footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | The End of Spam?
Wouldn't that be the end of all spam? |
|
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA | I'm not worried about spam, im worried about the freedom. >=( |
|
KeithM8
Zx6r Rider
join:2001-01-17
Broken Arrow, OK | Overreaction!
Since when does my Linksys router hide my IP from the world? |
|
File Quit
Mac Geek
Premium
join:2002-11-28
| It's not going to happen!
Not Gonna Happen! Unless the government wants to go and check EVERY router in the country for NAT, it isn't going to happen! Come on, just add more to the price to pay for all of this "serious loss".
--
Join Team Discovery! Join Team Starfire! E-mail me! filequit@dslr.net |
|
ghenjei
join:2000-12-19
Grand Prairie, TX
| wording of the laws
In reading the wording of the Michigan law, it reads that it will be illegal to "conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunication service ". The telecommunication service is defined as service provided for a charge that originates a transmission (data, voice, etc). Honestly, it look like it is talking about stealing service (Wardriving!!!), not the usage of the existing service (VPN, NAT, etc), which is not discussed.
[text was edited by author 2003-03-31 11:22:44] |
|
TheEternalTroll
join:2000-12-01
Knoxville, TN
| This is total crap
What about ISPs that provide NAT based modems? Is the ISP going to go to your house and take it back and give you a bridge type modem? What about college campuses? They use NAT. Looks like they are going to have to buy more blocks of IPs. What would this do to the internet? Seems like 8 states may be prime for hacker attacks. And what about compusa and bestbuy? Or even linksys, netgear, dlink and others, there going to be pissed. Ill say this, you can have my router when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
--
I used to be known as azxc. Don’t meddle in the affairs of sys admins, for they are easily annoyed and you mean nothing |
|
Techie2000
In Vertigo
Premium
join:2001-12-05
clubs:
| reply to KeithM8
Re: Overreaction!
Every day you've been using it. Your IP is 192.168.1.x while to the outside world it looks like whatever one your ISP gives you because of NAT...
--
"And I'm right. I'm always right, but in this case I'm just a bit more right than I usually am." - Linus Torvalds |
|
oldskools
join:2001-02-12
Salt Lake City, UT
|  Now let me get this straight......
The intelligence community (FBI, CIA, NSA, whatever) supposedly has all these high-tech ways to decrypt traffic and monitor what we do, but now we can't even give them something to do. Where's the fun in capturing unencrypted traffic and emails and tracing back ips to their actual source. Sounds like someone is just getting lazy to get the data they want. The byproducts of this patriot act sure are helping to defend our country *rolls eyes*. |
|
Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL
| Stop and think...
Ok, let's say they pass this. Your home router isn't going to become illegal. It's doesn't mask your IP address. You still have the assigned IP address from your ISP. Yes, it hides your PRIVATE network address but not your assigned IP address which is what they'll use to find you and break down your door.
Settle down and apply just a tad of rational thought to this....
What do most people use inside their homes to begin with? 10.x.x.x or 192.168.x.x which are private IP addresses anyways. The IP Police are going to look at 10.0.0.3 and trace this to you how? THEY CAN'T. Because it's not a valid address out there in cyberspace. Again they are going to see your IP address your ISP gave to you, raid your house, use a blanket warrant to take all your computer, and find out which one you sent it from.
Why don't you all think before you react. Using a router with NAT is NOT hiding or changing the originating address.
--
Abit VP-6 twin 800EB's @ 1002 Mhz.Proud member of the XDC. |
|
KeithM8
Zx6r Rider
join:2001-01-17
Broken Arrow, OK
| reply to Techie2000
Re: Overreaction!
said by Techie2000  :
Every day you've been using it. Your IP is 192.168.1.x while to the outside world it looks like whatever one your ISP gives you because of NAT...
My WAN is still the same!!!
The Linksys does not hide the WAN IP!!! |
|
ifarrell
join:2000-08-10
Willow Spring, NC
 ·Vonage
|  reply to TheEternalTroll
Re: This is total crap
If you read Subsection 1, it says it all.
Basically it's about theft of and/or through telecom devices. It's not about hiding from the FBI or CIA or whatever if you're legally using the Internet or any other means of communications.
It could probably be read though that if you download or upload any copyright files to/from any person that has no right to them using P2P then that could possibly violate this law but that's a whole different issue. |
|
ifarrell
join:2000-08-10
Willow Spring, NC | reply to Wills
Re: Stop and think...
You got that right.
They're all just paranoid!!!! |
|
KeithM8
Zx6r Rider
join:2001-01-17
Broken Arrow, OK | said by ifarrell :
They're all just paranoid!!!!
^^^Exactly! |
|
dan221081
@pipex.com | reply to ifarrell
I dont aggree at all it sounds to me that this is just another excuse for the goverment to spy on what people are doing on the net.This would mean stopping people from using proxy / socket servers to mask their traffic. |
|
ddevilduck
Premium
join:2002-07-26
Minneapolis, MN | reply to Wills
Maybe not NAT per say but it does prevent the use of remailers that are used for legit purposes that strip the header info off or any type of anonimizers (sp?) and maybe even able to be applied to PGP. That is what concerns me. |
|
enkid
@bose.com | harm?
Would the use of email in organizing a boycott of a telecommunications provider (perhaps the one which provided the email service) constitute "intent to harm" under these laws? |
|
yazdzik
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-26
Honesdale, PA
 ·New York Connect
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| Strictly construed
Dear Friends,
Since the Michigan statute is penal in nature it must be strictly construed, thus, irrespective of its intent, the lettre of the law must be followed.
The very purpose of VPN is to transmit while hiding origin and terminus of the protocol, and, since it is transmitted over lines operated by a carrier for a charge, it is as of tomorrow illegal in Michigan.
Would any sane person prosecute a law office for a tele-commuter writing and sending a brief from his house? Probably not, but the statute makes it illegal. Either the statute is so poorly written as to be laughable, or the intent is what is says it is. Does one take one's lawmakers to be idiots or tyrants?
These laws are written by the evil to harm the ignorant, for the benefit of the powerful.
In a land where personal security and corporate profit, to wit those things creating economic well-being, have become more important than the rule of law under an extremely libertarian constitution, believing that the state will not use the tools it has created for whatever needs be done to promote its own power, and the power of those who support the politicians is panglossian.
To trust the government is unwise in normal times, to trust it in times of fear is foolhardy.
Yazdzik |
|
Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL
| said by yazdzik :
These laws are written by the evil to harm the ignorant, for the benefit of the powerful.
Yazdzik
No, they are written by the powerful, to harm the evil and protect the ignorant.
--
Abit VP-6 twin 800EB's @ 1002 Mhz.Proud member of the XDC. |
|
yazdzik
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-26
Honesdale, PA
·New York Connect
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to enkid
Re: harm?
said by enkid:
Would the use of email in organizing a boycott of a telecommunications provider (perhaps the one which provided the email service) constitute "intent to harm" under these laws?
Yes. Therein lies the danger. While it may not be the intention of the law, it is indeed so constructed. That is why words like "intent" need to be formulated clearly in the penal code - if the purpose of communication is to harm the telcos, and I, personally, would do anything in my power to harm them, short of violate statute, it is illegal in Michigan to do so via the internet, or a protocol involving the use of an IP address. Apparently, the Michigan legislature thinks that Bignet deserves to die because it is not Ma Bell, and, frankly, had the states and the federal government adhered to statute in the first place, Covad would never have landed in court, and few of us would still be using landline phones attached to ex-ATT copper.
Never underestimate the power of corruption.
An e-mail demanding a telco boycott in Michigan is now a felony.
-M |
|
yazdzik
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-26
Honesdale, PA
| reply to Wills
Re: Strictly construed
If the government be powerful, we have already lost our constitutional bearings.
-M
[text was edited by author 2003-03-31 12:48:06] |
|
