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.
Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Ouch (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
It may not be directed at IP geeks--maybe the spirit of the bill is that it's supposed to go after satellite TV pirates and cellular fraud.
The problem though is that once the law is in the books, it's the letter of the law that matters. And right now, the wording of the bill leaves it open to potential abuse.
The law may not target IP geeks, but if some ISP wanted to go after NAT users, they would now have a broken law on their side. As with the DMCA, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Re:Ouch (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Informative)
That's too simple. While the letter of the law is clearly quite important, the legislative intent of the law is given a lot of weight when the law is interpreted by the courts.
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Interesting)
Read these *drafts* more carefully (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Read these *drafts* more carefully (Score:5, Insightful)
The specific phrase actually says:
"with the intent to harm or defraud a communication service"
What's left unspecified is the definition of "harm." Is it harmful to a broadband ISP who offers a VoIP phone service if I choose to use another VoIP service vendor? Economically speaking, I think it's rather apparent that the my use of an alternate IP telephony company results in lost revenue for my ISP. That's harm; does it rise to a level prosecutable by this law?
Am I attempting to defraud my ISP if I use intentionally use "too much" bandwidth?
Is the mere posession of a wireless access point (where the possibility exists that someone outside of my household might be able to use it) enough to imply intent to harm or defraud? What if my WAP is running on one of those Linux boxes all those evil terrorist h4x0rs use?
And to your point about Terms of Service from your ISP; those are often changed without any notice to you. Does that open you to "intent to defraud" if yesterday P2P was ok, but today it's not and you inexplicably weren't rereading your ToS daily?
The problem with this is that, as usual, the reason for writing the bill (stop people from stealing things) got completely lost in the authoring process.
Jared
IAAL (I Am A Layperson) (Score:4, Insightful)
Lawyers and lawmakers understand specific connotations of the word 'harm' as it relates to commerce, even if we laypeople don't.
I think it's rather apparent that the my use of an alternate IP telephony company results in lost revenue for my ISP.
That's lost potential revenue. You're not depriving the ISP of anything they would have otherwise had an inalienable claim to.
Re:IAAL (I Am A Layperson) (Score:3, Insightful)
It the RIAA and MPAA can make the argument that loss of potential revenue equates to "harm" then any other corporate entity can probably claim the same kind of thing.
Re:Read these *drafts* more carefully (Score:4, Informative)
using too much bandwidth is not defrauding anyone, in fact, unless you are specifically altering hardware to "get more bandwidth" or stealing a connection from the ISP, you aren't doing anything wrong. they provide you with the internet connection, it's their decision as to how they limit your use (some ISP's block P2P connections). if they want to shutdown your service after you transfer "too much" information to or from the internet, they can, but it should be written in the terms of service.
running a NAT box or router so more than one computer can connect is not a violation unless it is specifically stated that your connection is only for one computer and you must pay for each additional computer connected. if, and only if, your ToS says that, then yes, you are defrauding or "harming" your ISP.
as for changing the ToS, i have never seen it change drastically without them notifying you. usually a change is something small like the way they word something.
and a final comment. when getting broadband, i had the option of going with SBC DSL or with AT&T cable (which is now comcast). we got DSL because AT&T said you could not run servers using your connection (servers being ftp, http, telnet, ssh, whatever, probably includes P2P applications as well). i didn't like that, so i went with SBC even though the upstream sucks. so read the ToS before you sign up for anything anyways. but if i had AT&T, and tried to run my ftp server or "share my bandwidth" with others (since that's what they called running a server, i would be "harming" them. the bill gives more legal rights to teh telecommunications companies, but i don't see any questions as to what harm means. i think in this sense it's meant almost the same way as defraud.
Re:Read these *drafts* more carefully (Score:5, Informative)
Not in the Colorado bill. In ours, "A person commits a violation under this section if he knowingly [commits a prohibited act, which would take me about ten pages to transcribe and does appear to include the operation of an otherwise legal VPN or IP-masq firewall.]
Colorado residents: This late in the session, it shouldn't be too hard to make sure this thing dies. Call your state rep and senator (it's been introduced in both houses: you can get the numbers through www.vote-smart.org if you know your own ZIP code.)
Right now, it's in the State House Information and Technology Committee, and the (god only knows why) Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. You can gripe to their chairmen, Rep. Shawn Mitchell at 303-866-4667 and Senator Doug Lamborn at 303-866-4835. Sen. Lamborn is the bill's Senate sponsor, so I don't know how much good that particular phone call will do.
Re:Ouch (Score:3, Insightful)
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 f
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. So
Re:Ouch (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ouch (Score:2)
SSL encrypted proxy connection.
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:2)
http://www.jmarshall.com/tools/cgiproxy/
Questioning authority is helpful. (Score:3, Insightful)
At what point do you begin to question your ISP's policies? If there's no technical reason to need more than one WAN-side IP address (such as using NAT), what's the point of paying for additional IP addresses? Why shouldn't the ISP change their business model to charge
Doh... (Score:2, Redundant)
Now my computer is illegal to own too =/
Re:Doh... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Doh... (Score:2)
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.
Re:Doh... (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Boy! (Score:3, Redundant)
People in the specific states that get the law (Score:2)
This is frightening (Score:5, Insightful)
It does more than that. The language of the bills uses the word "harm" instead of "fraud". The language is vague enough that it could be twisted to be used against anyone. Just having a firewall that does nat translation is a violation of these bills.
All brought to us by the friendly folks at the MPAA. Jerks
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
Re:This is frightening (Score:2)
Of course, it is posted on the internet, so I supose I should verify it else where before casting blame.
Question of definitions... (Score:5, Interesting)
Where is your Freedom going? (Score:4, Insightful)
With a country that seems to tout freedom at every corner, it's unfortunate that many rights and freedoms are being destroyed by people who have no clue about the general consequences of their actions.
fear causes pussies to bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
Earlier laws (Score:3, Informative)
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 j -580&sele
Re:Where is your Freedom going? (Score:4, Funny)
"I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or at least give me a false sense of security"
Yeah, but the cow's already out of the barn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine for a second Bestbuy's reaction to the fact that it's popular cable-modem routers and wireless access points have all become illegal. I don't exactly see them pulling millions of dollars of hardware off the shelves without a legal fight. Nor do I see the manufacturers of those devices just giving up either.
I NAT and I'm proud of it!
Re:Yeah, but the cow's already out of the barn... (Score:5, Insightful)
I also NAT as do many others. The PTB still don't have a fsck'n clue when it comes to home networking. For some reason they believe that home networks are costing Large Corps money, when in fact, most people doing NAT at home probably have a clue and actually reduce problems (ex: CodeRed) due to firewalling.
A proud member of the NAT terrorist group!
Best buy won't help and you NEED HELP. (Score:5, Insightful)
The device won't be outlawed, using it without a fee will be. BestBuy sells cable modems too.
The problem is that this outlaws anything not explcitly alowed by your telcom. While doing some things has already got people Raided by the FBI [slashdot.org], this will extend things considerably. It essentially redefines the alrady broken definition of "common carrier" to the point where you can't do squat. Instant messaging, VoIP, secure shells and more will all be outlawed or provided as a $ervice open to your provider's clerks. Looks like we won't have to worry about the internet making a real free press or helping people protect their fourth amendment rights.
The smarter you make the internet, the less you can do.
I Am Not Sure How To React (Score:5, Insightful)
What is really scary to me is that, even though these bills were introduced by the ignorant, the fact that lots of legislators had the mind to introduce them in the first place is shocking. Particularly on the note of encryption, this is largely unconstitutional and hopefully, if ever passed, these bills will be challenged by (financially) enabled individuals.
How can such a thing even hold up when it not only criminalizes most existing telecom infrastructure, violates the 4th Amendment by tangent? Of course, we do live in a DMCA-cursed USA...
Re:I Am Not Sure How To React (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, is the weather very nice on your planet?
This kind of legislation could easily pass. If something like this is proposed in your state, you need to write your legislators and let them know that this language could potentially criminalize a lot of straight-forward Internet gear, if a communications provider decides to require a per-CPU charge, or the like.
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...
Re:I Am Not Sure How To React (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact that these bills are being introduced in multiple states at the same time, indicates that it was probably crafted by a lobbyist.
The question you should be asking is who wants this legislation? Who hired the lobbyist?
Try shaking your head in disgust (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting times, indeed.
Double ouch (Score:2, Insightful)
Relax, John Ashcroft will help you.. (Score:5, Funny)
Just wait for John Ashcroft to announce the only legal services after these laws take effect:
http://www.nsa.gov/patriot-proxy/
http://www.fbi
Makes no difference to me... (Score:2)
Re:Makes no difference to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
of course you can just run your server on your ISP's website (if they offer one), but that's usually rather limited if you have a large number of infrequenty accessed files or dynamic content, and lord help you if your website needs a database backend to keep everything convienent yet manageable.
Sorry about the rant, but I just hate when people get suckered into thinking they're nothing more than "consumers" that aren't allowed to contribute to the public good.
Re:Makes no difference to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
My ISP doesn't give a fat rat's ass if I run an email server. I don't allow open relays, so it deals with about 5 emails a day. Big whoop...
I'm kind of surprised they haven't bitched about my 1-2 GB/day Usenet habit, though...
DMCA? (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on Definition (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
I'm not concealing the origin or destination of communication, in any of these cases. If I'm using a router to share my network connection, the origin/destination of my ISP's communications is whatever box is doing the routing. After that, if my router routes a copy of the data from my ISP to another PC in my home, that's okay: the transmission between my router and my ISP is complete, and the new transmission is between my router and one or more PCs on my network.
I've always held that, as far as ISPs are concerned, they're responsible for supporting their network until it reaches the access point of my network--whether that's a single PC, a PC that shares its internet connection, a router, whatever. After that, I can accept the liability of supporting my own equipment. This should be handled the same way.
Actually, better yet, it should be shot down outright. But that's more optimistic than I tend to be about such things.
NAT (Score:2)
Re:NAT (Score:5, Insightful)
But isn't that a civil matter? (Score:2)
Certainly you could have your contract terminated. You may even be sued for some kind of damages.
That's not the same as breaking the law.
It sounds like this would make even possessing the equipment a _crimal_ offence...
Re:NAT (Score:3, Insightful)
True, it likely violated the "spirit" of the ToS, but quite frankly, having every useful port blocked, and then being dinged for actually *using* the bandwidth they adve
This is intended for Radio.... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, unless they change the current law, having an Amateur Radio Operator's license trumps this - being a ham I can have a scanner, due to hams' role in emergency communications.
However, this is just like the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1987 - it may be illegal to eavesdrop on cellular communications, but it did'nt really stop anybody from doing it. Going from an insecure system (AMPS) to more secure systems (GSM, CDMA) did that.
However, the point of the
Yeah, and moderators on
Re:This is intended for Radio.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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 "multicha
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Hmmm.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Protecting communication services... (Score:2)
meaningless, but harmful law (Score:2)
Unfortuneately, we all know that lawyers will selectively apply this law to just those things that the mega corporations don't like, such as internet sharing devices and home networks. But really it should be ap
And how do you implement this? (Score:2)
I mean, running your own server or sharing your 3l33t broadband connection between several machines are (AFAIK) the big interests -- or killer aps -- of broadband. (That, and mountains of pr0n and "FP!" on
If you can't do this, why not stay with 56K dial-up?
Er... wait, I have 56K dial-up and I can't stand it. Never mind me, carry on... =)
No violations (Score:5, Insightful)
I used to work for a small ISP/Telco, and my boss always liked the Common Carrier status because it exempted them from liability. Apparently big ISPs don't understand this yet. If you monitor it, you're taking some responsibility for what's in it.
Reducing Security and Utility == Profit & Just (Score:5, Insightful)
This is really bad.
I hope the states where I run networks aren't next.
This allows companies to make more money off us by the threat of lawsuits or report to the authorities. If someone sells me internet access at a specific bandwidth, they should expect I can and may use up to that allotted bandwidth. They are selling me bandwidth, not individual ethernet ports.
Things like ssh-tunneling to hide IM and WWW traffic while I'm at work, as well as improving the security of my networks by hiding the endpoints of my ipsec tunnels behind nat boxes also becomes illegal.
So, in summary, we're trading utility (let's face it, a lot of these vpn/nat apps make things easier to handle - voip tunneling, smtp tunneling, very nice stuff handled with both vpns and nat), AND security (why should all my network devices sit exposed?) so that companies can make more profits, and we can be hauled to jail for making it harder to snoop our communications?
This is ludicrous. Where will the fascism stop?
Re:Reducing Security and Utility == Profit & J (Score:3, Insightful)
This is ludicrous. Where will the fascism stop?
This stupidity won't stop under they kill the Goose that lays Golden Eggs (tm). Seriously, if I can't run a VPN, do P2P, ssh-tunneling, or run a server, why then spend the money for high-speed internet? If all I can (legally) do is browse the web and get e-mail, 56K dial-up is fine.
What all the *AA's and other big companies forget is that most people only have a limited amount of income to spend for entertainment and other "extras" -- they can make all
Buying laws (Score:2)
What about Freenet? (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe that this item is probably not intended to go after NAT'd computers, but to try to cut back on spammers using broadband connections.
If this is the reason, they should be applauded for trying something new. This law WOULD make forged headers illegal.
One problem is that this also constrains anonymous peer-to-peer systems such as Freenet. One of it's strengths is that when you receive a request for a file from an IP, you don't know if that IP origionated the request. If you don't have it, you pass on the request and the node you pass it onto doesn't know if you requested it.
This does make it impossible for a "communications service provider" to determine the origin or destination of the file or information request.
If this is the intended outcome, it is a major violation of a civil liverty we have been appreciating lately.
When they outlaw firewalls... (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to make this a very uncomfortable time for your state assemblypersons and senators if you live in the affected states. Geek power stopped the Berman Bill, geek power is forcing the feds to revisit the DMCA, geek power is a pretty amazing thing when unleashed.
The one thing that makes the least sense about these bills is that firewalling+nat is one of the tools needed to combat worms and exploits. Everyone is so damn interested in "protecting our Internet infrastructure from exploits, worms and viruses" yet these same clowns are taking away a very important tool that real people can use to make a real difference against these problems.
And what if you are still running Windows NT4, for whatever reason? The workaround Microsoft gives people for the recent RPC vulnerability is to keep the server in the private IP space and firewall off the ports in the 13x range! You can't do that without a NAT!!!
Time to fight this and fight it hard. Whatever you think about whatever other issues are going on around us, this is serious shit.
Wardriving (Score:3, Insightful)
You didn't really think wardriving would stay in the gray "no laws" area for long, did you?
At the risk of sounding level-headed in what's sure to be a discussion filled with reactionary "how can they do this?!" sorts of comments, I guess I don't really see the problem with this law. You have to take a pretty loose interpretation of it to apply it to NAT and other legitamite sorts of technologies -- unless of course you're using it on an ISP that specifically forbids NAT, or wants you to pay extra for multiple computers on the same line; but in that case you're at least ethically bound to pay what they're asking, or find another ISP.
Re:Wardriving (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you really be that naieve?
The DMCA has already given us rather recent glaring examples of how an abiguously worded law can run amok.
It would seem (Score:3, Insightful)
Now that sounds to me like if I pay for broadband, I'm paying for IP communication. My provider is selling me IP communication. So if I'm somehow tapping into Verizon's network, somehow stealing an IP connection, that's banned. But anything above the IP layer (VPN, tunneling, whatever) is ok. I guess NAT might be disallowed under this.
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.
what the bills actually say (Score:5, Insightful)
From the texas bill [state.tx.us]
(a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to harm or defraud a communication service provider, the person:
(1) obtains or uses a communication service without:
(A) obtaining the authorization of the provider; or
(B) making a payment to the provider in the
amount normally charged by the provider for the service; or
[(3)] tampers with, modifies, or maintains a
modification to a communication device provided by or installed by the provider
That is the entirity of the definition of a bad guy in this bill, as it is currently proposed as of the time I'm writing this.
So, you have to, with "intent to harm or defraud," "[use] a communication service without""obtaining the authorization of the provider; or making a payment to the provider in the amount normally charged by the provider for the service; or tampers with, modifies, or maintains a modification to a communication device provided by or installed by the provider." I put it all together for ye who don't want to link.
So, to be even MORE clear, this only effects people who are trying to harm or defraud an ISP, etc, by using service without authorization.
Does a VPN "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO
Does ssh "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO
Does posting anonymously anywhere, or any of the other things being complained about, "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO
I don't have the time to quote and translate each and every bill out there, but I do certainly recommed actually reading them before deciding the bills will make it illegal to brush your teeth. Knee-jerk, anyone? Know what you're having an opinion about, before forming that opinion.
Re:what the bills actually say (Score:4, Insightful)
Does a VPN "harm or defraud" an ISP? NO
Many Cable Modem/DSL providers exclude VPN use from their "Residential" service. That usage is covered by their "Commercial" service, which generally costs 3 times as much.
If you are not "making a payment to the provider in the amount normally chargd by the provider for the" Commercial "service," then you are harming and defauding the ISP.
Some cable companies have a similar rule about multiple machines - they have standard access (one machine) and "home network" access (often 3 machines). There have been limited attempts to use this to restrain use of NAT for home networks. I would hate to see such attempts with a law like this behind them.
Another more legitimate target of this would be people freely sharing their connection via Wireless.
Huh? (Score:3)
SECTION 6. Sections 31.14(a), (b), and (d), Penal Code, are amended to read as follows: (a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly manufactures, assembles, imports into the state, exports out of the state, distributes, advertises, sells, or leases, or offers for sale or lease: (1) a communication device with an intent to: (A) aid in the commission of an offense under Section 31.12 or 31.13;
Re:what the bills actually say (Score:3, Informative)
It would depend on who the lawyer is. Seriously, though, an ISP could make an argument that a vpn does cause them harm because it is bandwidth intensive. Moreso than the average web surfing/emailing that most people do. Some ISPs even offer vpn service at an additional cost. To set up your own without going through your ISP could, again, if they have the right lawyers, be interpreted as causing harm to the ISP.
Texas Bill (Score:2)
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlo/78R/billtext
For the record (Score:2, Insightful)
I am a chief engineer for SBC's ISP, and believe it or not, we oppose these sorts of laws. We really don't care what someone does with their IP, and in most cases actually encourage the use of NAT devices.
Most of this cruft comes from the cable companies, who are still stuck in the pay-per-jack mentality.
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.
How quickly we forget... (Score:3, Insightful)
The public already decided once that the "Common Carriers" provided wires not services when they broke up AT&T and deregulated the Baby Bells. Why does it seem that there's a purposefull effort to undo all that effort? Could it be that the media companies that needed deregulation to get off the ground now don't want to play with the same rules that let them get in the game in the first place?
What's needed is a real person in charge of the FCC [Lessing anyone!] To streamline the processes and remove some of the contradictions [i.e. ATT banned from local phone but owning cable w/o sharing, etc.]
That Dog Won't Hunt (Score:3, Insightful)
The IP address space isn't big enough for all the nodes on the internet. NAT alleviates this problem by "sharing" IP addresses. Remove NAT, and you're going to have to disconnect most computers from the internet.
Massachusetts (Score:5, Informative)
Does anyone know how people can get into that meeting and testify? I'd hope some quick grass-roots opposition could kill this.
New laws just in... (Score:3, Funny)
1) No whispering
2) No wearing dark glasses and big hats
3) No hiding
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.
What you need to do (Score:5, Interesting)
Defense? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its obvious common sense that if you have a router/NAT device plugged into the ISP, you have one device plugged into the ISP. The remainder are plugged into your NAT device. If anyone is charged under this situation, they could easily show nothing was stolen, since you don't take extra IPs, and you cannot take any more bandwidth than the capped amount you paid for, regardless of the number of computers connected to the NAT device.
Um...this is already illegal (Score:3, Insightful)
If your ISP charges per machine and you circumvent it, it is already theft of services and it is already illegal. Congress is, as usual, piling on when existing laws are sufficient.
The reason that you don't see many prosecutions is probably that police are doing things like, you know, arresting rapists and murderers. Snaking $5 from your ISP is hardly grand theft, and I don't think that federalizing the crime is really going to help out society much.
It is too bad that legislators too frequently look to the quantity of work as a benchmark of how "well" they are doing rather than looking to the quantity. Before too long, our society is going to need a law angioplasty to clear out all the crap that is clogging the arteries of discourse, commerce, and general life.
Coming from a lawyer,
GF.
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?
Re:Watch out end users (Score:3, Insightful)
They already have recourse - it's called a contract, terms of service, and civil court (if it comes to that).
This isn't recourse, it's the ability to have the government do the dirty work for them AND make the penalties MUCH higher (criminal record, jail time, etc - instead of fine or termination of service, etc).
SCARY
Re:Hey you knee jerks... (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL however I have friends who are...and have been educated in the ways of legalese...
These bills are written exceedingly ambiguously and could be applied to almost any manner of data communicaitons...
There are several key points (and subpoints of more restrictive points) which if read in the state of mind they are attempting to address, are rather fair and intellegent...
However, if you read these points with an open interpretation of what these laws are being applied to, they are ambigu
Re:Should lawmakers just do nothing? (Score:3, Insightful)
The argument of "it's ok, because they won't care about your little NAT box" is absolutely, positively, definitely, not good enough. If you're ok with being made a criminal just as long as nobody comes after you, fine. But it's sure as hell not good enough for me.
As you say, this kind of law should only apply when actions are performed "with intent to defraud". But that isn't what it says (and yes, I did read the bill. Suggest you do the same). The article written by Prof Felten p