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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.