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?"

Comments

A Way Out?

[ackthpt]

all technology that is not expressly permitted by a communications providerM will be prohibited.

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.

Re:A Way Out?

[ackthpt]

allowing foreign companies to control any large part of our telecommunications infrastructure is a bad, bad idea.

Yet, as the article suggests, domestic control can also be bad.

NAT-based firewalling?

[Robert Hayden]

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.

Re:NAT-based firewalling?

[3.5 stripes]

I hope you're not saying that NAT alone provides any form of security at all.

Re:NAT-based firewalling?

[Cyno]

Um, NAT does provide some security. Unless you want to explain how you're going to get your packet past my NAT without me initiating the connection.

Re:NAT-based firewalling?

[schon]

I hope you're not saying that NAT alone provides any form of security at all.

Depends on the type of NAT.

The NAT used by most gateway devices (like Linux's Masquerading) does provide some measure of security, even if you've not implemented any packet filters..

If your gateway device implements no filtering at all, and you're using NAT, the devices behind your NAT gateway are invisible to the outside world, as the only packets that will reach them are ones associated with an existing connection.

In this respect, NAT is kind of like a "poor-man's" stateful packet filtering - which is probably why the two are so closely linked in the 2.4 kernel.

If you argue that it provides no security, then I can use that same argument to show that stateful inspection adds no security either (which every security professional I know would disagree with.)

Stupid State!

[brotherscrim]

I have the unfortunate distinction of being a resident of MI. I just don't get this one. I mean, if this whole mess was an effort to combat cable theft or something, why did this law ever get passed in the first place? I figured the laws against THEFT pretty much handled such issues.

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.

Re:Stupid State!

[mowa]

Folks this is not about controlling crime! This is about controlling period!
This is about achieving the high levels of profit that can only come when choice is removed, this is about controlling the incredibly powerfull tools that are the computer and the internet. Major companies want to ensure that it is their base that translates into these new mediums and even more importantly that all new tech developments can be controlled and funneled through themselves. And the advances they don't like can be blocked from getting out, certainly blocked from giving rise to new competition.

As far as most companies are concerned "we the people" are no more than disposable labor and the income source, "we the people" should be compensated as little as possible and charged as much as we can bear. This serves the purpose of not only "maximizing profit" but also preventing the formation of new capital pools, which can reduce the need of the individual on the employer and give rise to new collective ventures not controlled by existing players.

This is about removing the "free" from the "free flow of information".

and that's "speach" as well as in "beer".

mowa

Re:Stupid State!

[mattdm]

What, exactly, is that NRA card going to do for you? This idealistic notion of a citizen's revolt to throw off an oppresive government is a total anacronism against the most powerful and high-tech military in the world. So what's the benefit? Placebo effect, I suppose. People can scream about the importance of their right to have guns, when meanwhile their real civil liberties are taken away with no complaints.

It Should be Obvious

[Greyfox]

That no government on the planet considers the Internet to be a good thing in its current form. It gives everyone too much of a voice, taking the communication monopolies away from the rich who can afford the equipment to get their word out. Obviously communication between citizens is dangerous and can only be allowed through government approved channels. That's what's happening now.

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.

Re:It Should be Obvious

[ratamacue]

the majority of the population ... would probably actually agree that communication between citizens is dangerous and should only be allowed through government approved channels

Sad, but true -- yet blatantly illogical. The core of this argument rests on the assumption that somehow, human beings of power (the rulers) are inherently more trustworthy than regular human beings (the subjects). But, what is it that actually differentiates the ruler from the subject? Is it knowledge? Education? Experience? Good will? None of the above: It's power and power alone. The true root of the argument, therefore, is that power (the "legal right" to initiate force) is inherently "just", which, when we put it that way, is simply ludicrous.

Another false belief that I run into is that a majority -- which is really just another group of human beings -- is somehow more trustworthy or rightous than an individual human being, and thus, the majority opinion is more valuable than the single opinion. This argument is illogical by the same token.

Re:It Should be Obvious

[jhines0042]

That the constitution protects my right to Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of the Press proves you wrong.

I don't have to be a big name corporate muckity muck to be able to publish a press release or a newspaper. If my chosen medium is the Internet then there is nothing that the US Government can do to legally stop me.

Re:It Should be Obvious

[override11]

But then your logic would seem to lead to the assumption that a person who holds a PhD is 'more knowledgable' or somehow more able to make a decision that will effect all those non-educated people. I thinkn that is a definite problem. Just because your folks had the cash to send you to school long enough to cram a degree down your throat does not in some magical way gift you with common-sense. That is much more a function of upbringing and experience. I think you will find that most people with common sense stay OUT of politics, and the few that decide to get into it make excellent representatives.

Re:It Should be Obvious

[_xeno_]

I don't have to be a big name corporate muckity muck to be able to publish a press release or a newspaper. If my chosen medium is the Internet then there is nothing that the US Government can do to legally stop me.

Yeah, you have the freedom of speech, but everyone else has the freedom to ignore you. And that's why things like this will pass and the vast majority will ignore you. Releasing a press release will probably not reach anyone. The press might read it, decide it's boring, and then drop it. So that doesn't help. Publishing your own newspaper won't help either, because only your friends will read it, and everyone else will just toss it. Trust me - I don't care what you write. I already get my news from AOL Times Warner through my local paper, I don't need another paper poorly written by a couple of weirdo computer freaks.

The fact that you aren't a "big name corporate muickity muck" pretty much guarentees that no one will read your paper or listen to your press release. No one really cares about what you have to say. Just like no one cares about what Slashdot has to say or any of the individual posters have to say. Stop a random person on the street and ask them about the DMCA and chances are very high that they won't know what the hell it is, or, if they do, think it's a good thing to protect Hollywood from the hackers on the Internet. Chances are rather slim that you randomly found another person concerned with the DMCA.

Now I have to admit that the above is very trollish and inflammatory, so now I want to put the above into context. It's meant to put things into the context of the adverage American, the people who watch Joe Millionaire and Survior and American Idol, the people who were more concerned with the President getting a BJ than with Bosnia. In all honesty, I hope I'm being overly cynical. But if past performance is any indicator of the future, I doubt that anyone will be able to get people to care about something like this. Most people would rather just assume that while they don't understand the issue, the people purposing the laws must, and therefore assume that it's in their best interest. Most people also still believe that wealth==morality, and that if the rich argue for something, it must be right, while those poorer are just upset because they don't have the same riches.

Only time will tell, but I just can't find any hope. No one really cares, unless the talking heads on the TV screen say it. And I can't think of any way to change that. Maybe someone else can find hope, but unless CNN starts talking about these issues, I doubt the majority will care, assuming that the government knows best.

Wyoming

[Chris Burke]

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. :)

Stop complaining and....

[pfankus]

...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...

Unconstitutional ? By who's constitution?

[jefu]

Remember the make-up of the current supreme court. And remember that Justics Scalia seems to believe that the American people currently have "too many rights". Look at the current administration and their notion of good laws (Patriot and Patriot II).

Then be an optimist.

But do remember that there seems to be an evolutionary/genetic predisposition to optimism.

But you are your provider...

[PSL]

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.

Re:New business opportunities

[RLiegh]

or even new "internets".

Sorry, I don't see it. The resources are not there, and the motivation is not there. Look over sf.net sometime. Look at all the abandoned projects...then come back and tell me these people are going to start a new internet?!?!? I'll believe it when I see it (and I am decidedly NOT holding my breath).

Re:Just a show of hands

[YrWrstNtmr]

Who here is going to obey this law if it ever gets passed?

Unless yor computer is jacked directly into the backbone, you might not have a choice. Whoever supplies your connection will obey, or be forced/fined/jailed out of businesss.

Re:You adopt IPv6....

[bsharitt]

That may have been modded as funny, but that's basically what they want to get at.

Re:I imagine

[the_2nd_coming]

yeah, thats great and all but every internet router sold today is a NAT. I guess tehy will ahve to grandfather those in because people get pissed when they have to buy new shit to comply with new laws.

besides that how the hell am I gonna offer internet access to all my computers in my house with out an nat? I will have to get an IP for all of them from the damn ISP.

Re:no surprise...

[uptownguy]

Humans have a certain tolerance for taking shit from these groups, but once it is reached and exceeded, inevitably, glass breaks, buildings burn, and certain accused parties get dragged into the streets. Hilarity ensues.

...Keep in mind that when that happens this round, people won't just be blaming corporations... they will be blaming the computers, too. As a geek, perhaps you (reading this, RIGHT NOW) should be more concerned about what would happen in a luddite revolution...

Re:no surprise...

[maxpublic]

Bullshit. Our rights have been under assault for quite some time. All of the rights enumerated in the Constitution have been curtailed in some fashion, and others are on the way to being completely ignored altogether. I could give you numerous examples of this, but such examples are so easy to find on the internet why bother? Take a look for yourself, it's not like you have to search extensively to see how little of your rights actually survive.

The real problem is that the majority of Americans no longer believe in the Constitution or the rights enshrined in it. The majority *want* these rights curtailed or revoked. They want this because a) they don't trust their neighbors with freedom, and are willing to give up their own so long as their neighbor has to give it up too, and b) it gives them the illusion of power - i.e., they think by denying their neighbor the ability to do something their neighbor wants them to do, they 'prove' in some strange way that they actually have a certain measure of control over life (in this case, they've made their neighbor miserable and it shows).

People talk about revolution in the streets if 'things go too far'. I say "bullshit". The farther things go, the happier the majority of the sheeple will be. If Constitutional rights are abrogated altogether most Americans would see that as a cause for celebration.

Very few people believe in rights anymore. Very few people want the responsibility that comes with these rights. Americans are hankering for a dictatorship, a Big Daddy who'll protect them all from their evil-minded neighbors. And it looks very much like they're going to get exactly what they want.

Max