Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

State "Communication Services" Laws Analyzed

Posted by michael on from the read-it-and-weep dept.

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?"

4 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Mirrored it here in case of slashdotting...

  2. The ball starts rolling .. by reyalsnogard · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. previous analysis by de+la+pohl · · Score: 5, Informative
    This is not a new disclosure. Fred von Lohmann, also of EFF, drew similar conclusions in his analysis, which concludes that super-DMCA legislation:
    • is unnecessary
    • seeks to forbid what is not expressly permitted
    • removes the "Intent to Defraud" qualifier
    • attacks anonymity
    • chills computer security research
    • is a threat to innovation and competition
    • transfers law enforcement from public to private hands
    • seeks dangerous, one-sided remedies

    Lohmann also references the model bill that the MPAA is circulating among the states, a line-by-line analysis of which is here.
  4. Little Chicken by Zebra_X · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.