Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Kills California Anti-Pretexting Bill
IAmTheDave writes "A California anti-pretexting bill that got unanimous support in the state senate with a vote of 30-0 was struck down after heavy last-minute lobbying by the MPAA. The bill aimed to make deceptive 'pretexting' (lying) to gain personal information on another person illegal. The MPAA told legislators 'We need to pose as someone other than who we are to stop illegal downloading,' and thus killed the bill when it came up for a final vote. California passed a much narrower bill that 'bans the use of deceit to obtain telephone calling records, and nothing else.' In a final 'think of the children' bid, the Califonia Association of Licensed Investigators also opposed the bill, saying it needed to be able to use pretexting to help find missing children, among other things."
I never realized the MPAA was a law enforcement organization.
I wonder what else they need in order to enforce laws. Prisons? Armed agents? The power to arrest and seize property?
It's the only way to make sure the Legislators even PRETEND TO TRY to give a shit about us.
We're fucked.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
Seems odd when a committee (in this case, an entire senate) deems a law pragmatic enough it goes up for vote with a unanimous (30-0) sendoff and subsequently because of special interest (MPAA allegedly) the final vote skews not only away from unanimous but actually flips the sentiment (bill loses 27-33).
Consider the gist of the bill (from the article):
This means the MPAA and others argued for the right to make "false, fictitious or fraudulent" statements...! Amazing!
There are legitimate ways for the entertainment industry to obtain data when prosecuting alleged piracy activity. This isn't one of them. So, the practice (pretexting) remains legal and the MPAA prevails in yet another seamy side of big business buying milquetoast government.
I've lost the ability to record FM on my Creative Zen with my last firmware update... ostensibly, though I can't confirm it because of industry pressure on Creative -- it was one of the features I bought it for.
The threat continues to loom for providers of excellent technology like TiVo to rein in their features, also ostensibly under pressure.
The better the technology gets, the less they want us to use it.
But now companies and PIs can too? Can the average guy 'pretext' as well, or will he get punished? I can't really tell from the article.
Makes me want to break more laws....let's see...what can I do that has a low chance of getting caught...
Blar.
I don't see a problem with pretending to be someone else, as long as you have the appropriate licenses/credentials.
i.e.:
Pretending to be a everyday/normal person - fine
Pretending to be a Police Officer without being in the employ of a police agency, or a CPA without the actual degrees and licenses: bad
I do not agree with falsifying data either:
"I downloaded these files from the user's hard drive"
if you did this and have absolute proof - fine
if you didn't do this and/or "fudged" the numbers, you need jail time.
what parts of these, with respect to other laws, are impacted by this bill and the changes made?
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
If you need to stop something illegal, it shouldn't be necessary to lie and impersonate someone to prevent the activity. Why is it necessary to impersonate another to "think of the children" or to stop illegal downloads? If you have proof of a wrong doing, you take it to a judge, get a warrant, and put an end to it. If you don't have proof, then lets end all the witch hunts.
Isn't it already a crime to pass yourself off as someone else? I thought it was fraud.
And people say the European Commission is corrupt...
--- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Wouldnt' any bill allow for exceptions like the use of pretexting for criminal investigations? Seems like a pretty flimsy excuse for downgrading the bill.
So it all just comes down to who has the biggest pockets.
Current breakdown of the California State Senate - 25 DNCers, 15 GOPers. But I thought only GOPers who bow to big business?
Wake up people, no party is free of Big Business.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
This may be bad for filesharers, but it's a victory for social engineers everywhere. Do you really want to live in a state where lying is illegal?
Slow Down, Cowboy! It's been 60 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment.
To paraphrase Ed Harris in the movie, History of Violence, "...how come the MPAA is so good at killing bills?" The answer is that succesful politicians are not developed, they're bought.
True. Although do bear in mind this is California, home of the movie industry. I'd be interested in seeing if they were quite as successful in getting a similar bill nuked in, say, Massachussets.
It's not a bill, but a party. The Libertarian Party is all about the government leaving us alone as much as possible. If that's what you believe, then you should vote Libertarian.
In a final 'think of the children' bid, the California Association of Licensed Investigators also opposed the bill, saying it needed to be able to use pretexting to help find missing children, among other things."
Riiiight. Because a carve-out for protecting kids would just have been impossible to write in.
It couldn't be that the real money in PI work might be in divorce/adultery, paparazzi-ing, or industrial disputes.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
We all need to give up a little of our privacy so that we can secure the interests of our economy. And by our economy, I mean the few people who continue to control our lives for profit while the middle class declines into poverty and debt.
I say that "pretexting" should be ILLEGAL. They can work through the legal system to "protect" their "property".
If your car was stolen, the cops would take a very unfavourable view of you impersonating a cop in order to retrieve it.
The only problem with that is that it will never happen for the same reasons that this bill was killed: it requires politicians to do what is in the best interests of the citizens, instead of what is in the best interests of their reelection campaign (read getting money).
The only problem? His amendment is so broadly worded that it would probably outlaw credit histories as well. Do you lend money to people? Is this something you'd condone?
Likewise, there were probably very compelling reasons not to pass this bill but we won't hear about them because of the four letter word known as the MPAA. Because they got involved I predict the chances of this being a fruitful discussion on /. at 100 to 1 against.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Speaking of California and the movie industry, does anyone know if we're hearing anything from any of these actors/actresses who speak out so often about social injustice? What's the Governator's opinion on this? I haven't seen anything. I wonder if maybe it's too close to their own pocketbook (maybe it's true about the love of money...) or maybe it's just peer pressure from within their social circles?
Those idiot actors speak out on social injustice when it gives them photo ops with starving children. Yeah, I'm talking to you, Angelina Jolie.
"An honest politician is one that stays bought" - RAH
-- Intelligence is soluble in alcohol
... IF the judges in cases involving the MPAA remember that, in order to get this proposed law defeated in California, the MPAA essentially admitted that it lies and falsifies information in the course of a piracy investigation >:)
I can see the court transcript now: Judge: And how, exactly, were you able to obtain this evidence? **AA: Your honor, we lied and falsified information, but everything we tell you is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth...honest. Judge: Riiiiiiiiight.....
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
The MPAA told legislators 'We need to pose as someone other than who we are to stop illegal downloading,' and thus killed the bill when it came up for a final vote.
To be more accurate, one would say:
"The MPAA told legislators that it needed this bill killed, presumeably either threatening to pull their financial contributions to said legislators, or offering contributions if the legislator agreed to vote the way they wanted. The MPAA approached sufficient legislators to find enough of them that a sufficient percentage were willing to sell their vote to kill the bill. Like well-paid prostitutes, they did exactly what was asked and thereby prevented the bill from passing."
The MPAA can't kill any bills. It takes whores in the legislature to do that.
-Styopa
You're using her as bait, Master!
Maybe it'd put a quick end to the whole 'credit culture' that has built up in America and is slowly destroying the national economy.
And I have a problem with the 'credit culture' as well (what's wrong with having the cash for stuff before you buy it and living within your means?) but you are ignoring my point. The point was that when you write something that broad it can have unintended effects.
Want an example on the other side? Did anybody ever think that the social security number would become a national ID number used for everything from employment to taxes to security?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Actually, no, since it's only illegal to lie to law enforcement or in court. It doesn't matter whether you are an individual or speaking for a corporation. Kevin Mitnick's pretexting was perfectly legal-- it's when he used the information to trespass or break into systems that he broke the law.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
"Actually, no, since it's only illegal to lie to law enforcement or in court"
It is legal to lie in court if you are not specifically under oath. Otherwise, a lot of lying is done in the courtroom: from the typical business practices of attorneys to the large percentage of the accused who did the crime (and know they did it) but lie and plead "not guilty" anyway.
A courtroom without lies would be very very different.
Where were you when the voynix came?