State "Communication Services" Laws Analyzed 295
87C751 writes "There has already been some discussion about Michigan and other states implementing new laws to protect "communication services", with results that could ban NAT, VPNs and even email encryption. Mike Godwin, of EFF fame, has looked into this subject a bit deeper, and makes a frightening observation. Among other things, this PDF report draws an ugly conclusion: As written, these "mini-DMCA" acts change the legislative focus radically, such that all technology that is not expressly permitted by a communications provider will be prohibited. Is this the backdoor maneuver that will turn the net into television once and for all?"
You adopt IPv6.... (Score:4, Funny)
But don't fuck with my VPN!
Re:You adopt IPv6.... (Score:5, Funny)
Your future monthly cable bill without NAT:
Basic channels: $23.95
Premium channels: $12.95
Internet connection: $19.95
First system IP address: $17.95
Second system IP address: $15.95
Firewall IP address: $15.95
Video Recorder IP address: $15.95
Game box IP address: $15.95
Printer IP address: $8.95
VPN Fee (1 destination): $29.95
Voice over IP fee: $24.95
Local taxes: $17.54
Federal taxes: $22.45
Total: 242.44
Re:You adopt IPv6.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You adopt IPv6.... (Score:2, Funny)
The look on your face as you open the bill? Priceless.
Re:You adopt IPv6.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You adopt IPv6.... (Score:2)
Of course it depends on your ISP. Some treat their customers well, others do their best to rake you over the coals at every opportunity. Unfortunately, thanks to the FCC allowing cable companies a complete monopoly, some may not have a choice (I didn't, until quite recently).
(Earthlink is strongly recomended)
Re:You adopt IPv6.... (Score:4, Interesting)
If they were to go to IPv6, I'm sure that they will charge a small fee for a subnet, which I'll happily pay. I've told them this, and they seem interested, but it's not the right time for them. When some of their older equipment goes to end-of-life, they'll replace it with ipv6 shit, and then we'll get it.
Mirror (Score:5, Informative)
converted article from pdf to text (Score:5, Informative)
Background
Over the past two years, lobbyists from the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have been lobbying in state legislatures for passage of a model "Communications Security Act." This
act, which has already been passed by six states - Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wyoming - has been represented to legislatures as little more than an updating
and minor amendment of existing state laws designed to prevent theft of cable or telephone service.
A close reading both of the acts that have been passed and of the "draft model act" shows, however, that the proposed law could have a far broader impact - it could undermine existing
consumer rights to use cable, telephone and Internet services, and could also hurt technological innovation and the development of new products that benefit consumers.
The model act, together with the state acts that already have been passed or that currently are being proposed, are often referred to by some opponents as "super DMCAs" or "state DMCAs" - in
reality, their scope is different from, and far broader than, the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Overbroad Definitions
The acts protect "communication services," which include any "service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation" delivered via electronic means using virtually any technology. This
includes every wire in your house for which you pay a fee, including your telephone, cable TV, satellite and Internet lines. This category also sweeps in any Internet-based subscription services
for delivery of copyrighted materials, including digital music services such as pressplay, MusicNow, or Rhapsody.
The acts would regulate the possession, development and use of "communication devices" and "unlawful access devices." A "communication device" is virtually any electronic device you might
connect to any communication service. The definition of "unlawful communication device" is somewhat narrower, sweeping in any device that is "primarily designed, developed,
used or offered... for the purpose of defeating or circumventing" a technological protection measure used to protect a communication services.
What the Acts Prohibit
The proposed bills generally prohibit four categories of activity:
(1) Possession, development, distribution or use of any "communication device" in connection with a communication service without the express authorization of the service provider.
(2) Concealing the origin or destination of any communication from the communication service provider.
(3) Possession, development, distribution or use of any "unlawful access device."
(4) Preparation or publication of any "plans or instructions" for making any device, having reason to know that such a device will be used to violate the other prohibitions.
page-2
Short Analysis of the "Super DMCA," Page 2
The Proposed Acts Are Unnecessary
The MPAA has argued that this law is necessary to "update" existing state laws to prevent "Internet piracy" and "cable theft." But copyright infringement and cable-service theft are already
expressly prohibited under current state and federal laws. In addition, any service provider who believes a subscriber has violated the terms of his or her service contract can terminate the contract.
The MPAA has not identified any specific problem that is not already addressed by existing law. Nor have state law-enforcement personnel called for or supported these proposals.
Controlling Consumers and Undermining Innovation
These prohibitions, together with the broad definitions, dramatically expand the power of entertainment companies, Internet service providers, cable companies and others to control what
citizens can and can't connect to the services that they pay for. If enacted, they will slow innovation, impair competition and seriously undermine consumers' right
Already happened (Score:4, Funny)
Nah, I think AOl did that.
The ball starts rolling .. (Score:5, Informative)
Check the eWeek story here [eweek.com].
Re:The ball starts rolling .. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The ball starts rolling .. (Score:3, Interesting)
Seems like a self-defeating law that was only put on the books to placate a limited number of constituants.
This just in... (Score:5, Funny)
A Way Out? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, let me think.. put this dangerous little mind to work for a moment.
If this is what a large provider like SBC wants, perhaps it's not so bad on the surface. (You already know these laws don't get started without their helpful assistance in Lansing, Sacramento, and so on, without their helpful assistance)
Much is made about Wi-Fi. What's to stop grass-roots cooperatives forming wi-fi networks? Seems like I've been reading quite a bit about these on Slashdot lately, including communities, even cities, considering this. Great for a few reasons, not the least of which is less dependency on capital-heavy infrastructure. Don't like SBC? Encourage or participate in creating not competition, but alternatives. As always, watch your back for legislation to prevent or hinder such enterprises, along the lines of "It shall be immensely illegal for people to cast of the chains of bondage to BigBabyBell in favor of a free and unrestricted system."
Remember, countries used to be criss-crossed with a hojillion miles of rail. Once the Interstate highways were built in the USA that all changed. (I saw a rail map once of northeastern LP of Michigan, it staggered the mind how much rail used to be up in that sparsely populated area.) Like rail, BigBabyBell doesn't move without expending a lot of capital. Seems to me Wi-Fi is a capital-light.
Wyoming (Score:4, Insightful)
Yet whenever I start thinking about this, I stop at Wyoming. For a WiFi internet to work, you'll need a huge number of connections to ensure sufficient capacity and reliability. That's not so hard in, say, New England. Wyoming is a different matter. Along Interstate 84 (or is it 80? The two meet in Salt Lake City, and I forget which is which) you'll only find signs of civilization (a truck stop and a few houses) every 60 miles. Even with the ability to bridge those gaps, you still don't have the density of connections you need. I pick on Wyoming, but really all the mountain states have this same problem.
I'd hate to see the WiFi grow only to the point of localized community networks that can't talk to each other. Not because community networks are bad, but because the global reach of the internet is one of the reasons it's so cool.
Which, if you forget about Wyoming for a second, makes the Atlantic and the Pacific much bigger obstacles.
Re:Wyoming (Score:2)
Even if I did dream it, other methods are possible, though maybe not so reliable.
Re:A Way Out? (Score:2)
Nothing at all... until you want to hook up to the greater internet, at which point you are at the mercy of the Communications Service Provider. And the way these laws are written, that CSP will have absolute jurisdiction over what you can attach to its network interface. An ad hoc parallel network is an interesting idea, but it's unlikely to reach internet scale. (unless Wi-Fi can skip, but what about the ping times?)
Re:A Way Out? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Yeah, that'd be one hell of an Achilles Heel, there's probably something on the books about it -- for our protection."
Re:A Way Out? (Score:2)
And I think there may be laws on the books about that. IANAL, so I'm not certain, but isn't illegal for a foreign company to own more than a certain percentage of our telco industry?
Re:A Way Out? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet, as the article suggests, domestic control can also be bad.
I imagine (Score:5, Interesting)
As for NAT... NAT is an ugly, dirty and frighteningly simple fix to IPv4's shortcomings. Someone already said it, adopt IPv6 and NATs will fade away.
Re:I imagine (Score:3, Funny)
Now we know what to do about nats, ipv7 for houseflies?
Re:I imagine (Score:2, Insightful)
besides that how the hell am I gonna offer internet access to all my computers in my house with out an nat? I will have to get an IP for all of them from the damn ISP.
Re:I imagine (Score:2)
Now the bad IPv6 does little to nothing to fix the issues or routing. Great
question, answer (Score:3, Funny)
In a word: yes.
I'm convinced all those goatse links were preparation for that eventuality, too.
NAT-based firewalling? (Score:4, Insightful)
I use NAT not so much for the many-to-one translation of my home network to the internet, but because of the inherent security it provides. Unless the broadband providers are going to be liable for failing to protect my network, my firewall isn't going to go away.
Re:NAT-based firewalling? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:NAT-based firewalling? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NAT-based firewalling? (Score:4, Insightful)
Depends on the type of NAT.
The NAT used by most gateway devices (like Linux's Masquerading) does provide some measure of security, even if you've not implemented any packet filters..
If your gateway device implements no filtering at all, and you're using NAT, the devices behind your NAT gateway are invisible to the outside world, as the only packets that will reach them are ones associated with an existing connection.
In this respect, NAT is kind of like a "poor-man's" stateful packet filtering - which is probably why the two are so closely linked in the 2.4 kernel.
If you argue that it provides no security, then I can use that same argument to show that stateful inspection adds no security either (which every security professional I know would disagree with.)
Re:NAT-based firewalling? (Score:2)
Re:NAT-based firewalling? (Score:2)
It certainly makes sense. Why waste IP addresses for people just browsing the web? An ISP could put hundreds if not thousands of people on dialup or DSL behind one NAT overloaded IP address. Hell, I know we do here at work. Then if you want inbound connections as well you need to fork over business-class rates.
Just think a little past the obvious. (Score:2)
Like Waffle Iron points out above, what makes you think you'll be getting broad band services at your house for $40 a month?
Get used to having this conversation:
Oh, you got your computer hacked? We can add port security and firewalling services for a nominal fee of $45 a month.
And th
Re:NAT-based firewalling? (Score:2)
"Back in the day" when I wanted to get a 100 Mbps Cogent line and start a wireless ISP (heh, who am I kidding... I still want to), I thought it would be a novel idea to offer a "NAT" plan -- you get a non-routable IP (such as 1
Re:NAT-based firewalling? (Score:2)
I agree -- it's as secure as a box on the Internet can be. I just wanted to make sure people didn't think that I was content to setup a NAT and never think about security again; it's still theoretically possible for someone to get in if they can com
Re:NAT-based firewalling? (Score:3, Funny)
Home LAN?! Was that expressly provided for in your agreement with your service provider?!
I think you're going to have to rip out those cables before the FBI gets to your house, buddy!
Re:NAT-based firewalling? (Score:2)
Well, you could always use a non-NAT-based firewall instead...
Stupid State! (Score:5, Insightful)
The constant addition of restrictions in order to control the potential of crime or to diminish the ease in which they can be conducted is stupid to me. I mean, murdering people would be a lot harder if I didn't have any arms, but I doubt anyone's gonna pass a law requiring me to give them up.
Re:Stupid State! (Score:2)
You have the right to _bear_ arms.
Re:Stupid State! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stupid State! (Score:2)
Re:Stupid State! (Score:3, Insightful)
In the near future... (Score:4, Interesting)
10 years from now I don't want to be explaining to my sons "I'm sorry, but we had our back turned and gave up our freedom of choice."
Please call your representatives and keep this stuff from passing. /.'ers have shown that they can have a large concerted voice if properly motivated.
Re:In the near future... (Score:2)
It Should be Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
You can talk about raising hell to stop it but frankly, the majority of the population couldn't care less and would probably actually agree that communication between citizens is dangerous and should only be allowed through government approved channels. Especially when the government pulls out the twin boogeymen of terrorists and child pornographers.
So what can you do about it? Nothing. Suck it up. I dare you to prove me wrong.
Re:It Should be Obvious (Score:2)
Re:It Should be Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad, but true -- yet blatantly illogical. The core of this argument rests on the assumption that somehow, human beings of power (the rulers) are inherently more trustworthy than regular human beings (the subjects). But, what is it that actually differentiates the ruler from the subject? Is it knowledge? Education? Experience? Good will? None of the above: It's power and power alone. The true root of the argument, therefore, is that power (the "legal right" to initiate force) is inherently "just", which, when we put it that way, is simply ludicrous.
Another false belief that I run into is that a majority -- which is really just another group of human beings -- is somehow more trustworthy or rightous than an individual human being, and thus, the majority opinion is more valuable than the single opinion. This argument is illogical by the same token.
Re:It Should be Obvious (Score:2)
Some of the guys I voted for actually got in at the local level. Anyway...
The majority has often proven to be both wrong and idiots. They're also the majority. It's kind of hard to argue with a majority -- they tend to be pretty l
Re:It Should be Obvious (Score:2)
I disagree with this, on factual rather than moral grounds. I think that there's a long history of the ruling elite being better more knowledgable and better educated, more experienced and in some cases posessing a broader moral vision than the ruled, by and large.
About what, 1/3 of the US population has a college education, while p
Re:It Should be Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It Should be Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't have to be a big name corporate muckity muck to be able to publish a press release or a newspaper. If my chosen medium is the Internet then there is nothing that the US Government can do to legally stop me.
Re:It Should be Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, you have the freedom of speech, but everyone else has the freedom to ignore you. And that's why things like this will pass and the vast majority will ignore you. Releasing a press release will probably not reach anyone. The press might read it, decide it's boring, and then drop it. So that doesn't help. Publishing your own newspaper won't help either, because only your friends will read it, and everyone else will just toss it. Trust me - I don't care what you write. I already get my news from AOL Times Warner through my local paper, I don't need another paper poorly written by a couple of weirdo computer freaks.
The fact that you aren't a "big name corporate muickity muck" pretty much guarentees that no one will read your paper or listen to your press release. No one really cares about what you have to say. Just like no one cares about what Slashdot has to say or any of the individual posters have to say. Stop a random person on the street and ask them about the DMCA and chances are very high that they won't know what the hell it is, or, if they do, think it's a good thing to protect Hollywood from the hackers on the Internet. Chances are rather slim that you randomly found another person concerned with the DMCA.
Now I have to admit that the above is very trollish and inflammatory, so now I want to put the above into context. It's meant to put things into the context of the adverage American, the people who watch Joe Millionaire and Survior and American Idol, the people who were more concerned with the President getting a BJ than with Bosnia. In all honesty, I hope I'm being overly cynical. But if past performance is any indicator of the future, I doubt that anyone will be able to get people to care about something like this. Most people would rather just assume that while they don't understand the issue, the people purposing the laws must, and therefore assume that it's in their best interest. Most people also still believe that wealth==morality, and that if the rich argue for something, it must be right, while those poorer are just upset because they don't have the same riches.
Only time will tell, but I just can't find any hope. No one really cares, unless the talking heads on the TV screen say it. And I can't think of any way to change that. Maybe someone else can find hope, but unless CNN starts talking about these issues, I doubt the majority will care, assuming that the government knows best.
Re:It Should be Obvious (Score:2)
I will take some of whatever you are smoking. That is a nice theory, but unfortunately your constitutional protections have been under assult for a long time now, and they no [eff.org] longer [loc.gov] apply [copyright.gov].
This could be a problem. (Score:3, Interesting)
So the collary might be "encrypted communications used in the normal course of software use are allowed." Which would open up lots of loopholes.
Either that, or companies will have to get licensed to use encryption.
no surprise... (Score:5, Interesting)
This should come as no surprise. After all, the US is edging fast and furious toward a country where any freedom no expressly permitted becomes forbidden. So make sure you read the small print before you buy into the "land of the free" label.
This seems to be the tendency of all civilizations, eventually. After all, power corrupts. But perhaps what is different in this new world is that instead of being enslaved to tyrants and other humans and has been the case throughout history, we are becoming enslaved to corporations, composed of humans. Corporations are devoid of any of the human-characteristics which otherwise might slow or change this progression. Or doesn't it make any difference?
Re:no surprise... (Score:2)
That would pretty much require the 9th Amendment to be repealed, wouldn't it?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
There's no way for lawmakers (who, according to you, are all EVIL EVIL EVIL) to work around this without waging a direct assault on the Bill of Rights. People won't sit quie
Re:no surprise... (Score:4, Insightful)
The real problem is that the majority of Americans no longer believe in the Constitution or the rights enshrined in it. The majority *want* these rights curtailed or revoked. They want this because a) they don't trust their neighbors with freedom, and are willing to give up their own so long as their neighbor has to give it up too, and b) it gives them the illusion of power - i.e., they think by denying their neighbor the ability to do something their neighbor wants them to do, they 'prove' in some strange way that they actually have a certain measure of control over life (in this case, they've made their neighbor miserable and it shows).
People talk about revolution in the streets if 'things go too far'. I say "bullshit". The farther things go, the happier the majority of the sheeple will be. If Constitutional rights are abrogated altogether most Americans would see that as a cause for celebration.
Very few people believe in rights anymore. Very few people want the responsibility that comes with these rights. Americans are hankering for a dictatorship, a Big Daddy who'll protect them all from their evil-minded neighbors. And it looks very much like they're going to get exactly what they want.
Max
Re:no surprise... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh well.. (Score:2)
But it's for security! (Score:4, Funny)
Remember, AC isn't anonymous to us. So stop complaining, sit down, take your medication and watch some TV.
Re:But it's for security! (Score:3, Funny)
These Super-DMCAs violate "dormant commerce" (Score:5, Informative)
Unconstitutional ? By who's constitution? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then be an optimist.
But do remember that there seems to be an evolutionary/genetic predisposition to optimism.
Re:Unconstitutional ? By who's constitution? (Score:2)
scripsit jefu:
Don't be such a downer! In what, thirty years or so?, they'll all have died or retired, and we'll have our rights back. God, I'm sick of this `I want my constitutional rights now, not after the whole Supreme Court has died of old age' attitude...
Re:Unconstitutional ? By who's constitution? (Score:2)
scripsit MntlChaos:
I blame the lameness filter.
previous analysis (Score:5, Informative)
Lohmann also references the model bill that the MPAA is circulating among the states [eff.org], a line-by-line analysis of which is here [eff.org].
Spirit of the Law vs. Letter of the Law (Score:3, Interesting)
What the Acts Prohibit
1)
Wouldn't that mean that anytime I changed or upgraded my computer, hardware or software, then I would need to re-obtain express authorization from my ISP to use it to connect?
2) Concealing origin or destination of any communication from the communication servive provider.
This is way to vague. Using a NAT would be no more concealing then say SneakerNet or using a Scanner and forwarding the result. What if I wrote a document and work, copied it on a floppy and then sent it out at home? So any removable media is now against the law. Loosely interpretted, technically a NAT takes my uploaded file from my floppy (read PC) and then is the place of origin and destination.
My argument for using a NAT is that the place of origin was me, my account, my system. Whichever computer I used shouldn't be an issue as long as they can tell that it was my account.
Otherwise, taken a step further would mean I could share an account with anyone else in my household, as the place of origin could be my brain vs. my family member's brain, which obscures the true origin.
Ok, so try making someone use only AOL (Score:2, Interesting)
Second, AOL would lose even more money in stocks, do you think people in other states wouldn't object to a monopoly?
Granted I used AOL but replace AOL with almost any company and it comes out to the same result. People would use their wallet to tell representatives and companies just how much they like this law.
Stop complaining and.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't like these bills coming across your state legislatures? Write to your local senator or congressman. Go to the Michigan State Homepage [michigan.gov] and lookup your rep, write them an email, call them, fax them. Don't think it works? Try it and you will get a reply.
Better yet, check the Michigan State Legislature [michiganlegislature.org] website, and find out when this bill is up for a public hearing before the committee. This is the best use of your time if you are truly concerned. Since we are all somewhat tech-savvy, our input is paramount to countering the massive brainwashing and lobbying the motion picture and recording industry is pounding into your statehouse. Take a day off work, do some research, and tell the committees how this will affect their constituents. I know if this ever hits my home state, I will be first in line to speak out.
It is your right to take advantage of democracy. Sure, it's difficult to change federal legislation, but if you pack the state house, you will get local media coverage, and your state reps will take note. Or you could just keep complaining here...
Re:Stop complaining and.... (Score:2)
Re:Stop complaining and.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Stop complaining and.... (Score:2)
scripsit st0rmshad0w:
And which U.S. party do you think will support your candidacy if you want to campaign on the basis of opposing the whole way they do business?
The genie is already out of the bottle... (Score:5, Interesting)
It won't get that far, though. I mean, it won't devolve to dial-up. Before that happens, there'll be privately operated line-of-sight connections between neighborhoods using lasers, private citizens laying their own fibre or copper around those neighborhoods, and radio amateurs running satellite links between towns.
If you think that's a bit far fetched, www.scitoys.com has plans for a basic laser communicator that can carry a radio signal across a room using a $10 laser pointer. Shouldn't be too hard to beef that up to reach across a road or further.
Yep, piss enough of us off, and we'll simply take the network away from the Baby Bells and see how they like that...
While we're at at: contracts (Score:2)
It would be nice if the oligarchs built a restricted Internet and no
Closed our business presence in (Score:5, Interesting)
After all we all know the poor defensless cable companies couldn't make it in the world without government subsidies
Re:Closed our business presence in (Score:2)
Did you write the legislator in that district and tell them the reason you did so?
Re:Closed our business presence in (Score:2)
Respecting the market... (Score:5, Interesting)
New business opportunities (Score:3, Informative)
Ok... So what if the communication provider expressly allows NAT, VPN, etc... It seems to me this will just lead to a migration to ISP's that are less draconian. Failing that, Geeks will start new ISP's or even new "internets".
Temkin
Re:New business opportunities (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, I don't see it. The resources are not there, and the motivation is not there. Look over sf.net sometime. Look at all the abandoned projects...then come back and tell me these people are going to start a new internet?!?!? I'll believe it when I see it (and I am decidedly NOT holding my breath).
Re:New business opportunities (Score:2)
Your solution merely masks the problem. It assumes that market pressure will allow such things. That is a false assumption.
Competition only exists in a regulated market, if we do not regulate the telcos, but allow them to regulate us instead, competition among them will cease once they
Re:New business opportunities (Score:2)
So.... Why aren't you starting up some competition?
Temkin
But you are your provider... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just a show of hands (Score:2)
Heh, yeah, me neither.
Re:Just a show of hands (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless yor computer is jacked directly into the backbone, you might not have a choice. Whoever supplies your connection will obey, or be forced/fined/jailed out of businesss.
HIPPA? (Score:2, Interesting)
Patient Health Care information must be protected and hidden from the public. Yet this law would prevent this...
Can the CIA/NSA/SSA/NASA no longer encrypt data?
Do you have your Listener's License? (Score:2)
Download [theafternow.com]
Listen
Understand
Distribute
Little Chicken (Score:5, Informative)
If taken to an extreme it is possible that a prominent cable company could go so far as to say that you may only use dell computers with their service and that not adhereing to this is a violation of the law. Dell could become a "monoply" by entering into a "deal" with communications providers when in fact that deal - violates anti-trust laws.
It certainly seems "bad". Though this sort of legislation isn't enforceable.
Take NAT for example. Many have been saying that this bodes ill for network address translation. I submit to you this: NAT is most commonly used in a Local Area Network environment. In large companies it is used over a WAN. In either case, it can be argued that the traffic and the origin of the traffic is well known. Each machine has an IP address and whether it is "translated" or not, the communication orginates from a well known PHYSICAL location. The physical origin of the traffic is well known, therefore the law isn't being violated. Clearly - it is harder to defend against this law if the location and "origin" of the offending machine in question is not well known...
What is interesting is how they are using the state legislatures (less visible and more malleable) to enact this sort of law. If it was really legit, then why not go the federal route?
Finally, this sort of law is a golden opporunity for a service provider to provider service that is competely unencumbered by the provisions of this "Uber DCMA". It's only valid if the "commmunications" service provider decides to enforce it.
My 2 pestas.
money grab now, MS only service later (Score:2, Interesting)
WTF? (Score:2)
(1) Possession, development, distribution or use of any "communication device" in connection with a communication service without the express authorization of the service provider.
(2) Concealing the origin or destination of any communication from the communication service provider.
(3) Possession, development, distribution or use of any "unlawful access device."
(4) Preparation or publication of any "plans or instructions" for making any devic
Radio (Score:2)
Guess they just outlawed broadcast radio. You can not determine the destination.
I was getting sick of ClearChannel anyways..
Add Another State . . . (Score:3, Informative)
Im not to worried about the MI law (Score:2, Informative)
(1) A person shall not knowingly obtain or attempt to obtain telecommunications service with intent to avoid, attempt to avoid, or cause another person to avoid or attempt to avoid any lawful charge for that telecommunications service by using any of the following:
(a) A telecommunications access device.
(b) An unlawful telecommunications access device.
(c) A fraudulent or deceptive scheme, pretense, method, or conspiracy, or any device or other means, including, b
Interpretation for the legal jargon impaired. (Score:5, Interesting)
All that (1) means is that you can't use a telecommunication service without permission. For example, if you don't have an account with your broadband cable provider, you aren't allowed to be using the internet connection. A literal interpretation of this would mean that it would be illegal to use the service if you do not have an actual account with them even if it is connected to your home and ready to use.
What (2) means is that you can't pretend to be someone else... for example, making long distance calls from your home and somehow convincing the telecomm company that it was really your next door neighbor. Consider that if the telecomm service company can somehow locate you, then you didn't actually conceal your origins from them in the first place, did you?
(3) is completely redundant. Possession of any sort of device or equipment that is already outlawed is already illegal.
(4) As written, this is utterly absurd. Any technology, regardless of its intent, can be used for malicious purposes by nefarious folk. This could apply to devices as simple as a soldering iron (which can be used to wreak all kinds of havok, if you think about it). I believe if this is pointed out to them, then the act's wording would likely be changed to reflect the intent of the device, rather than just how it gets used. As long as the onus is on the prosecution to prove malicious intent (and they can't use the argument that "it *can* be used for bad things", as shown above), this may turn out to be not too bad.
Wouldn't you think... (Score:2)
congress would like to invoke the Interstate Commerce clause on this puppy? If there's one thing that's truly interstate, it's the internet! Geez, they even tried to regulate guns by invoking the ICC - "they must cross state boundaries, so we've got jurisdiction." This is such an obvious case where the ICC applies, you'd think they'd want to jump on it.
Writing to your "representitive" is a time waster (Score:2)
"Representitives" seem to like voting where the big money tells them to vote.
Get out in public and make a big stink about things. Organize groups. Fly a banner at the state capitol building. Bug media outlets. Send a few faxes to the rep if you feel that contacting them will do any good.
But above all, vote for someone that might actually
What to do? (Score:4, Interesting)
What needs to be done specifically in this case is... you know as well as I do that no major IT shop in any affected state can obey all of this law and continue to operate. Gather evidence against state government agencies, Fortune 500 companies, and the cable operators themselves and when there's enough of it, file a taxpayers' suit for the purpose of making the state AGs enforce the law. Evidence will be as close as the e-mail headers from organizations in violation, at least enough for subpoena purposes.
When state-level elected officials find out that their e-mail, website, and payroll processing for their own paychecks is offline and that their CIO is behind bars, perhaps they'll decide that there are things more important than campaign contributions from Hollywood.
What will be done?
A lot of whining by the US online crowd, just like all the other times bad Internet law has come up. EFF and all the other organizations with non-profit status can in general only effectively intervene when a law is in fact unconstitutional. Unfortunately, just because a law is likely to fuck up high-tech industry doesn't make it necessarily unconstitutional.
I don't think the status of these laws or bills matters all that much anymore. If these laws are taken off the books, the replacement measures will be rewritten in such a way that they will apply only to end users, not to corporations / businesses. . . the barrier to freedom of use will effectively be the ability to afford your own T1 or something like that.
The only way to make sure that legislation like this doesn't happen is to make sure that the politicians owe us enough favors that they'll ask us before making computer/Net related legislation. The only way to do this is to outbid Hollywood for them. The high-tech community has blown its opportunities to do this, first when doing this was easy, and now when the bad guys have legal momentum on their side. There was a time when a few people willing to spend a few megabucks on getting a political operation capable of becoming a mass-action advocacy and lobbying organization could have easily managed this. Unfortunately, the time to do this was when it was still possible to start a national-level PAC and get the paperwork done required to make it legal to collect money on behalf of candidates soon enough to make it possible to affect the 2004 elections. The window for that closed months ago.
Face it, game's over, people. Effective political action on our behalf is not going to happen and we might as well face the fact and figure out how we want to deal with this at an individual level.
The cumulative impact of laws like this simply mean that technology innovation will have to happen outside the USA. If you want to be a technology innovator, figure out where you want to move to and what language you need to learn to function there.
The best time to join a refugee movement / "brain drain" is before it starts, so you can bitch with the rest of the locals in whatever foriegn country you're in about the cheap high-tech labor coming in from America because by the time people realize en masse that the recovery is happening, but not here, you're established as a local who just happened to be born in America.
Re:When they outlaw NATs... (Score:2, Funny)
You're next, Buddy (Score:2)
UK? Isn't that the place that's been following the US' lead in peace and war? Seems a lot of restrictive legislation is passed first in the US (because we're all political pussies), and then the rest of the world says, "See? It passed in the great land of the United States, so it must be good for us!"
And: the constitution is the only thing that might save us in th
Re:Good... (Score:2)