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?"
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
Wouldn't that apply to online shopping? SSL credit card numbers on an encrypted page?
********* sig: If you don't like the law, get filthy stinking rich, and buy a better one.
Seems like a self-defeating law that was only put on the books to placate a limited number of constituants.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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...
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 ?
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.
I have a local provider, and we work on the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, Don't ask them to support your servers, fix your shit, or make them do extra work, and they don't tell us to pull down our servers. They specifically avoided the language in their EULA, and because it's ADSL, they don't have to worry too much about insane bandwidth charges. They cost about $5 more a month, but it's well worth it when some guy says to you "Here's the Internet. Enjoy" rather than "Here's the World Wide Web. NO FILESHARING! NO SERVERS! WE DO YOUR E-MAIL! WE BLOCK PORTS!"
If they were to go to IPv6, I'm sure that they will charge a small fee for a subnet, which I'll happily pay. I've told them this, and they seem interested, but it's not the right time for them. When some of their older equipment goes to end-of-life, they'll replace it with ipv6 shit, and then we'll get it.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
"Yeah, that'd be one hell of an Achilles Heel, there's probably something on the books about it -- for our protection."
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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.
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
Remember, when creating a fascist state, the first step is to make everything illegal, and then selectively enforce it.
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 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 :)
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