Slashdot Mirror
State "Communication Services" Laws Analyzed
87C751 writes "There has already been some discussion about Michigan and other states implementing new laws to protect "communication services", with results that could ban NAT, VPNs and even email encryption. Mike Godwin, of EFF fame, has looked into this subject a bit deeper, and makes a frightening observation. Among other things, this PDF report draws an ugly conclusion: As written, these "mini-DMCA" acts change the legislative focus radically, such that all technology that is not expressly permitted by a communications provider will be prohibited. Is this the backdoor maneuver that will turn the net into television once and for all?"
http://freejoe.servemp3.com/
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
And I'll drop my NAT box in a heartbeat.
But don't fuck with my VPN!
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Mirrored it here in case of slashdotting...
Mike Godwin, of EFF fame, has looked into this subject a bit deeper, and makes a frightening observation.
He didn't compare the laws to the Nazis, did he?
Is this the backdoor maneuver that will turn the net into television ..?
Nah, I think AOl did that.
Best Windows Freeware
There's already Super DMCA legislation that, in certain US states, prohibits the masking and concealment of any internet communication.
Check the eWeek story here.
Time to pack it up and go home now.
It has been reported that a new law has been passed in the United States, all posts to /. require a valid username/password pair. This is to avoid those anoying "My dog does yo mama" posts that seem to come from the "Anonymous Coward" terroist group. As the official spokesperson for the group Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf claims: "There have been no 'Anonymous Coward Posts' since early last year." In another unrelated comment he claimed: "There are no dupes in /."
God made the natural numbers; all else is the work of man - Kronecker
Oh, let me think.. put this dangerous little mind to work for a moment.
If this is what a large provider like SBC wants, perhaps it's not so bad on the surface. (You already know these laws don't get started without their helpful assistance in Lansing, Sacramento, and so on, without their helpful assistance)
Much is made about Wi-Fi. What's to stop grass-roots cooperatives forming wi-fi networks? Seems like I've been reading quite a bit about these on Slashdot lately, including communities, even cities, considering this. Great for a few reasons, not the least of which is less dependency on capital-heavy infrastructure. Don't like SBC? Encourage or participate in creating not competition, but alternatives. As always, watch your back for legislation to prevent or hinder such enterprises, along the lines of "It shall be immensely illegal for people to cast of the chains of bondage to BigBabyBell in favor of a free and unrestricted system."
Remember, countries used to be criss-crossed with a hojillion miles of rail. Once the Interstate highways were built in the USA that all changed. (I saw a rail map once of northeastern LP of Michigan, it staggered the mind how much rail used to be up in that sparsely populated area.) Like rail, BigBabyBell doesn't move without expending a lot of capital. Seems to me Wi-Fi is a capital-light.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
more than your everyday slashdotter will be upset over these implications. Businesses all over the country rely on VPNs. So what happens when a business is based in one state not banning them and does business in one that does?
As for NAT... NAT is an ugly, dirty and frighteningly simple fix to IPv4's shortcomings. Someone already said it, adopt IPv6 and NATs will fade away.
sig
Why are they trying to regulate the internet? I'm all for stopping spam and unlawful stuff, but this is plain disturbing. In the good 'ol days you could do whatever the fck you pleased
In a word: yes.
I'm convinced all those goatse links were preparation for that eventuality, too.
So, if I'm prohibited to use NAT-based firewalling, who's going to take responsibility for securing my home LAN? Certainly the broadband providers don't want to get into that arena for those people paying the basic $40/mo.
I use NAT not so much for the many-to-one translation of my home network to the internet, but because of the inherent security it provides. Unless the broadband providers are going to be liable for failing to protect my network, my firewall isn't going to go away.
The constant addition of restrictions in order to control the potential of crime or to diminish the ease in which they can be conducted is stupid to me. I mean, murdering people would be a lot harder if I didn't have any arms, but I doubt anyone's gonna pass a law requiring me to give them up.
10 years from now I don't want to be explaining to my sons "I'm sorry, but we had our back turned and gave up our freedom of choice."
Please call your representatives and keep this stuff from passing. /.'ers have shown that they can have a large concerted voice if properly motivated.
I used to have a good sig...
You can talk about raising hell to stop it but frankly, the majority of the population couldn't care less and would probably actually agree that communication between citizens is dangerous and should only be allowed through government approved channels. Especially when the government pulls out the twin boogeymen of terrorists and child pornographers.
So what can you do about it? Nothing. Suck it up. I dare you to prove me wrong.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
And just for you spelling nazis, I know it's "perpetrator".
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Everybody who uses Internet Explorer is sending encrypted packets back to Microsoft. MS is generating the packets without consent, but it would seem that both MS and Joe User are liable.
So the collary might be "encrypted communications used in the normal course of software use are allowed." Which would open up lots of loopholes.
Either that, or companies will have to get licensed to use encryption.
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
A BRIEF ANALYSIS OF THE "SUPER DMCA" (THE DRAFT MODEL COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ACT)
...possessed,
Background
Over the past two years, lobbyists from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have been lobbying in state legislatures for passage of a model "Communications Security Act." This
act, which has already been passed by six states - Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wyoming - has been represented to legislatures as little more than an updating
and minor amendment of existing state laws designed to prevent theft of cable or telephone service.
A close reading both of the acts that have been passed and of the "draft model act" shows, however, that the proposed law could have a far broader impact - it could undermine existing
consumer rights to use cable, telephone and Internet services, and could also hurt technological innovation and the development of new products that benefit consumers.
The model act, together with the state acts that already have been passed or that currently are being proposed, are often referred to by some opponents as "super DMCAs" or "state DMCAs" - in
reality, their scope is different from, and far broader than, the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Overbroad Definitions
The acts protect "communication services," which include any "service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation" delivered via electronic means using virtually any technology. This
includes every wire in your house for which you pay a fee, including your telephone, cable TV, satellite and Internet lines. This category also sweeps in any Internet-based subscription services
for delivery of copyrighted materials, including digital music services such as pressplay, MusicNow, or Rhapsody.
The acts would regulate the possession, development and use of "communication devices" and "unlawful access devices." A "communication device" is virtually any electronic device you might
connect to any communication service. The definition of "unlawful communication device" is somewhat narrower, sweeping in any device that is "primarily designed, developed,
used or offered... for the purpose of defeating or circumventing" a technological protection measure used to protect a communication services.
What the Acts Prohibit
The proposed bills generally prohibit four categories of activity:
(1) Possession, development, distribution or use of any "communication device" in connection with a communication service without the express authorization of the service provider.
(2) Concealing the origin or destination of any communication from the communication service provider.
(3) Possession, development, distribution or use of any "unlawful access device."
(4) Preparation or publication of any "plans or instructions" for making any device, having reason to know that such a device will be used to violate the other prohibitions.
page-2
Short Analysis of the "Super DMCA," Page 2
The Proposed Acts Are Unnecessary
The MPAA has argued that this law is necessary to "update" existing state laws to prevent "Internet piracy" and "cable theft." But copyright infringement and cable-service theft are already
expressly prohibited under current state and federal laws. In addition, any service provider who believes a subscriber has violated the terms of his or her service contract can terminate the contract.
The MPAA has not identified any specific problem that is not already addressed by existing law. Nor have state law-enforcement personnel called for or supported these proposals.
Controlling Consumers and Undermining Innovation
These prohibitions, together with the broad definitions, dramatically expand the power of entertainment companies, Internet service providers, cable companies and others to control what
citizens can and can't connect to the services that they pay for. If enacted, they will slow innovation, impair competition and seriously undermine consumers' right
The shift proposed by these bills is radical: all technology that is not expressly permitted becomes forbidden.
This should come as no surprise. After all, the US is edging fast and furious toward a country where any freedom no expressly permitted becomes forbidden. So make sure you read the small print before you buy into the "land of the free" label.
This seems to be the tendency of all civilizations, eventually. After all, power corrupts. But perhaps what is different in this new world is that instead of being enslaved to tyrants and other humans and has been the case throughout history, we are becoming enslaved to corporations, composed of humans. Corporations are devoid of any of the human-characteristics which otherwise might slow or change this progression. Or doesn't it make any difference?
Back to BBS's. :(
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Remember, AC isn't anonymous to us. So stop complaining, sit down, take your medication and watch some TV.
Find a job outside of the tech sector and become a luddite.
Works for me.
These laws are probably unconstitutional. I would bet that these state telecommunications laws purport to regulate international TCP traffic in a manner that would violate the "dormant commerce clause" in the same way that states are limited in the way they can regulate interstate road traffic. We'll just have to wait and see what happens, though.
Lohmann also references the model bill that the MPAA is circulating among the states, a line-by-line analysis of which is here.
For those who aren't in the know on this bit of history, (from http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/)
I. The Basics
1. What is Godwin's Law?
Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin
(godwin@eff.org) concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to
the Jargon File:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
2. What does it mean?
It pretty much means exactly what it says - as a Usenet thread
goes on, the chances of somebody or something being compared to a Nazi
approach one.
3. Yes, but what does it *mean*?
Aah, now *there's* the real question.
In case your head has been buried in the sand for the last sixty
years or so, the Nazis were a German political party lead by Adolf Hitler
that slaughtered upwards of ten-million people that didn't meet their
standards of "ethnic purity" and set off to conquer Europe and the world
in World War II. They are generally considered the most evil group of
people to live in modern times, and to compare something or someone to
them is usually considered the gravest insult imaginable.
As a Usenet discussion gets longer it tends to get more heated; as
more heat enters the discussion, tensions get higher and people start to
insult each other over anything they can think of. Godwin's Law merely
notes that, eventually, those tensions eventually cause someone to find
the worst insults that come to mind - which will almost always include a
Nazi comparison.
4. That still doesn't answer my question. What does it *MEAN*?
The Law is generally used on Usenet as an indicator of whether a
thread has gone on too long, who's playing fair and who's just slinging
mud, and who finally gets to "win" the discussion. It has, over time,
become the closest thing to an impartial moderator that Usenet can get.
So, what this means in practical terms:
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
wasn't necessary or germane without it necessarily being an
insult, it's probably about time for the thread to end.
o If someone brings up Nazis in general conversation when it
was vaguely related but is basically being used as an insult,
the speaker can be considered to be flaming and not debating.
o If someone brings up Nazis in any conversation that has been
going on too long for one of the parties, it can be used as
a fair excuse to end the thread and declare victory for the
other side.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
According to my interpretation of Godwin's interpretation.
... use of any "communication device" ... without the express authorization of the service provider.
What the Acts Prohibit
1)
Wouldn't that mean that anytime I changed or upgraded my computer, hardware or software, then I would need to re-obtain express authorization from my ISP to use it to connect?
2) Concealing origin or destination of any communication from the communication servive provider.
This is way to vague. Using a NAT would be no more concealing then say SneakerNet or using a Scanner and forwarding the result. What if I wrote a document and work, copied it on a floppy and then sent it out at home? So any removable media is now against the law. Loosely interpretted, technically a NAT takes my uploaded file from my floppy (read PC) and then is the place of origin and destination.
My argument for using a NAT is that the place of origin was me, my account, my system. Whichever computer I used shouldn't be an issue as long as they can tell that it was my account.
Otherwise, taken a step further would mean I could share an account with anyone else in my household, as the place of origin could be my brain vs. my family member's brain, which obscures the true origin.
...Only Outlaws will have NATs!
Or how about:
They can take my Coyote Linux box when they pry it from my cold dead fingers!
Can you tell I'm a Southerner???
Windows is Dead!
Long Live Tux!!!
Windows is dead!
Long Live Tux!!!
First, AOL would only have legal authority in 6 states. (Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming)
Second, AOL would lose even more money in stocks, do you think people in other states wouldn't object to a monopoly?
Granted I used AOL but replace AOL with almost any company and it comes out to the same result. People would use their wallet to tell representatives and companies just how much they like this law.
...that I don't live "In the land of the free".
Things not allowed from the pdf (1) Possession, development, distribution or use of any "communication device" in connection with a communication service without the express authorization of the service provider. So do this mean that I have to tell them how many telephones I have?
This is a sig, there are many like it, but this is mine.
Grass-roots WiFi networks seem to me to be the only hope for a truly free communication network at this point. Unless there is a massive change in the mindsets of the government and their corporate sponsors toward respect for free speech and privacy, and away from treating citizens as criminals, the internet is only going to get more tied down.
:)
Yet whenever I start thinking about this, I stop at Wyoming. For a WiFi internet to work, you'll need a huge number of connections to ensure sufficient capacity and reliability. That's not so hard in, say, New England. Wyoming is a different matter. Along Interstate 84 (or is it 80? The two meet in Salt Lake City, and I forget which is which) you'll only find signs of civilization (a truck stop and a few houses) every 60 miles. Even with the ability to bridge those gaps, you still don't have the density of connections you need. I pick on Wyoming, but really all the mountain states have this same problem.
I'd hate to see the WiFi grow only to the point of localized community networks that can't talk to each other. Not because community networks are bad, but because the global reach of the internet is one of the reasons it's so cool.
Which, if you forget about Wyoming for a second, makes the Atlantic and the Pacific much bigger obstacles.
The enemies of Democracy are
...do something about it.
Don't like these bills coming across your state legislatures? Write to your local senator or congressman. Go to the Michigan State Homepage and lookup your rep, write them an email, call them, fax them. Don't think it works? Try it and you will get a reply.
Better yet, check the Michigan State Legislature website, and find out when this bill is up for a public hearing before the committee. This is the best use of your time if you are truly concerned. Since we are all somewhat tech-savvy, our input is paramount to countering the massive brainwashing and lobbying the motion picture and recording industry is pounding into your statehouse. Take a day off work, do some research, and tell the committees how this will affect their constituents. I know if this ever hits my home state, I will be first in line to speak out.
It is your right to take advantage of democracy. Sure, it's difficult to change federal legislation, but if you pack the state house, you will get local media coverage, and your state reps will take note. Or you could just keep complaining here...
No one is going to try and steal your Sailor Moon episodes and your Quicken files showing that you have $9.37 in your passport savings and that you spend 43% of your income on cheezy-doodles.
These type of laws simply show the desperation of the cable/phone/isp mafia. Start running 10baseT around your neighbourhood. WE DON'T NEED TO PAY.
The internet is free.
The government tramples everyones rights, and everyone thinks that writing a letter to thier Rep or donating to the EFF will fix things. Brainwashed fools!
It won't get that far, though. I mean, it won't devolve to dial-up. Before that happens, there'll be privately operated line-of-sight connections between neighborhoods using lasers, private citizens laying their own fibre or copper around those neighborhoods, and radio amateurs running satellite links between towns.
If you think that's a bit far fetched, www.scitoys.com has plans for a basic laser communicator that can carry a radio signal across a room using a $10 laser pointer. Shouldn't be too hard to beef that up to reach across a road or further.
Yep, piss enough of us off, and we'll simply take the network away from the Baby Bells and see how they like that...
Michigan and layed off 18 people as a direct result of this law. We've relocated operations to another less intrusive state. Way to go Michigan legislature, help out your citizens and look out for their best interests, or line your pockets with bloody money for selling out the voters....you decide..
:(
After all we all know the poor defensless cable companies couldn't make it in the world without government subsidies
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
So, if I'm prohibited to use NAT-based firewalling, who's going to take responsibility for securing my home LAN? Certainly the broadband providers don't want to get into that arena for those people paying the basic $40/mo.
Like Waffle Iron points out above, what makes you think you'll be getting broad band services at your house for $40 a month?
Get used to having this conversation:
Oh, you got your computer hacked? We can add port security and firewalling services for a nominal fee of $45 a month.
And this one:
Ya use Linux? Oh, it is not on our supported device list. You say it's not a device. I'm the communications service and I say it's not supported. Pulls your account, and adds it to the blocking list.
I'm not sure how many of you /.'ers out there are familiar with FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology), but within the organization, there is a concept known as Gracious Professionalism. Essentially, it means respecting competitors. Record companies and the movie industry need to learn respect for their market, and realize they shouldn't treat consumers as competitors. (Reading the article, it seems to me this entire proposal is based primarily on MPAA views, and little on actual communication company needs.) Passing fruitless laws will only anger their market, and further increase the decline in movie and record sales. Furthermore, why would they invoke laws to increase the political/legal strength of communications companies at all? What would happen to the family who shares a single cable line to all rooms of their house through a splitter, or internet through a router? Will they be tried as criminals for making use of a service they lawfully pay for? Reading up on certain laws and AUP's, it seems routers are already technically illegal, yet DSL and Cable companies offer to bundle them with their service. What is the world coming to when a market must abuse it's clients "to do the right thing." Gracious professionalism.
Then be an optimist.
But do remember that there seems to be an evolutionary/genetic predisposition to optimism.
...and this is different from socialist europe in what way again?
Ok... So what if the communication provider expressly allows NAT, VPN, etc... It seems to me this will just lead to a migration to ISP's that are less draconian. Failing that, Geeks will start new ISP's or even new "internets".
Temkin
it doesnt seem like such a bad idea for a bunch of geeks to form neighborhoods/communities and share the cost of a OC3, OC48, whatever can be afforded. Then WE become the internet providers and make our own rules, as well as making the government's attempts at spying on us A LOT harder.
:(
In a way thats a cool idea, but its also kind of sad that we need to consider ideas like that just to maintain the freedoms we're supposedly guaranteed
Isn't that the legislation Mr. Godwin is talking about in the article ?
So you buy an internet connection DSL/Cable/Whatever. The External Service Providers job is to get that connection to your house. Then it is my job to be my own service provider. To get the service from my house to the various rooms in the house. My/Your NAT box does not hide the data going from your room to your nat box. And your service provider can still see the data that is going in and out of your house which is the connection that they provide. Question: Does this rule apply? I think so.
"Times may change, but standards must remain the same." - George Carlin.
Who here is going to obey this law if it ever gets passed?
;)
Heh, yeah, me neither.
It is not a goatse redirect. RTFLink, A/C.
How does this affect HIPPA? http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/
Patient Health Care information must be protected and hidden from the public. Yet this law would prevent this...
Can the CIA/NSA/SSA/NASA no longer encrypt data?
"Times may change, but standards must remain the same." - George Carlin.
Sean Kennedy's Tales From the Afternow might not be so far 'after now'. Check it out.
Download
Listen
Understand
Distribute
The "Super DCMA" is without question a disturbing "revelation" on behalf of the entertainment industry. It shows the continued distrust of business of the consumer, and the desire to engage in anti-competitive behavior by permitting the revocation basic consumer rights.
If taken to an extreme it is possible that a prominent cable company could go so far as to say that you may only use dell computers with their service and that not adhereing to this is a violation of the law. Dell could become a "monoply" by entering into a "deal" with communications providers when in fact that deal - violates anti-trust laws.
It certainly seems "bad". Though this sort of legislation isn't enforceable.
Take NAT for example. Many have been saying that this bodes ill for network address translation. I submit to you this: NAT is most commonly used in a Local Area Network environment. In large companies it is used over a WAN. In either case, it can be argued that the traffic and the origin of the traffic is well known. Each machine has an IP address and whether it is "translated" or not, the communication orginates from a well known PHYSICAL location. The physical origin of the traffic is well known, therefore the law isn't being violated. Clearly - it is harder to defend against this law if the location and "origin" of the offending machine in question is not well known...
What is interesting is how they are using the state legislatures (less visible and more malleable) to enact this sort of law. If it was really legit, then why not go the federal route?
Finally, this sort of law is a golden opporunity for a service provider to provider service that is competely unencumbered by the provisions of this "Uber DCMA". It's only valid if the "commmunications" service provider decides to enforce it.
My 2 pestas.
Trolling by the book are we? That's a CLASSIC technique from the troll FAQ.
1)Post a goatse link.
2)get a bite
3)get called on it (and modded down)
4)deny the charge and tell them to "FTFLink" (you have to "F" before you can "R")
5)get a second bite.
6)???
7)profit!
PLZ try to be more creative in your future trolls. TIA.
Of course the entire thing is silly. Banning user NAT might be defensible if the shipped DSL or Cable modems with fully configurable firewalls. If the security situation stays the same, I would want the ISP to be liable for any real and consequential damage done by someone breaking into a connected machine.
The VPN thing is a bit more arbitrarily. It is not a common or critically necessary, but such a restriction might arbitrarily hurt small businesses.
The encrypted email is a classic example of the corporation using fear to push unrelated priorities for profit. Like when the airlines were able to force every passenger to show an ID in order to get a boarding pass. What is next? We will not be able to use code when we make a telephone call? We will only be allowed to speak english or one or other two approved languages?
Such a wide open law screams of a bought and paid for government.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
that the wording has a real big loophole at least for nat/proxies
Right now I have a single pc connected to my cable Internet provider. It communicates via my ISP without hiding its address (although I do use encryption so this part would suck).
My PCs behind my NAT/Proxy do not communicate with my ISP at all. Only with one 'side' of the device talking with my ISP.
In no way do my devices mask their communications with my ISP or others as they always send their data properly to their destination (my nat/proxy). My Nat/Proxy also does not hide its requests with the ISP and destinations so how can setting up such a device be illegal? (in other words, what am I missing?)
historically, when life becomes so restrictied that everything one does is illegal as new laws take away the people's freedom, guns have been used to take that freedom back. many on both sides suffer, but in the end, freedom would be won for a time. i doubt that the future will be different.
--one of six billion misguided monkeys
"The proposed bills generally prohibit four categories of activity:
(1) Possession, development, distribution or use of any "communication device" in connection with a communication service without the express authorization of the service provider.
(2) Concealing the origin or destination of any communication from the communication service provider.
(3) Possession, development, distribution or use of any "unlawful access device."
(4) Preparation or publication of any "plans or instructions" for making any device, having reason to know that such a device will be used to violate the other prohibitions."
ad 1: so if I buy a new cell phone, I have to ask my service provider for written permission if I can use it? (this'll make more sence to those using sim-cards on a gsm network)
ad 2: BLAM! There goes the vaunted anonimity of the internet, and with it the implied freedom of anonimous speech (without which you have no true freedom of speech). Not only that, but there go many of the natural security features the 'net has develooped.
ad 3: There goes the option of making or using that mobile phone I was talking about...you're now legally vendor locked in to the handset you use.
ad 4: well, this is bad in and of itself; there goes the method by which mechanical and electrical knowledge gets passed on in the communications field. But the real kicker is the last part. You could say that it works out to: if you're in the telco biz, and you think up a device which could hide it's location/point of origin. Now, good telco sheep that you are, you publish this so telco's can secure against such a device...but that would be in violation of the law, as you sure as hell have 'reason to believe' that if ever that document came out it could be used to make such a device!
So in that last part, this law kind of self-destructs itself, even appart from being a piece of total crap.
-- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
free to be regulated, that is No offence, but this is a perfect example of why a codified constitution is IMO bad. UKer, and happy to be so.
UK? Isn't that the place that's been following the US' lead in peace and war? Seems a lot of restrictive legislation is passed first in the US (because we're all political pussies), and then the rest of the world says, "See? It passed in the great land of the United States, so it must be good for us!"
And: the constitution is the only thing that might save us in the end.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Cryptonomicon.Net is talking about "Super" DMCA. Is this the same thing?
Concealing origin or destination of any communication from the communication servive provider.
Guess they just outlawed broadcast radio. You can not determine the destination.
I was getting sick of ClearChannel anyways..
Slashdot is like Playboy: I read it for the articles
scripsit jefu:
Don't be such a downer! In what, thirty years or so?, they'll all have died or retired, and we'll have our rights back. God, I'm sick of this `I want my constitutional rights now, not after the whole Supreme Court has died of old age' attitude...
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
Arkansas State Legislature has also passed a state-DCMA, and it awaits the Governor's signature.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
here are the pertinant texts of the law:
(1) A person shall not knowingly obtain or attempt to obtain telecommunications service with intent to avoid, attempt to avoid, or cause another person to avoid or attempt to avoid any lawful charge for that telecommunications service by using any of the following:
(a) A telecommunications access device.
(b) An unlawful telecommunications access device.
(c) A fraudulent or deceptive scheme, pretense, method, or conspiracy, or any device or other means, including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(i) Using a false, altered, or stolen identification.
(ii) The use of a telecommunications access device to violate this section by a person other than the subscriber or lawful holder of the telecommunications access device under an exchange of anything of value to the subscriber or lawful holder to allow that unlawful use of the telecommunications access device.
(b) "Telecommunications access device" means any of the following:
(i) Any instrument, device, card, plate, code, telephone number, account number, personal identification number, electronic serial number, mobile identification number, counterfeit number, or financial transaction device as defined in section 157m that alone or with another device can acquire, transmit, intercept, provide, receive, use, or otherwise facilitate the use, acquisition, interception, provision, reception, and transmission of any telecommunications service.
(ii) Any type of instrument, device, machine, equipment, technology, or software that facilitates telecommunications or which is capable of transmitting, acquiring, intercepting, decrypting, or receiving any telephonic, electronic, data, internet access, audio, video, microwave, or radio transmissions, signals, telecommunications, or services, including the receipt, acquisition, interception, transmission, retransmission, or decryption of all telecommunications, transmissions, signals, or services provided by or through any cable television, fiber optic, telephone, satellite, microwave, data transmission, radio, internet based or wireless distribution network, system, or facility, or any part, accessory, or component, including any computer circuit, security module, smart card, software, computer chip, pager, cellular telephone, personal communications device, transponder, receiver, modem, electronic mechanism or other component, accessory, or part of any other device that is capable of facilitating the interception, transmission, retransmission, decryption, acquisition, or reception of any telecommunications, transmissions, signals, or services.
(e) "Unlawful telecommunications access device" means any of the following:
(i) A telecommunications access device that is false, fraudulent, unlawful, not issued to a legitimate telecommunications access device subscriber account, or otherwise invalid or that is expired, suspended, revoked, canceled, or otherwise terminated if notice of the expiration, suspension, revocation, cancellation, or termination has been sent to the telecommunications access device subscriber.
(ii) Any phones altered to obtain service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider, a clone telephone, clone microchip, tumbler telephone, tumbler microchip, or wireless scanning device capable of acquiring, intercepting, receiving, or otherwise facilitating the use, acquisition, interception, or receipt of a telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.
(iii) Any telecommunications access device that has been manufactured, assembled, altered, designed, modified, programmed, or reprogrammed, alone or in conjunction with another device, so as to be capable of facilitating the disruption, acquisition, interception, receipt, transmission, retransmission, or decryption of a telecommunications service without the actual consent or express authorization of th
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
All that (1) means is that you can't use a telecommunication service without permission. For example, if you don't have an account with your broadband cable provider, you aren't allowed to be using the internet connection. A literal interpretation of this would mean that it would be illegal to use the service if you do not have an actual account with them even if it is connected to your home and ready to use.
What (2) means is that you can't pretend to be someone else... for example, making long distance calls from your home and somehow convincing the telecomm company that it was really your next door neighbor. Consider that if the telecomm service company can somehow locate you, then you didn't actually conceal your origins from them in the first place, did you?
(3) is completely redundant. Possession of any sort of device or equipment that is already outlawed is already illegal.
(4) As written, this is utterly absurd. Any technology, regardless of its intent, can be used for malicious purposes by nefarious folk. This could apply to devices as simple as a soldering iron (which can be used to wreak all kinds of havok, if you think about it). I believe if this is pointed out to them, then the act's wording would likely be changed to reflect the intent of the device, rather than just how it gets used. As long as the onus is on the prosecution to prove malicious intent (and they can't use the argument that "it *can* be used for bad things", as shown above), this may turn out to be not too bad.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I believe the reason for such a strong push from the Baby-Bells, RIAA, MPAA has more to do with poor long term thinking. As the internet began to grow and oportunities for generating new revenue through becoming an ISP proliferated Baby-Bells got excited about the increased earning potential without seeing the long term effect. Now they could get money from voice AND data AND even cellular customers on a larger scale. What they didn't seem to anticipate was that at some point technologically these seemingly disparate technologies would merge and the older analog forms of communication would become obsolete and thus no longer profitable. So instead of budgeting for the cycle the Baby-bells planned for double the revenue and can't realize it do to convergence. As for RIAA, MPAA They just seem to want control.
congress would like to invoke the Interstate Commerce clause on this puppy? If there's one thing that's truly interstate, it's the internet! Geez, they even tried to regulate guns by invoking the ICC - "they must cross state boundaries, so we've got jurisdiction." This is such an obvious case where the ICC applies, you'd think they'd want to jump on it.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
becasue they say this from their FAQ:
Am I allowed to network my EarthLink High Speed Internet service? Yes, but EarthLink will not provide technical support for networked computers. EarthLink will only provide technical support for the EarthLink High Speed Internet line and the primary PC on which it was installed.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
pry my modem out of my cold dead hands-lol
Don't worry, the new Privacy Czar will make sure that everything is OK. After all she used to work for Double-Click so she must know all about Privacy.
A condition of being a provider on a "Truenet" or "Undernet" is to specifically repudiate any extra rights granted by DMCA type laws. Once admins elsewhere get wind of a "Truenet" provider using them on anybody BAM! your packets don't get routed anymore. They can lawyer and PR spin until they're blue in the face and their data won't go anywhere. Enforce it legally with contracts and with Usenet Death Penalty style technological methods.
It would be nice if the oligarchs built a restricted Internet and nobody wanted hook up to it.
Have you seen the pathetic canned replies that they send back? Write to a rep. See what happens. Watch the generic reply and then watch them do the opposite in many cases.
"Representitives" seem to like voting where the big money tells them to vote.
Get out in public and make a big stink about things. Organize groups. Fly a banner at the state capitol building. Bug media outlets. Send a few faxes to the rep if you feel that contacting them will do any good.
But above all, vote for someone that might actually listen to *YOU* instead of Hollywood or the Almighty Dollar.
I hope the lawmakers realize what they are doing before these kinds of laws pass but if not, hopefully thay will go after all the spammers faking email headers....oh wait, spamming is a buisness, i guess they would want it to be illegal for me to hide my email address from a spammer, who after all is just trying to help out the economy. whereas a person like me who dosent want to pay for any "feature" a company can name, is obviously just trying to destroy the american way of life.
yo! greetings from italy from my NATted, VPNed, wirelost shared legal connection.
I can sleep up to 3 US figitives for a cheap $10/night
discounts if you bring cool gear and knowledge...
leave now before they make it illegal to fly out..
How can you get rid of a criminal statute if you can't find a DA willing to prosecute the case, through to the supreme court if need be?
It seems to me like it'd be pretty straightforward to find some friendly ISP in MI to say they don't want Linksys brand routers hooked up to their network. I'll show up, and tell people they can buy linksys routers at their local CompUSA.
Viola, crime ad absurdum!
The only problem is, how do we get a case like this prosecuted to the level it need to be to strike down the law? No DA is going to push that, no matter how hard both sides complain that the law is being violated.
Gah, hatred rising. Urge to move to Canada strong.
but during those 30 years they'll make rulings to put more Republican presidents into office, hence putting more conservatives onto the Supreme Court.
Oh wait, I didn't notice the sarcasm tag there. My bad.
scripsit MntlChaos:
I blame the lameness filter.
In principio creauit Linus Linucem.
This area of the regulations isn't just "big business against the consumer." Consumer electronics manufacturers are big business, too. I'd expect to see Federal preemption of these State laws in fairly short order.
HAHA, um, where are all the lawmakers brains? Im thinking that there is a running bet going on right now as to if the entire US population can be put into jail for something or another. DMCA, Patriot I and II, RIAA Lawsuits...reminds me exacally why this is called the "Land Of The Free." On that note, anyone know how to go about setting up an independent state..you know..seceding from the USA? It nearly worked for the south....
I am that much more enlightened and proportionally disillusioned
Suppose that the legislation is passed, and is enforced in the worst possible way. You know what will happen?
The U.S.A. will no longer belong to the 'free' world. The rest of us will cluck our tongues and continue on in our vaguely socialist liberal pseudo-democracies. And in ten years or so, you'll get over it when the abuses become intolerable and you're no longer fearing the next terrorist attack.
OK, so our gov't is no longer so great at doing what's right when it comes to needing to go to war - we're still doing the whole personal freedom things a bit better in Canada than in the U.S. (At least for now)
...is that it's yet another case of putting a law into place that everyone will ignore, with the result that it's another tool for the police to get someone they want, but don't have any real evidence against. That's not so bad when it's someone dangerous they're trying to put away, but all too often it's just someone somebody doesn't like for whatever reason, or lately, to make a show of "protecting the public".
I'm just waiting for them to put up another law requiring firewalls on broadband connections. Damned if you do and Damned if you don't.
I would look at the technologies similar to the one wich is used by Freenet: distributed cryptographicaly anonymised file storage and access systems.
Who will you sue if your stolen file is nowhere and everywhere (on 100.000 computers) at the same time? And there is no way to determine on which computer connected into this file sharing system this file is stored and on which not.
Well that's really scary for the Media industry if there is even no physical posibility to identify the person they want to take to court. Who would they try to prosecute if the DVD decryption code would be let into wild through such a system, and how to censor this code later on?
So no wonder there is a initiative to create such legislation.
...a stunned silence fell upon the hall.
I live in Pennsylvania, and i had no idea that this had passed here until now, but im not surprised at all. The town I live in has NO crime at all, i leave my car unlocked with the keys in it while i'm at work and don't think twice about it, and alot of people i know NEVER lock their house! But the size of our police force has increased exponentially in the last few years. We have absolutely no need for more than 2 police officers on duty at any given time, the biggest "crime" around here is kids drinking beer. So as a result, the police have nothing to do and pull you over for 59 mph in a 55, or somethign else along those lines. I guess my question is why, when there is no crime do governments (federal/local/state) feel the need to make or enforce ridiculous laws to turn more people into criminals, instead of being happy that there is less violent crime, which is much worse than somebody stealing cable. I havent heard about many laws getting passed lately that have a positive impact on anyone except the people in power. Why doesnt the government put more resources into recycling programs, a better healthcare system, maintaining roads and highways, recognizing people who make positive contributions to their communities, making PC's and internet more accessible to everyone (rural broadband), the list goes on and on. I don't like the direction our country is headed, I dont think I have to explain further (especially on slashdot :P). I really hope that we can stop this sort of thing before it goes too far and we no longer have the power to, after all, it's OUR country. Well, thats my 2 cents, sorry for the rant, I'm waiting on a solaris install :)
So now wait, you want my machine to route traffic from your neighborhood into mine, so you can download pr0n from the people on my block. What's my incentive to invest the time and money to acquire and maintain the equipment to do that? Somehow I doubt the Cisco bunny is going to leave routers, switches and cat-5 cables hidden around the house this weekend! :)
0 1 - just my two bits
Don't be such a downer! In what, thirty years or so?, they'll all have died or retired, and we'll have our rights back.
That depends on whose administration they die or retire under. If a few of them were to keel over this week, they would likely be replaced by far right-wingers, since the democrats in congress don't have the spine to oppose Bush on anything. (How does the phrase "Chief Justice Ashcroft" sound to you?)
0 1 - just my two bits
This sort of nonsense could be prevented if the monopolies on broadband internet to the home were broken. It's the monopoly attitude that defines customers as enemies that need to be regulated by law in order to protect the service.
A non-monopolized wireless service seems like the way to go - multiple ISPs competing to carry your data. But existing broadband ISPs are not likely to impose such a network on themselves.
Perhaps 802.11a and some software could be used to hack together a network. It'd have to be really easy for any Joe Consumer to install it. And it'd need to have a utilitarian as well as political justification - perhaps position it as a backup network, for when one's main internet service goes down. The small phone ISPs who are getting frozen out by cable and DSL service could provide the first ISPs for the network.
Obviously the monopolists would fight back - trying to regulate the wireless service out of existence. But since they aren't providing the wireless service, nor does it interfere with their services, it'd be more obvious to lawmakers what they're up to.
As I'm sure you all know, laws in the US are in large part based on precedent. Laws that force child molesters to register their presence to their neighbors will eventually evolve into laws that force felony assault criminals to announce their presence as well. Unless it involves a favorable supreme court or a civil war, most laws are ever reversed so much that the precedent for their submission to the legislature is ignored. That is, even if you stop a bill in one place the fact that it has been submitted before in another form somewhere almost guarantees that it will pop up again someplace else soon.
I'm not a constituent of Michigan, nor am I likely to become one as long as I retain my sense of horrible dread about snow and below freezing temperatures. The simple fact is though that what the Michigan state legislature does is important to me because it sets precedents that other state legislatures will recognize. This has very little to do with democracy or the power of a vote, short of an act of civil disobedience or voter fraud there simply isn't anything anyone outside of Michigan can do beyond bad press. If Michigan legislaters pass the law then it will bounce around the nearest states probably, or those involved in whatever power block brought up the law in the first place. Once it is passed in Illinois, New York, Pennsylvannia, Florida, Texas, or California though it's bound to have established enough recognition that at least some form of it will pass into law on the national level. Then we'll have to wait for the Supreme Court or that civil war, because the hardest thing for a government to do isn't to establish freedoms but to give up controls.
Or AOL could make your Free Hours CD bootable and require that you use that boot environment (you know, the one that doesn't recognize any local drives so you can't load anything else) to connect.
Like I said, the net as television... back to read-only media. Except in this scenario, you don't even get to use the remote and your browser doesn't block pop-ups, it seeks them out.
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Why not push for a 'Right to Bear Technology'. Just like the Right to Bear Arms, we implicitly believe that we have the right to use our computers, cell phones, etc in any way we see fit - excepting other laws.
For example, I can buy a gun in any of the 50 states. Possession of such a gun is not a crime. Development of such a gun, generally, is not also (so I can add a scope, or load my own ammunition). Use of such a gun is also legal, again in general. It is only when I use the gun to break the law that the public's interests are threatened. Along those lines, it's no more of a crime to murder with a knife than it is to do so with the gun. Murder is the crime, not using a gun. Hence the Right to Bear Arms.
What do you think?
The solution is simple, and it is thus:
A two-pronged attack to turn the illogic of these laws against the MPAA.
FIRST, when you have a contract with a provider, whether cable, DSL, or POTS, it is implicit that you are providing THEM (and through them, the rest of the world) access to YOUR network. Thus, they are just as accountable to YOU for any unauthorized equipment or devices attached to their computers. They have to ask YOUR permission to use that invisible proxy. THEY become responsible for spam sent by other customers to YOUR machine. I'm sure all those hungry lawyers with lasers on their heads would be much happier to take on Time Warner or SBC (greater potential reward) than a bunch of out-of-work home user techies.
A potential corrolary to this is that the MPAA or any other organization that e-mails you likewise becomes answerable to YOU in how they perform that communication. Require them, under law, to use the mail client YOU specify.
NEXT, Go after the MPAA, RIAA, et al. for using NAT, VPNs, and other such techs in their OWN networks. What's good for the goose...
Just a thought.
These people looked deep into my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined.
Lack of a lameness filter is why we have this Supreme Court, isn't it? Don't be so down on it.
I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
Solution 1 involves finding a large number of like-minded people who think privacy is important, who think a free and open and non-corporation-controlled Internet is important, who are willing to spend $250 a piece on an 802.11b AP, and who are willing to set aside their differences long enough to organize a nationwide mesh of interconnected base stations. These people can, over a period of years, build their own wireless hub and give (perhaps low-data rate) Internet access to everyone.
Solution 2 involves finding a rather less large number of like-minded people who think privacy is important, who think a free and open and non-corporation-controlled Internet is important, who are willing to cast their vote, and who are willing to set aside their differences long enough to organize a nationwide effort to put laws in-place guaranteeing a free and open and non-corporation-controlled Internet like we already have for voice service. This would give everyone who wants it as much data rate as they have today. Oh, and this model has already been proven to work.
In this case, getting the law re-written just might be the easier route.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
see subject...
Fission Bomb:
[explosives(26lb U235 Half Sphere| |erehpS flaH 532U bl62)explosives]
Fusion Bomb:
-----FiB-----
--FiB---FiB--
FiB-iso_H-FiB
--FiB---FiB--
-----FiB-----
Note: encase iso_H in a sphere of FiB
iso_H == Hydrogen w/ 2-3 Neutrons
FiB == Fission Bomb
Get your guns are storm the capital now while there is still time!
If we do not stop this now there will be no way to stop it later!!
"...land of the shock, home of the awe..."
...but I feel really sorry for the american citizens . Pack your shit together and put it onto european servers. You're welcome (really)!
What needs to be done specifically in this case is... you know as well as I do that no major IT shop in any affected state can obey all of this law and continue to operate. Gather evidence against state government agencies, Fortune 500 companies, and the cable operators themselves and when there's enough of it, file a taxpayers' suit for the purpose of making the state AGs enforce the law. Evidence will be as close as the e-mail headers from organizations in violation, at least enough for subpoena purposes.
When state-level elected officials find out that their e-mail, website, and payroll processing for their own paychecks is offline and that their CIO is behind bars, perhaps they'll decide that there are things more important than campaign contributions from Hollywood.
What will be done?
A lot of whining by the US online crowd, just like all the other times bad Internet law has come up. EFF and all the other organizations with non-profit status can in general only effectively intervene when a law is in fact unconstitutional. Unfortunately, just because a law is likely to fuck up high-tech industry doesn't make it necessarily unconstitutional.
I don't think the status of these laws or bills matters all that much anymore. If these laws are taken off the books, the replacement measures will be rewritten in such a way that they will apply only to end users, not to corporations / businesses. . . the barrier to freedom of use will effectively be the ability to afford your own T1 or something like that.
The only way to make sure that legislation like this doesn't happen is to make sure that the politicians owe us enough favors that they'll ask us before making computer/Net related legislation. The only way to do this is to outbid Hollywood for them. The high-tech community has blown its opportunities to do this, first when doing this was easy, and now when the bad guys have legal momentum on their side. There was a time when a few people willing to spend a few megabucks on getting a political operation capable of becoming a mass-action advocacy and lobbying organization could have easily managed this. Unfortunately, the time to do this was when it was still possible to start a national-level PAC and get the paperwork done required to make it legal to collect money on behalf of candidates soon enough to make it possible to affect the 2004 elections. The window for that closed months ago.
Face it, game's over, people. Effective political action on our behalf is not going to happen and we might as well face the fact and figure out how we want to deal with this at an individual level.
The cumulative impact of laws like this simply mean that technology innovation will have to happen outside the USA. If you want to be a technology innovator, figure out where you want to move to and what language you need to learn to function there.
The best time to join a refugee movement / "brain drain" is before it starts, so you can bitch with the rest of the locals in whatever foriegn country you're in about the cheap high-tech labor coming in from America because by the time people realize en masse that the recovery is happening, but not here, you're established as a local who just happened to be born in America.
Tech Public Policy stuff
every isp will simply be very aol-like, you bet, unless you're a licensed professional, you'll not be able to connect "home-brewed" software to the internet.
(Note: none of this has any bearing in Present Day, Present Time...or does it?)
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
That depends on whose administration they die or retire under. If a few of them were to keel over this week, they would likely be replaced by far right-wingers, since the democrats in congress don't have the spine to oppose Bush on anything. (How does the phrase "Chief Justice Ashcroft" sound to you?)
Of course not. They never opposed Miguel Estrada or anything, have they?
The real problem today is that nobody on any side of the political spectrum is willing to stand up to the fear mongers and demand that our rights be preserved.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
as a reformed idealist, i can see you will go through bitter times; that is our lot in life. my advice: better for your own sanity to apply idealism to good deeds than to hope in vain for such by others. one way is to realize "X can be Y" is a statement of possibility, a perfect thought, a crystal-clear point undebatable and unfortunately, unrelated to "X will by Y". to undersetand the latter well enough to debate its intracacies is no easy feat for an idealist, reformed or no. i wish you luck.
IPV6 should do away with additional IP charges.. They are charging as a deterrent for IP abuse due to the inavailability of excess Ip addresses in IPV4.
If that is true, why do they discourage NAT? Only one IP address per household is needed then.
You mean the supreme court nominies that were MOSTLY put there by Democrats? Remember they were approved by Democratic senates. But that passed you right by didnt it because the dude won according to the rules. Rules our founding fathers came up with. But they were just a bunch of old red neck hicks wernt they. If you dont like it get out and vote next time. The damn election was basicly a statistical draw. It was within about .001% of 50/50.
What would gore have done these past three years? He promised to raise taxs. THAT would have helped the economy we are in.
If you do not like these laws DO something about it dont bitch. Get out your logs showing why you use these things because your ISP does not help you. In fact they do the exact oposite. You are protecting yourself. Self defense is legal... The first bad packet you get from your isp you can probably sue... Its THEIR network.
Bullshit.
Like Bush, Gore promised a tax cut. The total amount of Gore's tax cut was smaller than Bush's, but everyone who is paid less than about $300,000 a year and doesn't inherit more than $2 million would have been better off under Gore's plan.
Bush is cutting taxes by a lot, but nearly all of that is targeted towards the extremely rich. And the rest of us are havign to pay for it through increased sales and other taxes. Many states and cities are also having to layoff teachers and cops.