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."
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.
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.
As we've seen, it's been proven to be not broad enough for our needs.
How about this:
Amendment $NEXT_AMMENDMENT_NUM
The right of The People to Personal Privacy and Security and Control of any information or data directly created by them, or by their indirect acts shall not be infringed by either any Governmental Body, Federal, State, or Local,, OR ANY ARTIFICIAL LEGAL ENTITY created by any act of any Governmental Body.
(That should take care of the damned Corporations. )
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
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!"
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)
On the one hand we have the RIAA trying entrap media pirates under false pretenses. On the other, we have Universal trying to extort royalties for mp3 player manufacturers because they are "repositories for stolen music": http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/29/ 2328222. So I'm supposed to pay a tax on my mp3 player to keep the RIAA at bay, and then go home and not download free music? Sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
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.
Deceit in these cases is practiced to obtain information disclosures. It is an imposition of the deciever's wishes over those of the deceived. The question should, then be this: does the deciever have a fundamental right to the information he is seeking?
So, outlaw pretexting except where it is used to obtain information that, if it were in the posession of an officer of the law, that officer would have a duty to disclose.
For example, you are a police officer who finds out Mr. X, who is in a custody dispute with Mrs. X, has kidnapped the children. You would have a duty to disclose to Mrs. X the whereabout of those children.
However suppose you know Mr. X is having an affair with Ms. Y. You have no duty to tell Mrs. X this, and depending on how you found out you may have a duty not to tell.
In the case of the MPAA, if they are seeking evidence that people are illegally sharing materials whose copyright they hold, this is information to which they have a well established legal right. However, they have no right to other kinds of information they could gain by pretexting, such as who your friends are.
By creating exceptions to a law against preteting, we are in a sense deputizing private parties to conduct searches by force. This entails some invasion of privacy. An officer of the law may obtain sensitive private information while executing a warrant, but if the information is not relevant to some sort of crime he may not disclose it. Neither should a private party acting under an exception to the law against pretexting be allowed to go on a fishing expedition.
Therefore groups using pretexting should be forbidden to use any information they gain as a result unless it is relevant to an exempted purpose.
So, if a record company looks for copyright infringement for its copyrights and finds infringement on another company's copyright, that is disclosable. They can't, however, create a database of music preferences for marketing purposes.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Like in the movie "Enemy of the Sate", someone should pretext as the lawmakers and get their phone records. Maybe this will make them understand the gravity of the situation.
Any ideas ?
We're fucked.
Look on the bright side. They just made sure social engineering to obtain personal information on politicians perfectly legal. I think it's time to show them what legal advantages they have given their people. Anyone care to open a public database online in California with government officials personal information? Start with judges, city councel, and the like. Think of the children. Listing all the children's DOB, SSN, school, home address, IM username, ISP, IP address, and such should be a good wake up call to the error they just enabled.
The truth shall set you free!
... 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?
"You misspelled "some state". Hope this helps, corn boy."
I'd better get back to husking the ears, then, my erstwhile foe.
Where were you when the voynix came?
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
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.
That sounds like the best approach to getting around the bought assembly.