Broad Bills to Protect 'Communications Services' 550
mttlg writes "According to Freedom to Tinker, MA, TX, SC, FL, GA, AK, TN, and CO have introduced similar bills that would make it illegal to possess, use, etc. "any communication device to receive ... any communication service without the express consent or express authorization of the communication service provider" or "to conceal ... from any communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication." (Additional legalese removed for the sake of brevity.) This would seem to outlaw NAT, VPNs, and many other security measures. In other words, don't secure your communications, just sue if you don't like who receives them." The bills define 'communication service' as just about any sort of telecom service that is provided for a charge or fee. In effect, they would extend the already-extant laws relating to theft of cable TV services to any telecom service. For example, if your ISP charges per computer connected, using a router/NAT device would be illegal if these became law.
Now its Illegal to (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Doh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is frightening (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I'm not sure if this is a result of MPAA lobbying or if it's something different at work. Consider that at least three of the states listed (CO, FL, GA) have Republican governors IIRC; and the MPAA's strongest influence is traditionally within the Democratic camp.
No, this is just as likely some harebrained "antiterrorism" measure designed to render all networks wide-open to government surveillance. And since the lobbying is occurring at the state level, it's going to be more difficult to stop than if it occurred at the Federal level--it's a lobbying effort that more resembles a hydra than a snake.
Re:I Am Not Sure How To React (Score:5, Interesting)
In TENNESSEE? Dude, up until a couple of years ago, you could hire a contractor to work on your house. Your agreement was with him. If the contractor did not pay HIS suppliers, the supplier could put a lean on your house. And it was LEGAL!
Bad law, crooked as a dogs hind leg, right? It took YEARS AND YEARS to repeal that shit. The building material suppliers said it would bankrupt them. God knows they shouldn't have to do credit checks on fly-by-night contractors...
What other option do they have? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why can't the cable and DSL provider settle on a reasonable limit, such as "no more than 4 computers from the same household"? That way, it allows 99% of persons with routers to do what they want to do (allow multiple family members to surf the net, or allow them to surf the net from any of their computers).
The problem is that most cable companies are accustomed to charging more for multiple connections. They are similar to the telephone company (ATT) before the government had to step in. What they refuse to realize is that most customers know that it does not "cost" the company any additional money when they watch cable on another TV, or surf from the livingroom instead of the home-office.
Though, they currently have every legal right to demand that only one device is attached to their line, most persons know that there is no legitimacy to the demand. It is pure greed.
Is this law even needed? (Score:3, Interesting)
To use the example of using NAT when the provider charges per computer, this will be spelled out in the contract, and therfore the company would be within their rights to sue you for breach of contract, and most likely have criminal charges brought against you for fraud.
While I'm on the subject of now allowing NAT on the network (which my current provider does - for mostly valid reasons - the intent is to prevent one person in the halls of residence paying, and the others freeloading off the same connection), I have a main computer, and a headless, openBSD box to act as a firewall/NAT, I also have a networked printer (connected via ethernet, and accessible through port forwarding remotely), and a handheld with ethernet card. All of these are used by me and there is no intent to screw the university out of money, and yet technically, just browsing the net on my handheld through the main computer is a breach of contract.
Okay.. rant over.. move along
Counterpoint (Score:5, Interesting)
Wouldn't this also make SPAM illegal? Or at least provide the legal means to force spammers to provide accurate headers?
</fantasy>
In a dark basement, the door is suddenly kicked in by state troopers. A man surrounded by computers with a broadband connection is busted as a terrorist for 'concealing the source of communications'. In tears, the spammer is taken away to rot in jail.
<fantasy>
Okay, it's not like the government would actually use this law for something as useful as busting spammers, but sometimes it's nice to dream....
But on a more serious note, anonymity has been considered a constitutional right by the Supreme Court for quite some time now, and I don't think this law would stand up to constitutional scrutiny.
Re:Earlier laws (Score:3, Interesting)
So, the radio manufacturers put jumpers in the radios which disabled the reception of 800MHz phone calls and leaked info out on the net about how to cut the jumper in the field. Here's one for the Alinco DJ580
http://www.mods.dk/mods.php3?radio=alinco&model=d
Re:This is intended for Radio.... (Score:3, Interesting)
2) [makes or maintains a connection, whether
physically, electrically, electronically, or inductively, to:
[(A) a cable, wire, or other component of or
media attached to a multichannel video or information services
system; or
[(B) a television set, videotape recorder, or
other receiver attached to a multichannel video or information
system;
Note that the key words here are "multichannel video or information systems [or services]." This bill, as originally written, is targetted squarely at cable TV and Internet customers.
And I wouldn't doubt for 1 second that they didn't have NAT in mind.
Re:Ouch (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Doh... (Score:3, Interesting)
Question of definitions... (Score:5, Interesting)
Good thing the Brits didn't have this law in 1776 (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone with a better writing style with me should write a fictional work on how the Founding Fathers would get along with DCMA, Palladium, and Echelon. They'd never get off the ground, the first mention of Revolution against the crown.
People need to remember there are no guarantees against absolute safety. The Founders wanted to have the fear of revolution always being in the back of the governments mind; keep them on their toes.
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Interesting)
This bill would follow the pattern of many recent bills and make lots of currently law-abiding citizens into criminals. It's amazing to me that our "representatives" are so eager to pass bills designed to squeeze more money out of out pockets and into the hands of the largest campaign contributors.
Many representatives now introduce legistlation that is almost entirely written by companies that are aiming to improve profits. I doubt most of the representatives understand or even read the bills they put forward that cover technical topics.
What you need to do (Score:5, Interesting)
Paraphrasing the MA bill text: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Unlawful access device." Any type of device which is primarily designed for the purpose of defeating or circumventing any technology used by the provider to protect transmissions from unauthorized receipt, acquisition, interception, access, decryption, disclosure, communication, transmission or re-transmission.
I don't know how NAT/SSH/Proxy server can be classified as an Unlawful Access Device under this definition. Sounds much more like they're going after cable descrablers and the like...
Don't forget those return addresses! (Score:2, Interesting)
This bill appears to be focused primarily at digital services, but the current wording is so vague that it seems to also cover snail-mail in general, as well as other delivery and courier services.
You'd better not forget to put a return address on your letters. That could be considered concealing the existence or place of origin of your communication from a communication service
provider
Re:Doh... (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a certain amount of energy radiated to the surroundings, and this is accounted for in the design of the power lines (height, separation, etc.). But if you place a coil nearby, and start drawing current from it, there will be additional power loss from the transmission line. If this were not true, then it would be simple to get free power - just put in a transformer! After all, the primary has already radiated the energy, so you could just place any number of secondary coils near it and get free power from all of them.
But no, this is not the case. Induction between two conductors enables power transfer, and the secondary circuit certainly does load the primary.
Not sure how practical this method of getting free power from the utility company would be, though. Generally the lines are a long way from the ground compared to the distance between phases, and so the fields would be pretty much cancelled at the parasitic coil.
Hope this makes sense, I'm running on sudephed and a slight fever right now....
Airwaves are not free. (Score:4, Interesting)
Those of you who are a bit older may remember the likes of SuperTV which used to broadcast an encoded signal on the air. Many built receive decoders. SuperTV didn't last long. HBO used to broadcast on the Multi-Point Distribution service on 2154 MHz. Anyone remember those "stopsign" boards and coffee can antennas? Those were illegal too under a twisted interpretation the FCC made using certain clauses of the original Radio Secrecy section of the Communications Act of 1934.
No, the FCC is not your friend. The airwaves are not free in the USA. Ask any Scanner enthusiast what they think of the holes in the coverage of their scanners. Ask anyone who tries to receive Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) police traffic these days.
Here in the USA, the airwaves are not free for you to receive legally. I guess practical realities such as detection, enforcement, or even the old maxim of radio ("never say anything on the radio you wouldn't want the whole world to hear") are lost on our legislatures. This is where ignorant "feel good" legistlation will get you. I don't know whether we should laugh or cry in the face this kind of stupidity.
Not going to happen.... (Score:2, Interesting)
After all, how many businesses (that have even just email and basic networks set up) do you know of that do *not* use NAT or Proxy servers, specifically b/c they can only afford 4-24 IP addresses from the ISP, and have dozens or thousands of computers behind their connection server(s) [NAT or Proxy] in order to support these? There are even ISP's that do it this way, as I recall....
Not to mention such companies as Microsoft, Dell, and others that have so many users that they have to operate in such a way (eg NAT/firewall/Proxy)....
If the legislators (*cough* idiots *cough*) were to actually put through this law, it would kill any company that had more computers than IP's that needed to be online. It can't happen w/out DRAMATICALLY affecting the entire business structures of the USA, which they're not going to do....
*ponders* come to think of it, I wonder how many government agencies use NAT/firewalls or proxy servers - it would be hysterical to find out that the group of legislators who put this bill into consideration use such technology in their own office, wouldn't it? *hehe*
MA Draft Legislation (Score:1, Interesting)
On closer inspection though, it would make it illegal to hide the 'origin' of any communication from the service provider or law enforcement. Since 'origin' is vague, I suspect that this could include any security or routing scheme that did not directly identify the machine or person that the communication came from.
Even worse is the tiered penalties for these activities. If you use more than 5 devices, including software you are subject to greater and greater fines. Each device can be a separate charge as well. Over 10 the penalties get worse.
While the legislation is probably supported by one or all of the major telecommunications providers, and is likely directed towards theft of service, it could very well be used to make your home router or wireless network illegal.
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think this gets around the wording of the proposal. You're still using something to disguise the origin of the communication. In fact, it might make most public proxies illegal.
Would this also Wireless Ethernet cards illegal, since the legislation "would make it illegal to possess, use, etc. 'any communication device to receive
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Interesting)
About time... (Score:2, Interesting)
Is windows finally illegal?
we can only hope....
It doesn't outlaw NAT (Score:3, Interesting)
NAT isn't outlawed by these bills, but any VPN technology is, as well as any access to proxies via SSL, since that 'conceals' the souce/destination.
Laws like this are quite disturbing, and if enacted could cripple business.
- Imagine not being able to do business at your local bank, because they can't use their VPN to communicate with the main office?
- How about not being able to fill a prescription at the drugstore, becase they can't have a secure channed as requireed by HIPPA back to the main office?
- Imagine not being able to execute a trade through your broker, because the financial industry has a HEAVY reliance on encrypted communications channels, partly to comply with teh GLBA.
Laws like this contradict so many existing laws that if it does get passed, it wont against any legitimate bush-back by a large company. The real problem is that small companies and individuals are ripe for persecution.
Does anyone remember Dimitri Skylarov?
Almost everybody has missed the point (Score:2, Interesting)
If VoIP takes off in a big way, the price of long distance calls will fall through the floor and the telecoms companies will not be able to sell metered voice telephone calls any more.
Needless to say they will fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening.
The proposed legislation will give the force of law to their T&C when (as your ISP or your ISP's ISP) they give you a broadband service contract which bans VoIP calls over your internet connection.