"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?"

Comments

outrageous

[drizuid]

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.

Re:outrageous

[Lobo]

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!

Re: outrageous

[Black Parrot]

> 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.

When those in charge realize what it's doing to us, you can kiss the chances of getting it repealed goodbye.

Re:outrageous

[grumpygrodyguy]

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.

Re: outrageous

[Black Parrot]

> 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.

Re:outrageous

[TopShelf]

Presidents don't pass laws, Congress does. All the President can do is use an (overrideable) veto, which they don't do very often, only on those issues which are truly fundamental to their platform. I think it's safe to say that nobody in Washington is informed well enough on this front to make it their central legislative focus, so the lobbyists get to define the details and steer the bill into law.

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.

Re:outrageous

[Darth Maul]

> 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.

Re:outrageous

[workindev]

This makes sense. You don't like a law that a Democrat sponsored, a Democratic legislature voted for, and a Democratic president signed into law. Of course the obvious thing to do is blame the Republicans. Sounds reasonable.

Re:outrageous

[elmegil]

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.

Re:outrageous

[Carbonite]

Clinton may have passed the DMCA...

That's right, a Democrat signed the DCMA. It was passed unanimously by both the House and Senate, which obviously means not a single Democrat voted against it. Yet you somehow believe it's the fault of the Republicans?

As for eradicating intellectual dissenters in the US, that should be a rather easy task since I've seen so few. Most dissenters seem to do little more than chant rhyming nonsense. It's rare that they use facts to back up their arguments, instead relying on the tired "War for Oil" and "Bush = Hitler" mantra.

Re:outrageous

[Carbonite]

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.

Re:outrageous

[elmegil]

I agree that the original poster has their head up their nether regions, but....

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.

Re:outrageous

[SatanicPuppy]

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.

Re:outrageous

[nytes]

Ha! I got you there! Bill Clinton:
1) Signed the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act.
2) Signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
3) Signed the DMCA.

There you have it - Proof that Clinton was working against the corporate interests, for the little guy, and for a more free and open society.

Re:outrageous

[SlowMovingTarget]

That smells like short-term memory to me.

The economics that allowed for a decline in welfare and a budget surplus were created under a conservative administration and eroded away by the previous liberal administration. The U.S. economy began it's down-turn well before G.W.Bush took office, not after. Bush inherited the economic mess the previous administration left behind.

More pointedly, the economic model of corporations trying to appear profitable as opposed to actually being profitable also hurt America's economy. When stock values went down, all the big corporations resorted to improving their "operations cost" by cutting payroll, hence cutting jobs. Executives did this regardless of how profitable the corporation was at the time.

This is not a problem caused by the current administration, or even the previous one. Nor was Enron, or WorldCom. This was a problem caused by greed (IMHO).

This same problem of greed, both on the part of the MPAA and their cousins in the cable companies, and the lobbyists and politicians, produces rushed laws that do more harm than good. When the laws of the land were first developed, they were considered thoughtfully. Great care was taken to represent the interests of the people. Legislators felt a heavy moral responsibility to make good decisions and good laws on behalf of the people who elected them

The moral impetus to represent public interest has been one or two steps removed from public office for quite a while. The driving force is to get reelected, and so, to make money. Corporate interests form a copious source of money, and hence legislation is passed without thought about the consequences for individuals, or even for the "economic good." Bad motive begets bad law.

Writing law can be like writing code: undesirable coupling yields side effects.

Re:outrageous

[parliboy]

To rephrase your second paragraph:

It's a bill that's written overly broadly and catches all sorts of legal activity in its net? Why no, of course that's nothing at all like the DMCA.

Re:outrageous

[Carbonite]

OK, I'll bite. I usually don't respond to people who use childish name calling, but the fact is that I am right.

In the past few months I've talked with numerous (25-30) dissenters, some who are active protesters, some who are more passive. I've found that most of them are more anti-Bush than anti-war (you also seem to fit into this category).

I haven't found a single dissenter who protested the bombing of Kosovo or Clinton's missile attacks on Iraq. Yet now they all claim to simply love peace and that war is never the answer. That's hypocrisy, plain and simple.

It's true that there are people who blindly support Bush (I did not vote for him). It's also true that many people supported Clinton despite the shame he brought upon the presidency. The main problem I have with the dissenters is that they don't "form a thought of their own". Yes, that is painting with broad strokes, but when you hear the same words from dozens of supposedly free-thinking people, you do start to wonder if they share a brain.

Re:outrageous

[AutumnLeaf]

Please turn down the volume knob on your rhetoric.

Kosovo was a NATO action in which the US participated, initiated in response to active ethnic cleansing by the serbs. It is not an apples to apples comparison.

Iraq was not actively engaged in ethnic cleansing when we initiated action against them, and our "coalition" does not have the sanction of a governing world political organization (unless you consider the US a governing world political organization).

Clinton did not bring shame to the presidency. He brought shame to himself, and to those who supported him (in our country). In other countries, people wondered what the big deal was. The idea of mistresses is more commonly accepted elsewhere. And she wasn't even a mistriss.

The presidency is the presidency. It has no shame.

Clinton missile attacks were also in response to ethnic cleansing (at least military action by Iraq against Kurds.) They amounted to little more than a "shot across the bow." In fact, my research on them makes me think that the target selection was so "weak" that I'm sure Saddam was laughing at the cowardice of the US.

Let me guess.... you're "still right." That's okay. "You're right dude! You are so right! Damn... you are right again!"

Feel better now?

p.s. Most Gulf War II dissenters probably don't actively oppose the Kosovo actions or the Iraq missile strikes because they don't remember the relevant details enough to feel comfortable discussing them... so they waffle.

Re:outrageous

[ManoMarks]

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.

Re:outrageous

[Pinball Wizard]

Every time I've tried to have a rational conversation with a pro-war person...

Every time I've tried to have a rational argument with an anti-war person, they've devolved into frothing at the mouth, repeating the same, tired propaganda which they have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. If you support the war, you get cheap shots from protesters and dissenters calling you bloodthirsty murderers who place human life second to oil profits.

Certainly no argument, however lucid and rational, will ever convince an anti-war protester that taking out a ruthless dictator is the right thing to do. There is no open mind for any kind of dialog there, just blind acceptance that war is baaad, mmmkay?

Re:outrageous

[hackstraw]

Presidents don't pass laws, Congress does.

Yeah, right, and Congress declares war too.

Re:outrageous

[Slack3r78]

The economics that allowed for a decline in welfare and a budget surplus were created under a conservative administration and eroded away by the previous liberal administration

How do you figure? Reagan left us with the largest budget deficits in this country's history. The elder Bush didn't exactly do much to reverse it. In fact, when Bush left office in 1992, the federal debt was over four times the amount it was when Reagan entered office in 1980. The federal budget didn't go into surplus until 1998, SIX YEARS into Clinton's presidency. I'm sorry, but the claim that the economic success of the mid 90's is due to Republican policy quite is more than a slight stretch when the twelve years of Republican administration beforehand weren't exactly booming economic success stories.

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.

Re:outrageous

[GlassHeart]

no argument, however lucid and rational, will ever convince an anti-war protester that taking out a ruthless dictator is the right thing to do.

I can think of a few things that could help:

• Plan the war better. Expect the resistance, and occupy Baghdad in a more orderly fashion to avoid the looting of hospitals and museums.
• Plan the post-war transparently. There was very little discussion before the war, and transparency is the best way to quell any murmurs about oil interests.
• Find terrorists in Iraq. Remember, the war was partly about how Saddam was harboring and aiding terrorists. So far, they don't seem to be crawling all over the place like in Afghanistan.
• Find illegal weapons. Or produce the pre-war intelligence (that doesn't need as much protection as before) that led you to believe they exist.
• Listen. Invest heavily in diplomacy. Many opponents of GWB don't think he really tried enough to make diplomacy work.

Try to understand that it looks like GWB accomplished the "regime change" objective, but still cannot prove either a terrorist link or a WMD link, much less dispel rumors of an oil link. Did you know that US troops were sent to protect the Iraqi oil ministry's documents, while it allowed hospitals and museums to be looted? It obviously doesn't prove an oil link, but you need to admit to yourself that it doesn't look very good, either.

The point is not who is wrong and who is right. A President, especially a "compassionate conservative", is doing something wrong if he is polarizing his country. It's obviously not easy, but that's why you didn't just elect any random idiot for the job, right?

Re:outrageous

[attobyte]

You know what I find funny is the whole damn country can only identify itself with two parties. That is how shallow we are. It is Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, it is for the poor or for the Rich. It is Pro-Corporate or Pro-People. This country has forgot it roots and I can't wait to see the demise of a once great nation. Politicans are all bought and paid for, Clinton and Bush are for themselves not for you.

You want to know how those two think. Go play Sim City 3000 and raise or lower taxes. Thats Bill and George all they are doing is playing a game with your life. They don't give two shits about you or any of your feelings towards them.

Sorry but the truth hurts

Atto

Disgusting

[ralico]

Is it now also illegal to drop an anonymous note into a suggestion box in Michigan?

Re:Disgusting

[mgs1000]

And you better not forget to put a return address on all of your mail!

Less than 6 hours

[k98sven]

..between reposts now.

Is someone keeping statistics on this?
Perhaps we could extrapolate CmdrTaco's repost-delay and figure out approximately when he will lose all near-memory and become like the guy in the film Memento?

Quick Question...

[nochops]

Doesn't this outlaw NAT?

Think of all the poor little DSL routers out there.

Oh the humanity!!

Re:Quick Question...

[WPIDalamar]

That's one of the main complaints about these new laws. Normal things like NAT aren't allowed.

The proposed MA (massachusetts) one is slightly less worse ... it at least says you have to do it with the intent of performing unauthorized actions.

Unfortunatly, they don't define unauthorized, so it's assumed your service provider determines what's authorized. Your ISP says no nat.. BAMN you're breaking the law. Someone else's ISP is ok with it, they're not (even tho they're doing the same exact thing).

Re:Quick Question...

[shdowwar]

Thats how I read it.

Yet another example of how politicians pass bills that they never expect to be enforced, just so that they can line their pockets with money. I really do hope that they realize that if this stupidity continues, not only will they be unable to move forward with technology, but they will squash educated thought and push us backwards!

Just the stuff off the top of my head that would now be illegal...

Cable/DSL routers for home use
Private networks for business
NAT and firewalling
Proxy servers
SSH and SSL tunnels
Email Listservs set to strip off headers

Which is more illegal, NAT or DNS?

[Limburgher]

NAT conceals IP addresses from software, which DNS sets up an obscuring layer betwixt the IP addresses and the user for purposes of convenience. In both cases, the IP address is hidden, though still discoverable using the proper methods.

Add to this caller ID blocking, and most importantly, Anonymous Cowards.

Re:Which is more illegal, NAT or DNS?

[Trestop]

You are aware that this law effectivly forbids selling/advertising/installing/providing support/etc' to any OS that contains firewalling and NAT components ? (i.e. Linux/*BSD/Windows >= 2k)

Re:Which is more illegal, NAT or DNS?

[Ryosen]

You mean they finally figured out a way to get rid of Windows XP? =)

Bright Side

[4of12]

Slashdot won't be getting any more AC posts from Michigan.

Re:Bright Side

[Pembers]

Better yet, if this law really is as broad as claimed, most software for sending spam is now illegal in Michigan. It might even be illegal to operate an open relay, or to use one for spamming. Persuading law enforcement to go after a spammer on these grounds would be another matter altogether, I suppose.

Duplicate of Last Night's Slashback

[Loiosh-de-Taltos]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/14/201725 1&mode=thread&tid=133&tid=167&tid= 99 ...oops?

I sure hope not.

[geesus]

So, does this mean that Caller-ID block now illegal, as well?
Whats the world comming to?

Re:I sure hope not.

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it go so far to require the Telco to provide caller ID to everyone? Isn't charging for that information effectively blocking that information?

what about caller id blocking

[dalesyk]

Someone should inform the telcos that they cannot offer this service anymore. Then the army of telco lawyers will kill the bill.

Re:what about caller id blocking

[naoursla]

Better yet, what about caller id. If they don't send you the signal are they hiding the origin. Does this mean that they are legally required to provide caller id information to everyone?

What worries me

[kinnell]

... 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.

Re: What worries me

[Black Parrot]

> ... 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.

It's not the diplomatic muscle you have to worry about. For the USA, "diplomacy" now means telling everyone else what's going to happen. Then the ordinary sort of muscle is engaged.

Where's this coming from?

[sotweed]

Does anyone know what the impetus behind these DMCA+ laws is coming from? They seem enough different in intent that I doubt it's the Disney+friends music world. They've already been passed in half a dozen states (including Michigan), and are under consideration in several more. I'm writing my state legislators, but I think the time has come to mount a campaign to roll back the DMCA in its entirety. It's clear (to me, anyway) that it's bad law. We were smart enough to undo prohibition, although it took about 12 years. Maybe we can correct this error more promptly.

Re:Where's this coming from?

[jasonditz]

1. Fear of technology that most of the congress doesn't understand

2. Greater fear of those who know about that technology and therefore must be dangerous.

3. Blind desire to control the actions of everybody else.

Re:Where's this coming from?

[Abcd1234]

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.

Dear Ted Turner,

[Anonymous Coward]

Our group is putting together a hostile takeover bid for Haliburton, or even better, Bechtel. Could you please see your way to helping us out with a few million dollars?

thx,
The Comittee to Buy Back the Constitution

Why does he think he can just move it?

[ProtonMotiveForce]

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.

Re:Why does he think he can just move it?

[bheerssen]

I think that the point is that he no longer has those documents in his possession. No documents, no crime. The documents in question were written before the law came into effect, and he apparently moved them immediately when it did go into effect. But being electronic documents, he should be absolutely certain that no unintentional copies remain on his computers.

This brings up an interesting question, if I live in Michigan (which I don't), would it be illegal for me to view the docs on the web? I mean, once having viewed them, I would have a cached copy on my computer.

Re:Why does he think he can just move it?

[kinnell]

if I live in Michigan (which I don't), would it be illegal for me to view the docs on the web? I mean, once having viewed them, I would have a cached copy on my computer.

ISTR a while ago, when they were trying to work out how to apply copyrighting of images published on the internet, they decided that a copy in the cache is not legally a copy - it's only a copy when you deliberately save it to your hard drive. Otherwise, there is no way to enforce copyright protection of online images and publish them, short of illegalising caching mechanisms, which would be absurd. So copies in your cache are legally invisible, sort of.

Disclaimer: IANAL

Re:Why does he think he can just move it?

[pfankus]

But why does he think he can just move the stuff to the Netherlands? He is still a US citizen and a Michigan citizen...

No, actually, he's not. Reading the article helps a bit:

Though nobody has yet been prosecuted under the law, Provos, a German national, says his concern is genuine. "As a foreigner I have to be very careful... I'd rather follow the law to the letter than be negatively surprised later."

I'm assuming with the state of internation relations as of late, he's probably most worried of being deported, or better yet detained as an enemy combatant for aiding with terror plots, let alone finishing his dissertation.

Caller ID

[91degrees]

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.

Other legal documents

[truthsearch]

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?

Re:Other legal documents

[nuggz]

Just don't tell anyone to use the bomb as a technical measure to conceal communications.

What about Spam?

[lexbaby]

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.

Ignorance and stupidity are now illegal

[greg_barton]

...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."

Interesting. So, if you consider the brain and it's systems as hardware and software, ignorance and stupidity are now illegal. Either that or complex systems that can't be understood by the simplest of intellects are illegal.

A mind that can't figure out how to trace a signal through a telecommunications service could be interpreted as being "deceived" about the origin of said signal. So, either stupid people won't be allowed to use such a system, or the system itself should be outlawed.

You can't get there from here.

[ackthpt]

Well, let's put a slightly diffrent spin on this and see how sentiments go...

"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."

Suppose Ralan Alsky (just to pick a name at random) sends .. uh .. email, routed in such a way that you can't tell he was the originator. He connects with an open relay, possibly the Total Home Network, Coordination and Entertainment device in, say Gill Bates' (just to pull another name at random) house, normally used for counting the wilted stalks of celery in his refridgerator crisper drawer and monitoring dog poop rings in his front lawn (much less mysterious than crop circles, but there they are), the email is sent to thousands of worthy individuals (worth of being on some CD he loaded up with publicly posted email addresses from alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus) Ralan has devised a way to avoid indicating the origin of a missive, a Dell Optiplex GX150 in his garage, which promotes a certain salve, which when applied to a certain private part make a certain HOT penny stock worth 24% more in the morning and consolidates debt to a 2nd mortgage on an old pair of Nikes at 3.85% APR. Further, the affiliate who has paid Ralan for this service accepts calls at a certain payphone booth outside a Southfield, MI, 7-11 for the first 4 hours the missive has been present on the internet.

Now, I ask you in all objectivity, "should that be illegal?"

This just in....

[Anonymous Coward]

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

The future of science in the US

[godIsaDJ]

This is a disturbing trend. It seems that science in the US is undermined by political, economical and social factor, most of which are of arguable intent and nature.

I do research on security and cryptography related technologies. I'm happy I don't have to deal with this kind of censorship and I wish to express my sympathy for Provos. He's not even american for fuck's sake. And Honeyd is probably used more for protection by admins than by hackers around!

I wonder, is he gonna get the phd after all??

Another scary example, scarier perhaps if not so blatant, is this http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,130 26,933055,00.html

Well, so much for...

[Quixadhal]

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.

And *69?

[siskbc]

Can the phone companies in Michigan offer caller-ID block? Should be illegal to do that too.

Hitler and Stalin laughing in their graves

[DailyGrind]

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.

Re: Move

[The AtomicPunk]

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.

Government Stepping On Itself

[Flamesplash]

I work for large academic Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) lab that for the most part works on DoD contracts. We are allowed to connect to work from home via secure ID cards and are encouraged to get a free single port router from work to use at home, these routers employ NAT for extra security.

Does that mean that people who work for organizations that do DoD work can no longer protect their home systems, and thus protect the governmental work systems?

write your rep & colorado

[skydude_20]

Two things to note, first, if you haven't, please write your state senators and reps right now, either to stop the chance of this happening or hoping that in states that its too late, that they might review and amend.
Second, for all you fellow Coloradans, this is currently in the works (SuperDMCA), I think it's going to pass the senate without issue, so please those of you write your reps and senators and stop this one while we still can.
Thanks.

Re:write your rep & colorado

[zenquest]

House Bill 03-1303

Cell phones

[Drew Sullivan]

Does this mean that ALL cell phone must provide the phone number to caller ID.

maryland bill vs michigan bill ?

[karavak]

According to EFF some states have had S-DMCA since 2000. Am I reading the site wrong and that those dates are not referring to S-DMCA but something else?

Also, I live and work in Maryland where according to info on EFF, this bill has been in effect since 2001 and I heard nothing about it and it hasn't caused any problems with NAT's, proxies, etc.

Has it been around for a while and now they are trying to enforce it in some places but not in others?

I tried to review the michigan and Maryland bills but I'm not a lawyer and my legal speak is pretty bad so I'm wondering what the big difference is.

Re:maryland bill vs michigan bill ?

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

Select one of the blwo

A. The law differs between stats.

N. You are a criminal but no law enforcement officer understands the law - so they can arrest anyone

3. Both of the above.

Who is the the service provider?

[nuggz]

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?

Michigan ACs, beware!

[mysticgoat]

So does this also mean that slashdot has to

• block everybody from Michigan, or
• set up a filter so people from Michigan don't have the A.C. option, or
• do away with Anonymous Coward?

After all, the whole thing with AC is disguising the source of the post.

Worrisome, this is.

[note to moderators: Don't mod as "funny". This is truly serious tinfoil hat stuff. Think about it.]

The Power Given to Government

[Creep73]

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 /.

What if...

[sh00z]

IANAL, but shouldn't anybody ticketed by a hidden radar speed trap be able to use this law to their advantage? After all, if the police are disguising "the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service," they're in violation of the law. Right?

Re:What if...

[certron]

>IANAL, but shouldn't anybody ticketed by a hidden
>radar speed trap be able to use this law to their
>advantage? After all, if the police are disguising
>"the existence or place of origin or destination of
>any telecommunications service," they're in
>violation of the law. Right?

I hate to say this, but... "in violation of the law" ? They *are* the law!
(yes, yes, oversight and fair trials, Constitutional rights, and why not, the Magna Carta...)

I was just discussing this with someone else a few days ago, how sodomy laws still exist in a number of US states (most places say anything other than missionary style is technically illegal) and not only do the laws require an unreasonable invasion of privacy to enforce, but they are being enforced unevenly, being used to harass certain target people. These laws are just one more tool for the law enforcement establishment (the local police up to the FBI, and the judiciaries that paralell them) to make life difficult for 'undesirable' elements in society.

Instead of mentioning how KMFDM's "What do you know, Deutschland?" is playing behind me, and the sample 'dogmatic police state' is in it, I'll just make reference to a quote that I can't remember, about how a state passes laws to make everyone a criminal, um, and how that is bad.

Re:What if...

[stanmann]

Actually, the "sodomy" laws are fairly vague... and they typically read...

Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.

Obviously, this could cover anything a judge wanted to apply it to... but would be difficult to apply to be so specific as applying to "missionary position only"... but not impossible... however, it could also be stretched to cover using "barrier methods" of birth control.

anonymous = unsigned + unaccountable

[Speare]

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.

It's real simple...

[sterno]

Republican politicians - rich people
Democratic politicians - guilty rich people

he's right

[bogie]

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.

Routers, etc.

[joncarwash]

All I can say to Michigan State police is have fun collecting every cable/dsl router (that usess NAT) in the state, including those at retail stores and warehouses. Oh, and hope you have enough room in jail for every person who owns one, the manager of the store where the bought it, the delivery boy who delivered it to the store, the truck driver who drove it into the state, and whoever decided to advertise the router in the state. And I am sure there are no routers that use NAT anywhere in any Michigan government office either... right...

Complaining helps?

[alakazam]

Everytime I go to Safeway or Radio Shack (the only two places in my town that rent DVDs) I complain that they no longer get the wide-screen version of movies.

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

Georgia House Bill 867

[wolf-]

For those in the State of Georgia interested in putting forth an opposition to this legislature, my office number is 770.719.3852. My email for this will be hsb867@lobosoft.com.

I just called our four representatives for District 48. One of them has called me back so far, and said that honestly, single phone calls are in no way as efffective as collective opposition.

So, if you are a small business owner, a computer consultant, or even just an individual who is looking at a felony record if this passes, email me.

To find out who your representative is Georgia, you can visit Polling Place and Elected Officials finder at the secretary of states website.

Re: Move

[swordgeek]

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.

Basically outlawing communications companies

[Thing 1]

This law basically outlaws communications companies. For instance, AT&T probably has internal documents describing the limitations of their systems.

These documents are now illegal.

How can a communications company continue their research without being able to document it?

Re:I have a better idea.

[dentar]

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.

Re: Move

[mkldev]

No, they vote for the two parties because of the perception that third-party candidates never hold any significant political office above the state level. And they're about 95% right.

Third-party candidates are a niche player. They provide a proving ground for new ideas that eventually make it out onto the major party tickets, but otherwise it is extremely unlikely for one to get enough votes to hold any national office. This is as true today as it has been throughout history.

The real problem is that the majority of humans are, frankly, idiots. Most of the Americans on this board probably scored 99th percentile on tests. That means 99% of Americans are dumber than they are. It's hard for intellectuals to understand how so many people can be so clueless, but the reality is that you just have to write it off as human nature.

The founding fathers understood this. That's why we don't have the general public directly voting for laws. Our government was created with the notion of making us feel good about ourselves---like we're involved in the lawmaking---without actually giving us enough voice to screw things up.

The real problem is that in the early days, only the most intellligent people could run for office, because the political parties consisted largely of intellectuals. Over the centuries, it has become watered down, and now they're mostly composed of lawyers. Unfortunately, the public as a whole is too clueless to understand that this isn't how it's supposed to be, and thus the situation is difficult if not impossible to change.

The problem, then, becomes the need to set up a third party of intellectuals, but with sufficient charisma to actually win an election. This, sadly, is the big reason most third parties fail. They tend to be a bunch of kooks. Now if there were a third party created by slashdotters, it might be at the very least interesting, so long as onily those with social graces appear in public.

Thoughts?

!!WARNING!! Welcome to a police state !

[boy_afraid]

!!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."

Both Parties Suck

[bigpat]

And I mean Suck. They suck the life out of America. They suck the life out of every individual that is forced to work an average of 10 years during their lifetime (based on around a 15% income tax and a 60 year lifespan) in the service not of themselves, but of the federal governement. That is at least 2 months every year working for what? What free people would choose to do that to themselves? And still the federal government can't pay the bills that they are writing...

Trillions of dollars in debts have been accumulating, yet we still play these stupid games. Oh it's the Dems fault... it's the Republicans. No, it's America's fault. America's fault for not seeing through the daily lies that our elected representatives now even seem to believe themselves. America's fault for believing the carpet baggers when they tell you they have all the answers to your daily struggles. America's fault for signing up for all those credit cards which you can never pay off. American's fault for their forgiveness, when the itinerant congressman or president tell you and themselves that the lies they told were better than the alternative. America's fault for not seeing through the scam of social security from the very beginning... It only works when the population is growing and most people don't live very long, still sound good to you?

Both parties have ceased representing the interests of citizens in the government, but instead try to banally represent the excesses of goverment back to us in patriotic terms.

Now we see all these restrictive laws being passed ... and we wonder why? Because we have elected a generation of spinless whanabees. They are so used to believing their own lies, that when a big corporation goes to a congressman and says 'we need your laws to keep us in business', the congressman doesn't think 'is what they are asking consistent with an American value of freedom?'... no, they ask themselves whether the business is big enough to keep the coffers flowing.

With every iteration, laws become more restrictive more intrusive and more unintelligable. Until one day, noone can live a day of their lives without fear that somehow they are breaking some law and right and wrong are so far removed from the law that only your political connections or your subserviance will keep you out of harms way.

Big government is bad government.

And yes, I just did my taxes!

Re:Both Parties Suck

[agrounds]

With every iteration, laws become more restrictive more intrusive and more unintelligable. Until one day, noone can live a day of their lives without fear that somehow they are breaking some law and right and wrong are so far removed from the law that only your political connections or your subserviance will keep you out of harms way.


I find your ideas to be intriguing. I'd like to sign up for your newsletter.

Seriously though, that is the best rant I've read in a while! Are you Michael Moore's love-child?

Re:Both Parties Suck

[bigpat]

I'm the bastard son of Ayn Rand and most of the Libertarian Party

Although, I think the LPs should tone down the "we just want to fire everyone that works in government" rhetoric. There are some good people doing good things in government we should do our best to make certain that their work continues outside of goverment. Any major change in society will hurt people unless it is done gradually over time.

With that said, I think I've been up too late figuring out my "basis"... If line 3 is greater than line 45 then multiply line 23 by .20 otherwise... skip the next section and go kick your local congressman's ass.

Turn Yourself In!

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the best ways to protest this would be for everyone in Michigan who legally purchased a NAT box to go to the State prosecuter's office in Ann Arbor and turn themselves in. If 4 or 5 hundred admins came in and protested this, the resultant case load would insure that the prosecutors would want this law overturned if only to get this idiotic assault on our rights off the books. Granted, this is a big personal risk, but it might be time to head this off with a radical action.

Re:Not truly feasible

[lgraba]

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.)

Bye, Bye NAT

[bheerssen]

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.

Re:Bye, Bye NAT

[Suidae]

It seems that one could argue that your service provider is providing access for one and only one device, the NAT box. You are not hiding the source of communications from the outside world, the source is clearly marked as the NAT box, the only device for which your service provider is providing service. Anything going to your service provider is understood to come from you or someone you have authorized to use your residential connection.

It doesn't matter what happens to the data once it passes the demark point, any more than it matters how many or where the telephone extensions in your house are located.

If packets start coming out of your NAT box with spoofed source addresses, then it is apparent that you are attempting to hide the source.

I think that if this were to ever go to court the judge would less concerned about how many computers you have in your closet and more concerned about why you are letting terrorist use them.

Re:Doesn't this outlaw NAT?

[LunarFox]

Regarding your question of routers:

As I see it, there are two separate issues to worry about there. Living in Michigan myself, and not only using an IPtables/NAT script but also offering it to the public, I'm following this law with considerable interest:

"Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service" MCL 750.540c(1)(b)

The first issue: As a NAT user, I might technically obscure the "place of origin"... namely, local 192.168.0.0/24 IPs. But if I send spam from any of these machines, my public IP is still quite visible. Now, I would like to see this law applied to spoofing, bouncing off open relays/proxies, etc -- in those cases, you are indeed concealing the place of origin, and with malicious intentions.

What concerns me isn't the state government (yet), it's the ISP. Therein lies the second issue: theft-of-service allegations, via this bit about "concealing the existence". Ergo, a firewall/NAT/router splits one IP into something multiple machines can use, and I don't pay Comcast for each separately. Don't think they wouldn't try to sue you... see "Buckeye Cable".

Both of these are markedly different applications than in the original story, which goes to show how broadly this law could be interpreted.

No Freenet in Michigan

[warpSpeed]

So it is illegal to run a Freenet server in Michigan now?

Re: Move

[Guppy06]

"That's why we don't have the general public directly voting for laws."

That's also why they didn't let people vote directly for the President or Senators. But state laws and the Seventeenth Amendment (respectively) got around those "problems."

"because the political parties consisted largely of intellectuals."

No, the whole intent of the design of the federal government was to avoid political parties outright. They felt that party politics were what caused their problems with the UK Parliament to begin with. Leaving the decision of Senators up to the state legislatures was supposed to ensure that anybody who makes it to the Senate has a broad multipartisan appeal, and the Electoral College was essentially intended to be a nominating committee to present the House of Representatives with presidential candidates to vote for (it was supposed to be difficult for the electors to communicate with each other in an effort to ensure that no presidential candidate got a majority outright).

Positions

[John Bayko]

The positions aren't really that complicated. It's just that people resist understanding the other side because that might take energy from their protestations.

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.

Then get a different provider

[pauljlucas]

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.

That presupposes that NATs are "unauthorized by the service provider."

While I have no great love for telcos in general, SBC's (for example) Terms of Service explicitly allow NATs. They even sell "home routers" that allow multiple computers to be connected simultaneously (i.e., a NAT box) on their web site. Heck, SBC even explictly allows servers to be run. The way they exercise control is by limiting upstream bandwidth to 128Kpbs. (You can pay more per month to get the limit raised.) 128Kbps and my static IP is just fine for me to ssh server on to my Linux box.

It's typically the cable companies that have Draconian TOS because they are used to the model of charging for every TV in the house. (FYI, cable companies are expressly forbidden from doing this in Santa Clara, California by local ordinance.) Used to their model, they want to charge for every computer in your house too.

No, I don't work for SBC or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof, nor even in the telecommunications industry.

1984

[chris_7d0h]

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.

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 ..) and attempts have started fueling the same for "Eastasia" (Korea..).

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.'"

Re:1984

[pair-a-noyd]

The dictionaries HAVE shrunk!
My neighbor has one from about 1925 and it's about 8 inches thick and weighs a good ten pounds, the pages are thin like a bible.

Now, this is no troll, no flamebait, it's FACT.
There is one word that is considered by many to be offensive. It's the N word. BUT, in that huge dictionary he has there THREE PAGES of variations of that word in there that have nothing at all to do with the offensive word. I won't list any of them here but believe me, there USED to be a lot of words back then that people used on a regular basis that have been sent to the dust bin.

I collect OLD encyclopedia's, the older, the better and you can see history re-written over the years.

I have seen programs on the History Channel, I have even taped them, where on one program describing a world event (the program was recorded 10 years ago for instance) they say one thing, then on a newer version of the SAME program, just remade in the last year or two, history is totally different than what they were telling people 10 years ago.

People forget. They forget easily. They depend on the idiot box to remind them. "Oh, I remember now" as they sit there throwing popcorn down watching the "History" Channel.

There is a global agenda to mold minds and to win your heart and your soul.

ingsoc...

Dark side.

[twitter]

Slashdot won't be getting any more AC posts from Michigan.

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.

Herman Go�ring

[Blue Stone]

Herman Goëring's testimony at the Neurenberg Trials:

"Naturally the common people don't want war, but it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship...

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...

"All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

just for completeness, are ac posts illegal? V2.1

[wadiwood]

This time I remembered the tab key instead of the return key dammit, maybe the filter will save me.

From an email I received 2 weeks ago

[* Check out comp.risks digest 22.66 which has a discussion of legislation being considered by Massachusetts, Texas and some others. The start of this discussion was an article by Ed Felten, "Use a Firewall, Go to Jail" Freedom to tinker archives/000336.html

These laws aim to prohibit any technique used to hide the source of any communication. For example, tunnelling over SSH or using TLS with your email. Even NAT would be illegal because the ultimate source of the IP traffic would not be evident to the recipient nor to any ISP.

Apparently similar laws have already been passed in Michigan, Virginia, Delaware and Illinois.

Of course, making something illegal doesn't stop it happening, and if every business which uses a NAT-enabled router was prosecuted you could imagine the outcry.

*]

And when I finally learnt to put the url in the search...

other slashdot links

Michigan First With A Law That Could Outlaw VPNs
On March 30th, 2003 with 554 comments
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...
Section: Your Rights Online > Privacy


Broad Bills to Protect 'Communications Services'
On March 28th, 2003 with 550 comments
mttlg writes "According to Freedom to Tinker, MA, TX, SC, FL, GA, AK, TN, and CO have introduced similar bills that would make it illegal to possess, use, etc....
Section: Your Rights Online > United States


DRM and Threat Analysis
On March 19th, 2003 with 185 comments
miladus writes "A timely and concise intervention by Ed Felten on the topic of DRM and the models used (or not used) to represent the threats to defeat. In...
Section: Main > News


I wonder if AC posts are legal?

And at least now I know why my submisson got rejected...