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?"

16 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. This just in... by MimsyBoro · · Score: 5, Funny

    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
  4. A Way Out? by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  5. I imagine by ekephart · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  6. Stupid State! by brotherscrim · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  7. It Should be Obvious by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:It Should be Obvious by ratamacue · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    2. Re:It Should be Obvious by _xeno_ · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  8. no surprise... by chipwich · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

  9. Re:You adopt IPv6.... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

    >> And I'll drop my NAT box in a heartbeat.

    Your future monthly cable bill without NAT:

    Basic channels: $23.95
    Premium channels: $12.95
    Internet connection: $19.95
    First system IP address: $17.95
    Second system IP address: $15.95
    Firewall IP address: $15.95
    Video Recorder IP address: $15.95
    Game box IP address: $15.95
    Printer IP address: $8.95
    VPN Fee (1 destination): $29.95
    Voice over IP fee: $24.95
    Local taxes: $17.54
    Federal taxes: $22.45

    Total: 242.44

  10. 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.
  11. Stop complaining and.... by pfankus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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...

  12. The genie is already out of the bottle... by surprise_audit · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The genie's already out of the bottle, and no legislation is ever going to stuff it back in. If necessary, us geeks will revert to uucp-style networking - for those too young to remember, that's dial up connections from place to place, covering the whole planet.

    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...

  13. Respecting the market... by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  14. 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.