habits. Unfortunately I think that you have a great many people complaining on /. and leaving the government to do its own thing which leaves all power in the hands of the government where it doesn't belong.
Most officials, when it comes to technology, are stupid so educate them! Most officials have a long line of companies and such asking that official to protect them (the company) and their products and a short list of individuals asking them to protect the individual and their rights as consumers and Americans.
What is the point? The individual will be the one to get hosed here. Caller ID blocking will not go away. If you don't like the law try writing your representatives while posting on /.
The legal notion of 'anonymity' is actually comprised of two components: can you publish or do something without directly indicating your identity, and can you avoid being held accountable for your actions or statements. The blanket term of 'anonymity' just blurs the issues.
The courts have consistently decided that you can operate "unsigned," in that it would abridge or chill your freedoms of speech and silence to make your identifying signatures compulsory.
The courts have NOT supported the notion that you could operate in a way that you are "unaccounted;" if an illegal and unsigned statement or speech or action can eventually be tracked to you, then you must face the consequences.
What matters here is whether NAT or DNS or Caller-ID blocks or DoD/RSA mechanisms are going to be seen as attempts to be unsigned, or unaccountable. The legislatures have rarely put much careful attention to this distinction; this may have to be handled by the more contemplative (and usually better-informed) judiciary.
[
Republicans do a lot of talk about the need to dismantle the "bloated" Federal government but really they only want to dismantle some of it. They want to dismantle all of the social programs and consumer rights laws while at the same time building a permanent massive police state that invades every aspect of our lives.
Even worse then the spying are the secret search warrants which bypass the judicial system.
People are being held for anything, for any length of time, and without access to the outside all under the guise of "protecting the citizens(aka the state).
Librarians are being hushed with threat of jail time and we have a Pres. who has made it clear how he feels about those who don't support his right to conquer anyone for any reason.
This is all like some bad dream and the 1984 jokes aren't even funny anymore. I no longer laugh at those Rednecks hiding in the woods waiting for the government to come and seize their guns.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Get off it. Fritz Hollings, the senator from Disney, is a Democrat. Politicians are bought and sold by the corporations at this point, and it doesn't matter one damn bit whether they're Republican or Democrat. To say otherwise is being blind to reality, and only likely to start fights between ourselves instead of against those who we need to target.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
They said it's because too many people were complaining about the "black bars" on the screen so now they only buy full-screen.
As long as most people are clueless our little voices won't even start to be heard.
Jay
No difference between the Dems and the GOP? I disagree.
Please realise that I'm neither an American citizen nor a resident (although I was a few years back). This is an outsider's point of view.
However, I feel that there's a fundamental difference between the two. It may not be a difference in intent, but the two parties have different entrenched power, which means different practical goals. Consider that the republicans have been running the "Thinktank for a new American century" since well before Bush jr. was even nominated. That thinktank defines the goals of the US government, and pictures the US as an absolutely authoritative "peacekeeper" of the world, forcing American values on all countries that don't comply, with as much force as possible.
Now from what I've seen, the democrats have neither the coffers, the non-electoral power, the highly developed back-room infrastructure, or the gall to afford this brand of megalomania, so they have historically tried to get along with the voters and the international community more often.
Or in other words; while both parties are after the same goals and policies, the Democrats aren't able to implement them through brute force, violence, intimidation, and ruthlessness. The Republicans are.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
We were smart enough to undo prohibition, although it took about 12 years. Maybe we can correct this error more promptly.
What makes you say that? The US continues to wage it's ill-conceived War on Drugs, and doesn't show any signs of stopping, or even slowing down, despite mounting evidence that it's making absolutely no difference while costing the American public billions and jailing untold numbers of harmless citizens.
Frankly, I think the US government is so tightly wrapped up in it's cozy blanket of rhetoric and propaganda that it is unable to see the reality of it's current situation. This applies to all the stupid moves of the US government... the DMCA, the PATRIOT act, the "War on Terrorism", the "War on Drugs"... Oh well, it just makes me more and more proud that I'm a Canadian.
Make up a separate branch of the government that has its own laws and does not follow the Constitution.
That's already in place. It's called the Bush Administration.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
I'd say the Republican's have done a very poor job of managing the economy since they took over.
I'd say that you overestimate the government influence on the economy. The government can nudge and even push the economy at times, it can't drag it from recession to prosperity. Also, if you study the stock market, you'll notice the downward trend startied in the middle of 2000, when Clinton was still President.
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
Most dissenters seem to do little more than chant rhyming nonsense.
I take issue with this. Every time I've tried to have a rational conversation with a pro-war person, they've devolved into frothing at the mouth and repeating the same tired propaganda which they have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. Even if I can be adult enough to agree to disagree because I have some respect for them (in some cases, not all), I still get cheap shots about how all protesters and dissenters are supporting terrorism etc. There is no open mind for any kind of dialog there, just blind acceptance that what the government says must be true because "they're in a position to know".
It seems ludicrous that you dismiss all dissenters based on public activity in forums where you just can't have a long thought out discussion (I can't say I look forward to the idea of large crowds of people reading dissertations). Try actually having a discussion with someone in person or somewhere like warblogging.com before you dismiss all of us because of some of us.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
I'll sum it up by asking a simple question:
How many of you outraged folks actually did something about this other than posting on slashdot or just reading about it?
People who take action get what they want in life more often than people who sit around complaining--especially if the complaining is focused solely to those who are NOT in a position to change things.
So you want to whine about DCMA? Complain about it to your representatives IN WRITING and let them know this is an issue that will determine your & your friends' votes.
The price of liberty is NOT as cheap as pure laziness. The price is vigilence. Instead of bitching about how our American government is bad, fix how bad of a American citizen you are first. You might discover that when enough of us improve ourselves as citizens, our goverment will also improve.
If you treat this as a spectator sport, you'll have as much an impact on the outcome as a sports fan screaming at his football via TV on Monday nights.
Well, what are you waiting for? Get off your ass & participate! Write that letter or start a petition! Unless of course you prefer having a scapegoat to whine about rather than doing your part as a citizen.
Sad attempt? I think the sad attempt was your attempt to deflect blame FROM the republicans.
Welfare has what to do with intellectual property?
The reason it is seen as a Republican issue is because it is a big business big money issue, and when big business speaks, the Republican party listens. They are so busy enriching themselves, they have no time to listen to anyone who is unwilling to line their pockets.
The people who are hurt by this legislation are the very people you purport to be speaking for: The hard working, american dream believing entreprenuers, who don't have corporate muscle behind them. Do you think Microsoft is being hurt by this? Sony? Intel? Dell? The RI-fricking-IA?
You want to talk partisan politics? I hate all politicians who listen harder to the rich than the poor; that includes democrats as well as republicans. Any law that favors a bloated market strangling monopoly over 99% of the rest of us can only be enacted by a government that is sitting in the pocket of corporations. This includes Republicans especially, but democrats as well.
We have a government that is so totally corrupted by big money that something like the damn DMCA could pass by the margin that it did! It's so fricking typical that you blame "big government" when you should be blaming big business!
Grow a brain man. You're getting royally screwed just like the rest of us.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
!!WARNING!! Welcome to a police state !
You DO NOT have the right to:
- Have a thought all your own. If you have a thought then you probably copyrighted it from someplace else, you owe us a royalty payment
- Own a book, you can only rent from a pre-approved list authorized from the US Attorney General
- A fair an impartial jury, you will be tried in a secret military tribunal.
- Citizenship. Your US citizenship could be stripped from you when we feel like it.
- Remain silent. We will harrass and tick you off until you tell us what we want to know, including by using sleep deprevation.
- Privacy. We see, hear, and know everything about you, including what you do in those long showers you take.
- Liberty. That was nice while it lasted.
- Freedom. We own you. We give you the thought and feel of freedom, but we control.
- Democracy. We actually give you an option of who to vote for, but it doesn't matter because we'll still control the politician with super whores.
- Taxation with representation. We control the horizontal, we control the verticle, we also control the purse. Everytime we use a bomb, we need to replace it. We decide how much we get paid and how much you get to take home.
Brought to you by the Ameri-Corp, USA. "The big brother that you always feard."
This is nice in theory, but in elections with 3 stong candidates, voters always think: I would like to vote for B, but if I do, it is likely that A will win over C, with B in third, and if I had a choice, I'd rather have C than A. In this manner, you can end up with winner that the majority of the people do not want.
This is the reason that some are pushing for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). In this method, everyone votes for their top choices, in order. Then, say in a 3 candidate election, after the first round, the third place candidates votes would revert to the second choice on those ballots. In this way, you would eventually come down to a two-way race, and you would get a more accurate picture of who the voters want (or don't want) in office. At the same time, people can list their true favorite as their top choice.
I'm sure IRV would be more complicated to implement, but it would eliminate winners with only 34% of the vote (and possible up to 66% against them.)
Googling for my own state's (Texas) Super DMCA, I found this by Dan Wallach, an asst. professor at Rice University. He has some interesting things to say aout the bills before our House and Senate. So in the interest of fact checking, I looked at the Senate version.
Sure enough, by the letter of the law, NATs would be illegal. It prohibits owning or creating any technology that is used to knowingly modify a communications sevice in ways unauthorized by the service provider. The bill imposes a Class A misdemeanor for the first offence, except where five or more 'communications devices' are employed in the 'criminal episode'. In that case, the crime is a felony.
In my home, I have a wireless NAT setup. There are four desktop systems and a laptop that regularly access the internet via that network. Additionally, there is one more desktop that occasionally joins the network. That makes seven discreet communications devices, including the router, that are employed in gaining access. The definition of a communication device is very broad and includes single connectors,switches and connections (presumably between devices). Theoretically, the state could use each cat5 cable and external wireless nic as communications devices, upping my number of devices to 10 or 12. Since my ISP only grants authorized access to one communication device in my service contract, I would fall squarely under the stated definition of a felony under this bill. For running a freakin' home network!
I freely admit that I use my internet service connection in ways unauthorized by my provider. Sure. And they can cut my service at any time of their choosing if they find out. I accept that. I'm violating the agreement, therefore they have the right to terminate it. Simple, to the point, and effective.
But now I could become a felon as well. That's where I draw the line. In my opinion, the state has no business enforcing civil contracts with the criminal justice system. That's what the civil courts are for. If my provider cares to, they can try to get compensation for any perceived loss in a civil court. There is no need to make my activities a felony.
Somethings got to be done. I'm going to do my part and write a letter. Please do yours.
(Score: -1, Stupid)
Pro war:
- There is no alternative to war (people are suffering and dying - possible direct threats by Iraq government).
Weakness:- Assumes war will work - possible post-war chaos may be worse.
- Lack of diplomacy simply pisses off rest of world.
Anti-war:- War will injure and kill innocents.
- No legal authority.
Weakness:- Peace has also allowed innocents to be injured and killed.
- Lack of action allows governments to commit far more illegal/immoral acts.
Also forgotten is, exactly what is the alternative to war? Anti-war seems to be all opposition and no proposition. Pro-war seems to be "one tool fits all". For example, rewind back to January:- First, drop main sanctions as long as Iraq coopertes with weapons inspectors. They weren't doing any good anyway. Threaten to re-impose them if inspections are prevented.
- Once disarmament is completed, drop remaining sanctions but require monitoring of questionable imports (e.g. chlorine imported for water purification must be accounted for, and can be spot-checked).
- Promote free-trade zone for Arabian League. Countries must be allowed to trade manufacturing, technology, and leverage intellectual resources. Oil is a lazy money source that doesn't promote economic development.
- Increased economic interaction will require increased (and more open) communication.
- Foreign aid targeted directly to hospitals, schools, etc., not to governments - but under control of locally elected administrative boards, not the donating countries/groups. Aid is conditional on fair elections which must meet democratic standards - the governments won't be too concerned because it will be too low a level to make policy decisions, but the general population will gain direct experience with practical democracy (not just a theory).
- Even if the elected representatives want to teach that Israel doesn't exist, let them - democracy should come first. But:
- Provide independent arabic news and entertainment, to give people a choice. Even if it's initailly banned, see the point above - economic leaders will need more open communication, and will also want the privileges of more open entertainment. As the middle class expands, so will the demands for openness.
That's just an outline of one possibility. There are others, and many, many more details would need to be addressed. But it is an alternative to war. Unfortunately, it would take a few decades - but then again, this is roughly the U.S strategy for dealing with China ("Constructive Engagement"), so it can be done.This is unfortunately yet another step in the trend which started a few years back. Every other month, reading /. makes me think that someone's agenda is to create a version of George Orwell's version of the future in which most people ( those not exempt from the laws, like politicians / party members) are fed FUD and punished for even the slightest of actions natural to a human society.
..) and attempts have started fueling the same for "Eastasia" (Korea..).
How many years until the US of A corp. is "re branded" Oceania? A chip on the shoulder at the moment is some minor opposition to external conflict, but give it some time, more FUD and more punishment the citizen of the US might succumb to the "master plan".
At the moment, great progress has been made into raising the public's aggression towards "Eurasia" (France, Germany
One thing's for sure, I'll be watching the size of the common US dictionaries and if they start shrinking, I'll migrate to a third world island and start growing carrots or something.
- "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"
In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda ~ Bill Durodié
Look, I'm no huge Clinton fan, but you can't take all credit for the economy away from him. The economy grew by leaps and bounds during his presidency, due in part to the people he put into office to shepard it along, and the support that he gave them, particularly his secratary of the treasury. That's a pretty huge thing. What happens as soon as he leaves? The Republicans do all the things they did in the 80's to lead us into slow growth and massive unemployement. Like I said, I'm no big fan of his. He was certainly a corporate shill, like all the rest of the politicians in Washington (except Barbara Lee and a handful of others) But compared to the massive for-sale sign the Bush administration has put on the country, it's nothing.
That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere
People in Michagan will no longer be able to look at Slashdot. The ISPs will no longer be able to carry it, you won't be able to tell anyone about it and the Slashcode can't be read, understood or used in Michigan.
The only forms of communications allowed there now are switched coper networks, broadcast TV and helioscopes, just like Ma Bell and CBS wanted. The rest is just too confusing and had to be scrapped or the Terrorist would have won. The Supreme court of Michigan is at this moment deciding the fate of ventriloquists. Way to go Michingan, you are a state after the hearts of simpletons everywhere. I love you, you love me, we are a happy family.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Presidents don't pass laws, Congress does.
Yeah, right, and Congress declares war too.
I also find blaiming the current downturn on Clinton laughable. Yes, the market was inflated, and it had already started to let go some when Bush came in, but you can't honestly believe that what he's done since coming into office has helped the economy drastically or will be good for the federal government in the long run, can you? When Bush came into office, the federal government was running a $127 billion surplus. The projected DEFICIT for this year was projected to be $307 billion back in February - before the additional costs of an Iraqi war got thrown into the mix. So, explain to me, when the government is going to be in danger of losing more money in one year under Bush than in 3 years of surplus combined, how do Republican policies drive a budget surplus? I'd really like to know.