"Super-DMCA" Outlaws Ph.D. Thesis 635
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?"
outrageous (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear Ted Turner, (Score:5, Funny)
thx,
The Comittee to Buy Back the Constitution
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.
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.
Re: outrageous (Score:2)
> This is outrageous, how far will the DMCA go before those in charge realize what it's doing to us. How much will it take before soemone decides to put an end to it.
When those in charge realize what it's doing to us, you can kiss the chances of getting it repealed goodbye.
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 FieldsRe: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.
Re:outrageous (Score:3, Funny)
It's a bill that's written overly broadly and catches all sorts of legal activity in its net? Why no, of course that's nothing at all like the DMCA.
Re:outrageous (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, right, and Congress declares war too.
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
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.
Positions (Score:4, Insightful)
Pro war:
- There is no alternative to war (people are suffering and dying - possible direct threats by Iraq government).
Weakness:- Assumes war will work - possible post-war chaos may be worse.
- Lack of diplomacy simply pisses off rest of world.
Anti-war:- War will injure and kill innocents.
- No legal authority.
Weakness:- Peace has also allowed innocents to be injured and killed.
- Lack of action allows governments to commit far more illegal/immoral acts.
Also forgotten is, exactly what is the alternative to war? Anti-war seems to be all opposition and no proposition. Pro-war seems to be "one tool fits all". For example, rewind back to January:- First, drop main sanctions as long as Iraq coopertes with weapons inspectors. They weren't doing any good anyway. Threaten to re-impose them if inspections are prevented.
- Once disarmament is completed, drop remaining sanctions but require monitoring of questionable imports (e.g. chlorine imported for water purification must be accounted for, and can be spot-checked).
- Promote free-trade zone for Arabian League. Countries must be allowed to trade manufacturing, technology, and leverage intellectual resources. Oil is a lazy money source that doesn't promote economic development.
- Increased economic interaction will require increased (and more open) communication.
- Foreign aid targeted directly to hospitals, schools, etc., not to governments - but under control of locally elected administrative boards, not the donating countries/groups. Aid is conditional on fair elections which must meet democratic standards - the governments won't be too concerned because it will be too low a level to make policy decisions, but the general population will gain direct experience with practical democracy (not just a theory).
- Even if the elected representatives want to teach that Israel doesn't exist, let them - democracy should come first. But:
- Provide independent arabic news and entertainment, to give people a choice. Even if it's initailly banned, see the point above - economic leaders will need more open communication, and will also want the privileges of more open entertainment. As the middle class expands, so will the demands for openness.
That's just an outline of one possibility. There are others, and many, many more details would need to be addressed. But it is an alternative to war. Unfortunately, it would take a few decades - but then again, this is roughly the U.S strategy for dealing with China ("Constructive Engagement"), so it can be done.Herman Goëring (Score:4, Informative)
"Naturally the common people don't want war, but it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship...
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders...
"All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Re:outrageous (Score:4, Funny)
Every time I've tried to have a rational argument with an anti-war person, they've devolved into frothing at the mouth, repeating the same, tired propaganda which they have swallowed hook, line, and sinker. If you support the war, you get cheap shots from protesters and dissenters calling you bloodthirsty murderers who place human life second to oil profits.
Certainly no argument, however lucid and rational, will ever convince an anti-war protester that taking out a ruthless dictator is the right thing to do. There is no open mind for any kind of dialog there, just blind acceptance that war is baaad, mmmkay?
Re:outrageous (Score:3, Interesting)
I can think of a few things that could help:
Re:outrageous (Score:3, Interesting)
In the past few months I've talked with numerous (25-30) dissenters, some who are active protesters, some who are more passive. I've found that most of them are more anti-Bush than anti-war (you also seem to fit into this category).
I haven't found a single dissenter who protested the bombing of Kosovo or Clinton's missile attacks on Iraq. Yet now they all claim to simply love peace and that war
Re:outrageous (Score:3, Insightful)
The disease of which you speak is not the mere providence of Republicans or Democrats. It is rife within all the layers of our government. The higher you go, the worse it is.
I'm sure that the reason this bill is being put forward at the state level is that the cable companies and such who are sponsoring it realize that there is now enough money flowing into groups like the EFF that it would be very difficult to slip by at the federal level.
It's real simple... (Score:5, Funny)
Democratic politicians - guilty rich people
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.
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!
Re:Both Parties Suck (Score:3, Funny)
I find your ideas to be intriguing. I'd like to sign up for your newsletter.
Seriously though, that is the best rant I've read in a while! Are you Michael Moore's love-chi
Re:Both Parties Suck (Score:3, Interesting)
Although, I think the LPs should tone down the "we just want to fire everyone that works in government" rhetoric. There are some good people doing good things in government we should do our best to make certain that their work continues outside of goverment. Any major change in society will hurt people unless it is done gradually over time.
With that said, I think I've been up too late figuring out my "basis"... If line 3 is greater than
Re:outrageous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:outrageous (Score:4, Funny)
1) Signed the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act.
2) Signed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act.
3) Signed the DMCA.
There you have it - Proof that Clinton was working against the corporate interests, for the little guy, and for a more free and open society.
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.
Re:outrageous (Score:3, Offtopic)
That smells like short-term memory to me.
The economics that allowed for a decline in welfare and a budget surplus were created under a conservative administration and eroded away by the previous liberal administration. The U.S. economy began it's down-turn well before G.W.Bush took office, not after. Bush inherited the economic mess the previous administration left behind.
More pointedly, the economic model of corporations trying to appear profitable as opposed to actually being profitable also hurt Amer
Re:outrageous (Score:3, Interesting)
You want to know how those two think. Go play Sim City 3000 and raise or lower taxes. Thats Bill and Georg
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.
Re:Is spam with phony return address illegal then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:cnames (Score:4, Insightful)
Disgusting (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Disgusting (Score:5, Funny)
And *69? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Less than 6 hours (Score:3, Informative)
Is someone keeping statistics on this?
Perhaps we could extrapolate CmdrTaco's repost-delay and figure out approximately when he will lose all near-memory and become like the guy in the film Memento?
Quick Question... (Score:4, Interesting)
Think of all the poor little DSL routers out there.
Oh the humanity!!
Re:Quick Question... (Score:3, Informative)
The proposed MA (massachusetts) one is slightly less worse
Unfortunatly, they don't define unauthorized, so it's assumed your service provider determines what's authorized. Your ISP says no nat.. BAMN you're breaking the law. Someone else's ISP is ok with it, they're not (even tho they're doing the same exact thing).
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
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?
Which is more illegal, NAT or DNS? (Score:5, Informative)
Add to this caller ID blocking, and most importantly, Anonymous Cowards.
Re:Which is more illegal, NAT or DNS? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Which is more illegal, NAT or DNS? (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Dark side. (Score:4, Insightful)
People in Michagan will no longer be able to look at Slashdot. The ISPs will no longer be able to carry it, you won't be able to tell anyone about it and the Slashcode can't be read, understood or used in Michigan.
The only forms of communications allowed there now are switched coper networks, broadcast TV and helioscopes, just like Ma Bell and CBS wanted. The rest is just too confusing and had to be scrapped or the Terrorist would have won. The Supreme court of Michigan is at this moment deciding the fate of ventriloquists. Way to go Michingan, you are a state after the hearts of simpletons everywhere. I love you, you love me, we are a happy family.
Duplicate of Last Night's Slashback (Score:2, Informative)
I sure hope not. (Score:2, Funny)
Whats the world comming to?
Re:I sure hope not. (Score:2, Interesting)
what about caller id blocking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:what about caller id blocking (Score:5, Insightful)
i've thought of something.... (Score:2)
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.
Netherlands (Score:2)
Anonymous proxies? (Score:2)
In related news. (Score:2)
Welcome to the real world Neo.
Where's this coming from? (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Where's this coming from? (Score:3, Insightful)
What makes you say that? The US continues to wage it's ill-conceived War on Drugs, and doesn't show any signs of stopping, or even slowing down, despite mounting evidence that it's making absolutely no difference while costing the American public billions and jailing untold numbers of harmless citizens.
Frankly, I think the US government is so tightly wrapped up in it's cozy blanket of
just for completeness, are ac posts illegal? V2.1 (Score:3, Informative)
From an email I received 2 weeks ago
[* Check out comp.risks digest 22.66 which has a discussion of legislation being considered by Massachusetts, Texas and some others. The start of this discussion was an article by Ed Felten, "Use a Firewall, Go to Jail" Freedom to tinker archives/000336.html [freedom-to-tinker.com]
These laws aim to prohibit any technique used to hide the source of any communication. For example, tunnell
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.
Re:Why does he think he can just move it? (Score:3, Informative)
ISTR a while ago, when they were trying to work out how to apply copyrighting of images published on the internet, they decided that a copy in the cache is not legally a copy - it's only a copy when you deliberately save it to your hard drive. Otherwise, there is no way to enforce copyright protection of online images and publish them, sh
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.
Re:And now you want us to help you? (Score:5, Interesting)
Caller ID (Score:5, Insightful)
Who is the the service provider? (Score:3, Insightful)
Does the callers cell phone company, or mine, or the long distance provider in between block the caller ID?
What if I run a company switchboard, I am routing calls for them, I am their service provider, the phone company is hiding the origin of the call.
What about an answering forwarding service who answers my phone?
Other legal documents (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Other legal documents (Score:3, Funny)
What about Spam? (Score:2, Insightful)
Ignorance and stupidity are now illegal (Score:3, Funny)
Interesting. So, if you consider the brain and it's systems as hardware and software, ignorance and stupidity are now illegal. Either that or complex systems that can't be understood by the simplest of intellects are illegal.
A mind that can't figure out how to trace a signal through a telecommunications service could be interpreted as being "deceived" about the origin of said signal. So, either stupid people won't be allowed to use such a system, or the system itself should be outlawed.
You can't get there from here. (Score:2, Interesting)
Suppose Ralan Alsky (just to pick a name at random) sends .. uh .. email, routed in such a way that you can't tell he was the originator. He conne
This just in.... (Score:2, Insightful)
More news views and things that amuse at pajonet.com [pajonet.com]
The future of science in the US (Score:3, Interesting)
I do research on security and cryptography related technologies. I'm happy I don't have to deal with this kind of censorship and I wish to express my sympathy for Provos. He's not even american for fuck's sake. And Honeyd is probably used more for protection by admins than by hackers around!
I wonder, is he gonna get the phd after all??
Another scary example, scarier perhaps if not so blatant, is this http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,130 26,933055,00.html
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.]
The Power Given to Government (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Basically outlawing communications companies (Score:3, Funny)
These documents are now illegal.
How can a communications company continue their research without being able to document it?
!!WARNING!! Welcome to a police state ! (Score:3, Insightful)
You DO NOT have the right to:
- Have a thought all your own. If you have a thought then you probably copyrighted it from someplace else, you owe us a royalty payment
- Own a book, you can only rent from a pre-approved list authorized from the US Attorney General
- A fair an impartial jury, you will be tried in a secret military tribunal.
- Citizenship. Your US citizenship could be stripped from you when we feel like it.
- Remain silent. We will harrass and tick you off until you tell us what we want to know, including by using sleep deprevation.
- Privacy. We see, hear, and know everything about you, including what you do in those long showers you take.
- Liberty. That was nice while it lasted.
- Freedom. We own you. We give you the thought and feel of freedom, but we control.
- Democracy. We actually give you an option of who to vote for, but it doesn't matter because we'll still control the politician with super whores.
- Taxation with representation. We control the horizontal, we control the verticle, we also control the purse. Everytime we use a bomb, we need to replace it. We decide how much we get paid and how much you get to take home.
Brought to you by the Ameri-Corp, USA. "The big brother that you always feard."
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:Bye, Bye NAT (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't matter what happens to the data once it passes the dema
Then get a different provider (Score:3, Informative)
That presupposes that NATs are "unauthorized by the service provider."
While I have no great love for telcos in general, SBC's (for example) Terms of Service explicitly allow NATs. They even sell "home routers" that allow multiple computers to be connected simultaneously (i.e., a NAT box) on the
No Freenet in Michigan (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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.
Re: Move (Score:3, Interesting)
Third-party candidates are a niche player. They provide a proving ground for new ideas that eventually make it out onto the major party tickets, but otherwise it is extremely unlikely for one to get enough votes to hold any national office. This is as true today as it has been throughout history.
The real problem is that
Re: Move (Score:3, Interesting)
That's also why they didn't let people vote directly for the President or Senators. But state laws and the Seventeenth Amendment (respectively) got around those "problems."
"because the political parties consisted largely of intellectuals."
No, the whole intent of the design of the federal government was to avoid political parties outright. They felt that party politics were what caused their problems with the UK Parliament to begi
Re:Not truly feasible (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the reason that some are pushing for Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). In this method, everyone votes for their top choices, in order. Then, say in a 3 candidate election, after the first
Re:maryland bill vs michigan bill ? (Score:3, Funny)
A. The law differs between stats.
N. You are a criminal but no law enforcement officer understands the law - so they can arrest anyone
3. Both of the above.
Re:I have a better idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's already in place. It's called the Bush Administration.