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.

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.

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

[_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.

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...

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.