Slashdot Log In
"Super-DMCA" Outlaws Ph.D. Thesis
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:13 AM
from the so-much-for-researhc dept.
from the so-much-for-researhc dept.
zenquest writes "SecurityFocus reports in this article that a recently-enacted Michigan law makes the graduate work of Niels Provos illegal. (His honeyd project was discussed here a few months back.) According to the article, "Among other things, residents of the Great Lakes State can no longer knowingly "assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise" any device or software that conceals "the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service." It's also a crime to provide written instructions on creating such a device or program. Violators face up to four years in prison." Provos has had to move his website and research papers to a server in the Netherlands. Similar bills are under consideration in seven states, and have become law in six others. The EFF has more information about the individual states. So, does this mean that Caller-ID block now illegal, as well?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
outrageous (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Dear Ted Turner, (Score:5, Funny)
thx,
The Comittee to Buy Back the Constitution
Parent
Re: outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
> It will go as far as we allow the politicians to take it. Tell them what you think via snail mail or by phone, if that does not work tell them at the polls!
Votes are anonymous; your plan is probably illegal in Michagan.
Parent
Re:What if... (Score:5, Interesting)
>radar speed trap be able to use this law to their
>advantage? After all, if the police are disguising
>"the existence or place of origin or destination of
>any telecommunications service," they're in
>violation of the law. Right?
I hate to say this, but... "in violation of the law" ? They *are* the law!
(yes, yes, oversight and fair trials, Constitutional rights, and why not, the Magna Carta...)
I was just discussing this with someone else a few days ago, how sodomy laws still exist in a number of US states (most places say anything other than missionary style is technically illegal) and not only do the laws require an unreasonable invasion of privacy to enforce, but they are being enforced unevenly, being used to harass certain target people. These laws are just one more tool for the law enforcement establishment (the local police up to the FBI, and the judiciaries that paralell them) to make life difficult for 'undesirable' elements in society.
Instead of mentioning how KMFDM's "What do you know, Deutschland?" is playing behind me, and the sample 'dogmatic police state' is in it, I'll just make reference to a quote that I can't remember, about how a state passes laws to make everyone a criminal, um, and how that is bad.
Parent
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
Stuff you can do to help put an end to it:
- Join and/or donate to the eff online: [eff.org] fast, cheap, easy, and helps pay the salaries of the smart people who we need to stay on top of these kinds of developments. They'll even you a cool t-shirt. What a deal.
- Contact your representatives, especially if you're in an affected state. See the EFF's "Super-DMCA" action center [eff.org] for lists of effective states, representatives' addresses, and all the information you need for informed lobbying. I'd recommend focusing on broader issues and not just on the most extreme examples (You could say "this will outlaw NATs!", and, unbelievably, you might actually be right; but the legislation is objectionable for much more fundamental reasons than that.)
--Bruce FieldsParent
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
However, this Michigan case doesn't really relate to the DMCA, does it? It sounds like it's targetting towards cable theft, but is written overly broadly and catches a huge array of legitimate activity within its net.
Parent
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
he's right (Score:5, Insightful)
Even worse then the spying are the secret search warrants which bypass the judicial system.
People are being held for anything, for any length of time, and without access to the outside all under the guise of "protecting the citizens(aka the state).
Librarians are being hushed with threat of jail time and we have a Pres. who has made it clear how he feels about those who don't support his right to conquer anyone for any reason.
This is all like some bad dream and the 1984 jokes aren't even funny anymore. I no longer laugh at those Rednecks hiding in the woods waiting for the government to come and seize their guns.
Parent
Re:outrageous (Score:4, Interesting)
That's right, a Democrat signed the DCMA. It was passed unanimously by both the House and Senate, which obviously means not a single Democrat voted against it. Yet you somehow believe it's the fault of the Republicans?
As for eradicating intellectual dissenters in the US, that should be a rather easy task since I've seen so few. Most dissenters seem to do little more than chant rhyming nonsense. It's rare that they use facts to back up their arguments, instead relying on the tired "War for Oil" and "Bush = Hitler" mantra.
Parent
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
Most dissenters seem to do little more than chant rhyming nonsense.
I take issue with this. Every time I've tried to have a rational conversation with a pro-war person, they've devolved into frothing at the mouth and repeating the same tired propaganda which they have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. Even if I can be adult enough to agree to disagree because I have some respect for them (in some cases, not all), I still get cheap shots about how all protesters and dissenters are supporting terrorism etc. There is no open mind for any kind of dialog there, just blind acceptance that what the government says must be true because "they're in a position to know".
It seems ludicrous that you dismiss all dissenters based on public activity in forums where you just can't have a long thought out discussion (I can't say I look forward to the idea of large crowds of people reading dissertations). Try actually having a discussion with someone in person or somewhere like warblogging.com before you dismiss all of us because of some of us.
Parent
It's real simple... (Score:5, Funny)
Democratic politicians - guilty rich people
Parent
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
Welfare has what to do with intellectual property?
The reason it is seen as a Republican issue is because it is a big business big money issue, and when big business speaks, the Republican party listens. They are so busy enriching themselves, they have no time to listen to anyone who is unwilling to line their pockets.
The people who are hurt by this legislation are the very people you purport to be speaking for: The hard working, american dream believing entreprenuers, who don't have corporate muscle behind them. Do you think Microsoft is being hurt by this? Sony? Intel? Dell? The RI-fricking-IA?
You want to talk partisan politics? I hate all politicians who listen harder to the rich than the poor; that includes democrats as well as republicans. Any law that favors a bloated market strangling monopoly over 99% of the rest of us can only be enacted by a government that is sitting in the pocket of corporations. This includes Republicans especially, but democrats as well.
We have a government that is so totally corrupted by big money that something like the damn DMCA could pass by the margin that it did! It's so fricking typical that you blame "big government" when you should be blaming big business!
Grow a brain man. You're getting royally screwed just like the rest of us.
Parent
Both Parties Suck (Score:5, Interesting)
Trillions of dollars in debts have been accumulating, yet we still play these stupid games. Oh it's the Dems fault... it's the Republicans. No, it's America's fault. America's fault for not seeing through the daily lies that our elected representatives now even seem to believe themselves. America's fault for believing the carpet baggers when they tell you they have all the answers to your daily struggles. America's fault for signing up for all those credit cards which you can never pay off. American's fault for their forgiveness, when the itinerant congressman or president tell you and themselves that the lies they told were better than the alternative. America's fault for not seeing through the scam of social security from the very beginning... It only works when the population is growing and most people don't live very long, still sound good to you?
Both parties have ceased representing the interests of citizens in the government, but instead try to banally represent the excesses of goverment back to us in patriotic terms.
Now we see all these restrictive laws being passed
With every iteration, laws become more restrictive more intrusive and more unintelligable. Until one day, noone can live a day of their lives without fear that somehow they are breaking some law and right and wrong are so far removed from the law that only your political connections or your subserviance will keep you out of harms way.
Big government is bad government.
And yes, I just did my taxes!
Parent
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:outrageous (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd say that you overestimate the government influence on the economy. The government can nudge and even push the economy at times, it can't drag it from recession to prosperity. Also, if you study the stock market, you'll notice the downward trend startied in the middle of 2000, when Clinton was still President.
Parent
cnames (Score:4, Interesting)
"Among other things, residents of the Great Lakes State can no longer knowingly "assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise" any device or software that conceals "the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service."
Does this mean all of my cnames are illegal??
Is spam with phony return address illegal then? (Score:5, Interesting)
1) If someone send you spam en masse and uses a phony return address to block their identity for purposes of opting out, can they be charged under this law?
2) Could UPS/FedEx/UPSP et. al be sued for delivering caller ID blocking machines?
3) Could a researcher making said items in Michigan but testing them for "homeland security" or the local phone monopoly be sued?
4) Is anyone encrypting data without express permission of their ISP now liable under this law? After all, it is now also illegal to use devices (in manner described originally) that also have the capacity:
To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire, intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption, transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any telecommunications service without the express authority or actual consent of the telecommunications service provider.
Seriously, this takes "consumer protection" a bit to far. It seems like this was originally designed to halt the spread of cable "black boxes" and telephone "orange boxes" but someone got overzealous or paid off to take this to the next level. Hopefully someone will explain the legal ramifications of this law and what exactly it is designed to stop.
Parent
Disgusting (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
And *69? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
anonymous = unsigned + unaccountable (Score:5, Insightful)
The legal notion of 'anonymity' is actually comprised of two components: can you publish or do something without directly indicating your identity, and can you avoid being held accountable for your actions or statements. The blanket term of 'anonymity' just blurs the issues.
The courts have consistently decided that you can operate "unsigned," in that it would abridge or chill your freedoms of speech and silence to make your identifying signatures compulsory.
The courts have NOT supported the notion that you could operate in a way that you are "unaccounted;" if an illegal and unsigned statement or speech or action can eventually be tracked to you, then you must face the consequences.
What matters here is whether NAT or DNS or Caller-ID blocks or DoD/RSA mechanisms are going to be seen as attempts to be unsigned, or unaccountable. The legislatures have rarely put much careful attention to this distinction; this may have to be handled by the more contemplative (and usually better-informed) judiciary.
Parent
Quick Question... (Score:4, Interesting)
Think of all the poor little DSL routers out there.
Oh the humanity!!
Re:Quick Question... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yet another example of how politicians pass bills that they never expect to be enforced, just so that they can line their pockets with money. I really do hope that they realize that if this stupidity continues, not only will they be unable to move forward with technology, but they will squash educated thought and push us backwards!
Just the stuff off the top of my head that would now be illegal...
Cable/DSL routers for home use
Private networks for business
NAT and firewalling
Proxy servers
SSH and SSL tunnels
Email Listservs set to strip off headers
Parent
Government Stepping On Itself (Score:5, Interesting)
Does that mean that people who work for organizations that do DoD work can no longer protect their home systems, and thus protect the governmental work systems?
Parent
Which is more illegal, NAT or DNS? (Score:5, Informative)
Add to this caller ID blocking, and most importantly, Anonymous Cowards.
Bright Side (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot won't be getting any more AC posts from Michigan.
Re:Bright Side (Score:5, Interesting)
Better yet, if this law really is as broad as claimed, most software for sending spam is now illegal in Michigan. It might even be illegal to operate an open relay, or to use one for spamming. Persuading law enforcement to go after a spammer on these grounds would be another matter altogether, I suppose.
Parent
what about caller id blocking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what about caller id blocking (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
What worries me (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: What worries me (Score:5, Insightful)
>
It's not the diplomatic muscle you have to worry about. For the USA, "diplomacy" now means telling everyone else what's going to happen. Then the ordinary sort of muscle is engaged.
Parent
Why does he think he can just move it? (Score:4, Insightful)
But why does he think he can just move the stuff to the Netherlands? He is still a US citizen and a Michigan citizen, and he is still producing the documents that are illegal. It doesn't matter where he publishes _to_, it's where he publishes _from_.
If a Dutch citizen published it then fine - it's legal there, but he's not accomplishing anything by putting the documents in another country, and I don't know why he thinks he is. If they wanted to prosecute they could.
Re:Why does he think he can just move it? (Score:5, Interesting)
This brings up an interesting question, if I live in Michigan (which I don't), would it be illegal for me to view the docs on the web? I mean, once having viewed them, I would have a cached copy on my computer.
Parent
And now you want us to help you? (Score:5, Insightful)
So my understanding is that security researchers can't research security because it might hurt corporate interests. But isn't security research essential to fighting terrorism? So don't the corporate interests that prevent research also support terrorists?
Re:And now you want us to help you? (Score:5, Funny)
The security workers -are- the terrorists. Welcome to the New World Order.
Parent
Re:And now you want us to help you? (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Caller ID (Score:5, Insightful)
Other legal documents (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, so much for... (Score:5, Insightful)
Hitler and Stalin laughing in their graves (Score:5, Insightful)
This single post change all that.
I believe that anonymity is the basis of a healthy democracy. It takes a lot of guts to stand up and say something controversial without being anonymous. I believe that the benefits of anonymous statements far out way the costs.
The "...this is illegal because terrorists can use it..." argument is getting stale...
There is a fine line between safety and police state and the US is passing it in a hurry.
So hats of to living in Canada the home of the free.... until the US invades because we are thinking of legalizing possession of marihuana. As you know marihuana is a drug and drugs support terrorism.
write your rep & colorado (Score:5, Informative)
Second, for all you fellow Coloradans, this is currently in the works (SuperDMCA), I think it's going to pass the senate without issue, so please those of you write your reps and senators and stop this one while we still can.
Thanks.
Michigan ACs, beware! (Score:5, Interesting)
So does this also mean that slashdot has to
After all, the whole thing with AC is disguising the source of the post.
Worrisome, this is.
[note to moderators: Don't mod as "funny". This is truly serious tinfoil hat stuff. Think about it.]
Even more on Caller ID blocking. (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's another way of looking at it: Assuming my computer is behind a NAT firewall. Having to report the internal address of my computer is like having Caller ID report which phone extension I was talking on.
I am curious, could this law be further applied to mean that the Phone company MUST provide caller ID information with every phone call? At this time origination information is only sent to telephones that subscribe to the Caller ID service.
If the law is interperted to mean that a subscrition Caller ID service is acceptable, then I'll be happy to provide Originating IP information -- provided that requestors subscribe to my OIP service.
Routers, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
Georgia House Bill 867 (Score:5, Informative)
I just called our four representatives for District 48. One of them has called me back so far, and said that honestly, single phone calls are in no way as efffective as collective opposition.
So, if you are a small business owner, a computer consultant, or even just an individual who is looking at a felony record if this passes, email me.
To find out who your representative is Georgia, you can visit Polling Place and Elected Officials [state.ga.us] finder at the secretary of states website.
Bye, Bye NAT (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure enough, by the letter of the law, NATs would be illegal. It prohibits owning or creating any technology that is used to knowingly modify a communications sevice in ways unauthorized by the service provider. The bill imposes a Class A misdemeanor for the first offence, except where five or more 'communications devices' are employed in the 'criminal episode'. In that case, the crime is a felony.
In my home, I have a wireless NAT setup. There are four desktop systems and a laptop that regularly access the internet via that network. Additionally, there is one more desktop that occasionally joins the network. That makes seven discreet communications devices, including the router, that are employed in gaining access. The definition of a communication device is very broad and includes single connectors,switches and connections (presumably between devices). Theoretically, the state could use each cat5 cable and external wireless nic as communications devices, upping my number of devices to 10 or 12. Since my ISP only grants authorized access to one communication device in my service contract, I would fall squarely under the stated definition of a felony under this bill. For running a freakin' home network!
I freely admit that I use my internet service connection in ways unauthorized by my provider. Sure. And they can cut my service at any time of their choosing if they find out. I accept that. I'm violating the agreement, therefore they have the right to terminate it. Simple, to the point, and effective.
But now I could become a felon as well. That's where I draw the line. In my opinion, the state has no business enforcing civil contracts with the criminal justice system. That's what the civil courts are for. If my provider cares to, they can try to get compensation for any perceived loss in a civil court. There is no need to make my activities a felony.
Somethings got to be done. I'm going to do my part and write a letter. Please do yours.
Re:Where's this coming from? (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Greater fear of those who know about that technology and therefore must be dangerous.
3. Blind desire to control the actions of everybody else.
Parent
Re: Move (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no significant difference between the two. Neither one has any intention of doing anything other than enlarging government and reducing freedoms.
Anyone who doesn't yet realize this has a screw lose, or their head buried in the sand.
Most will grab a single issue and say "I can't vote Libertarian because they like pot!" So they'll agree on 98% of the issues, but instead, vote for a republican that they disagree with on 7 5% of the issues because of pot, or abortion, or one other authoritarian leaning in them.
Parent
Re: Move (Score:4, Insightful)
Please realise that I'm neither an American citizen nor a resident (although I was a few years back). This is an outsider's point of view.
However, I feel that there's a fundamental difference between the two. It may not be a difference in intent, but the two parties have different entrenched power, which means different practical goals. Consider that the republicans have been running the "Thinktank for a new American century" since well before Bush jr. was even nominated. That thinktank defines the goals of the US government, and pictures the US as an absolutely authoritative "peacekeeper" of the world, forcing American values on all countries that don't comply, with as much force as possible.
Now from what I've seen, the democrats have neither the coffers, the non-electoral power, the highly developed back-room infrastructure, or the gall to afford this brand of megalomania, so they have historically tried to get along with the voters and the international community more often.
Or in other words; while both parties are after the same goals and policies, the Democrats aren't able to implement them through brute force, violence, intimidation, and ruthlessness. The Republicans are.
Parent