Super DMCA LawsSerious threat or over-reaction? ( old news - 11:02AM Monday Mar 31 2003) tags: legislation · privacy A website dubbed ' Freedom to Tinker', last week reported that legislation on course in at least eight states could manipulate the DMCA, making it possible that any technology that "conceals the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication", such as Nat, encrypted e-mails, or firewalls, could be considered illegal depending on the wording of the bills (the true impact of which is being debated). According to the website, one such bill has already passed in Michigan (the text of that bill available here, here, and here), and the website is tracking the movement of the bills in several other states.
Related:- Thursday Morning Links
- Thursday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Monday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Friday Evening Links
- Wednesday Evening Links
- Sweden's New Piracy Law Foiled By ISPs
|
 
footballdude
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 | Re: The End of Spam? I'm not worried about spam, im worried about the freedom. >=( | |
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK |  Serious threat or Over-Reaction?
| |
| 
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 | |
| | 
Techie2000
In Vertigo
Premium
join:2001-12-05
clubs:
| 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 | |
| | |
KeithM8
Zx6r Rider
join:2001-01-17
Broken Arrow, OK
| 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!!! | |
| | | workhorse149
join:2000-09-23
Pittsburgh, PA
| Well the same can be said if you have a computer with 2 networks cards. One with a modem plugged in and another plugged in the local network. The WAN ip is what everyone sees out on the web. It shouldn't make any difference at all if the IP originated from a single computer or a router using NAT. Your local IP is always concealed in both cases. | |
| | | 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] | |
| | gatzdon
join:2002-10-25
Lake Zurich, IL
| Re: wording of the laws To further your argument, Jeff Pulver of Free World Dialup has recently managed to get the FCC to declare that VoIP services are not telecommunication services. This argument was based on the fact that internet transmissions are not considered telecommunication services.
Not to offend the original poster of this commentary, but the legislation is being inappropriately applied.
that said, I still don't agree with the verbage as it does apply to telecommunication services as it would prohibit the *67 feature to block caller ID info. I do agree with the intent which was to stop anonymous telemarketers, hence permitting you to actually use these privacy services to block them.
--
If at first you don't succeed, destroy all evidence that you even tried in the first place! | |
| 
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 | |
| | | |
TheEternalTroll
join:2000-12-01
Knoxville, TN
| If you were more open minded then you could see that once this is passed, what is to stop more laws to be passed that are more restrictive. As it stands, this is sorta bad but it could get much worse.
--
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 | |
| oldskools
join:2001-02-12
Salt Lake City, UT
|  Now let me get this straight......
| |
| 
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. | |
| | 
ifarrell
join:2000-08-10
Willow Spring, NC | Re: Stop and think... You got that right.
They're all just paranoid!!!! | |
| | |
KeithM8
Zx6r Rider
join:2001-01-17
Broken Arrow, OK | Re: Stop and think... said by ifarrell :
They're all just paranoid!!!!
^^^Exactly! | |
| | | 
dan221081
@pipex.com | 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 | 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
| 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
·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
| Re: Strictly construed 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
| 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] | |
| | | blah194
join:2002-03-04
Lake Charles, LA
| said by Wills :
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.
Actually I think they are written by the ignorant. | |
| | 
akristov
join:2001-01-31
Tampa, FL
clubs:
| I beg to disagree!!! VPN doesn't try to hide the identity of the "origin and terminus", your ISP can tell where the data traffic you are sending goes. They would just be unable to packet sniff anything decipherable going across the VPN tunnel. Although they could collect this data and give it to the FBI and I am sure they could decrypt the contents if they were investigating you. | |
| | 
jtudor
Xm 60's On 6 Freak
Premium,MVM
join:2002-12-07
Morganton, NC
| said by yazdzik :
Does one take one's lawmakers to be idiots or tyrants?
Yes, and Yes!
--
"Do, or Do not, there is no try!" Yoda | |
| | 
der1269
Premium
join:2003-01-08
Livonia, MI
| Don't you just love lawmakers. I'll tell you what though, legal or illegal, I'll still use my VPN. They can shove this up their........butts. Michigan, lan of the free and home of the rednecks. (no offense to other mich. residents)
--
holy jeeze i wanted to lick em | |
| 
93254336
Weapons Of Masturbation
Premium
join:2001-10-20
|  Reality Check...
Now, if you're stupid enough to share your broadband connection with all the other bozos on your street through some sort of wireless networking arrangement, and one of these "friends" does something questionable, then you've got a problem.
- Dan
--
This message has been modified from its original version. It has been formatted to fit your brain. | |
| 
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs: | what about proxy servers Millions of businesses use proxy servers to surf the web masking the IP of the host behind the proxy in favor of the proxy address.
--
clenetworks.net | |
| | gr8foxmusic
join:2002-11-06
Los Alamos, NM | Re: what about proxy servers yeah and what about services like direcway? everyone on their consumer edition is behind a NAT by design. | |
| | | newz71
join:2002-01-01
Taylor, TX
| Re: what about proxy servers said by gr8foxmusic :
yeah and what about services like direcway? everyone on their consumer edition is behind a NAT by design.
Well, as I was reading to the bottom of this, I was going to say the same thing... but you've already said it. Everybody with DirecWay CE goes through so much hell already with the service... this would probably limit the states in which DirecWay service can be provided. (Texas being one of them... must have too many Yanks getting into Texas for stuff like this to be happening here)
I'm sure there is a way from the Hughes NOC side that they would use your site ID kind of like a unique IP address. It's quite likely they have software tracking everything over "there".
--
SRS,G11 1370,DAK403_P8Host:Win2K,Dual P3 1Ghz, 1GB RAM, Client:Win98SE,P3 800,256MB RAM.NETGEAR FA312 NICs 50' Crossover cable for now. Soon to add third system and connect with switch and everything. | |
| 
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| One thing thats being missed On thing a few of you may be missing is this line
750.540c
(a) Obtain or attempt to obtain a telecommunications service with the intent to avoid or aid or abet or cause another person to avoid any lawful charge for the telecommunications service in violation of section 219a.
Ok plain and simple there, now if you combine that with a TOS agreement that only allows you one simultaneous connection to the internet without paying additional per machine charges... Bam, your home NAT network becomes illegal.
BTW lots of TOS agreements do allow for more than one connection but others do not, even though the ISP may not enforce it today doesnt mean they cant turn on a dime later.
Caution is warranted here and this law should be stricken or rewritten ASAP. Remember the MPAA is the driving force behind some of this legislation, they may not be the evil empire but they will protect their interests at the cost of your civil rights if they can get away with it.
--
The difference between foresight and hindsight is only a matter of when you bother to think things through. | |
| | whiskeylick
join:2003-03-31
Palmyra, PA
| Re: One thing thats being missed Technically, even if you are using a router, you are still only getting one IP from your ISP, therefore, you aren't violating TOS. Furthermore, a router splits the bandwidth. So, it's not like you're getting any more than you are paying for. Look at is as a piece of pie. You can eat it yourself and get a lot... or you can share it with 3 of your closest friends/relatives and have a smaller slice.
As it was said before... If every single person in the world would need a unique IP address, we would be in a heap of trouble since I have heard we are reaching a shortage. So, banning routers would be the stupidest thing in the world to do in regards to the net. | |
| | 
GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
| From a review....
...of the Florida bill, it does appear to be mostly aimed at punishing those who steal service -- expanding the scope of any existing legislation to cover more types of communications services.
The only thing I see thus far is that I figure one could argue that if your cable ISP says to connect multiple systems, they require you purchase the additional IPs, then perhaps owning the NAT router may place you in violation of this bill if you are not paying them for your extra IPs (which of course you really don't "NEED").
Just a thought...
K.
--
"We can go from boom to bust, from dreams to a bowl of dust. We can fall from rockets red glare, down to 'Brother can you spare' -- another war -- another waste land -- and another lost generation. . ." | |
| |
T k
@dslx.net
 from:
yazdzik
KrK
| Re: From a review.... "...of the Florida bill, it does appear to be mostly aimed at punishing those who steal service -- expanding the scope of any existing legislation to cover more types of communications services."
I've gone over both versions of Florida bill. I've discussed the issues with the legislative staff assigned to review the bills. They really missed the boat, but now they're starting to get a clue.
Many.. Many.. Major legal flaws..
The big one.. is "(2)(a)no person shall knowingly, intercept, receive, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, or acquire access to any communications service offered by a cable operator, or any other communications service provider, or knowingly assist others in do so unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or other communications service provider, or as may otherwise be specifically authorized by law."
This clause pretty much wipes out twenty years of telco reform. Since NO communications service I have known, would place their terms in a written document and have it signed by a corporate officer (to be binding).
Likewise virtually all of them have an "we can change these term with no notice" clause. I've also yet to see any terms of service that spell out anything but negatives(can't do this, can't do that, etc). No clauses like.. You can use this service to.. hookup this.. We allow..
So, upon enactment everything in telecom, cable, sat becomes Illegal, until you specific permission otherwise. P.S. Better get that in writing!!
Oh, you'll need a lawyer on retainer if you want to plug that fax machine into the telco jack or install the answering machine which steals revenue from baby bell's voice mail services. The lawyer is needed to sift thru the millions of pages of regulations, tariffs, case law, administrative rulings just to prove you're not guilty.
So for discussion.. I've included some shortly to be illegal activities for your entertainment.
Let a neighbor use your cordless phone to place a call. Jail for both of you!
Add a cable splitter to hook up VCR.. Get your lawyer too start digging up the relevant regulations and case law.
Girlfriend used your internet connection, new abode for the both of you..(slammer)
Forget to make a payment.. You were receiving unauthorized service.. Jail time for you..
As you can see, the criminal scenarios are endless, and unpredictable.
It turns a number of civil actions into criminal behavior, determined by guess who? They are allowing unregulated services to make law. Customer today, felon tomorrow.
They also outlaw possession of communication devices if you're too smart. A new intelligence tax/law/whatever.
"(4)(a) Any person who intentionally possesses a communication device, knowing or having reason to know that the design os such device renders it primarily useful for the purpose of committing or assisting other in committing a violation of paragraph (2)(a) shall be guilty...blah..blah.."
If gets enacted in Florida, I intend to immediately sue the state on several grounds.
1st, Vague and unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.
2nd, Illegal taking of private property. Since I'm aware of dual use properties of all technology, Cable ready TV's.. splitters, vcrs, antennas, fax machines, modems, answering machines, cordless phones, etc. I will have to give up all teleco, and comm devices. A few million dollars should compensate me for my continuing losses. (I always needed an early retirement plan).
Oh, I also plan to inform the judge and his staff, that they too, will have to give up their telco and comm devices. As they will have been contaminated with dual use knowledge of modern technology. | |
| 
trparky
Bite My Shiny Metal Ass
Premium,MVM
join:2000-05-24
Cleveland, OH
clubs: | You can take my firewall.... You can take my firewall when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.
--
WedgeAntilles250 | |
| 
boomerbubba
join:2001-06-15
Austin, TX | If you lined up all the jerks in the world ... ... the first 10 of them would be state legislators.
--
A good lock will keep an honest man out. | |
| |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: If you lined up all the jerks in the world ... I dunno. Federal Legislators would probably be fighting them for position in line | |
| devicenull9
join:2003-01-20
Saint Charles, IL
| Well hurray for this gem I dont know why, but I find this amusing. Possibly because I pay no heed to this bullshit and even if it is passed in my state, I shall continue to ignore it's existence. The law proposed is bullshit, and because of this, it will probably be passed. Also, please note, that due to this "war" there is no longer any other news that makes the headlines anymore. Great cover for passing this kind of shit without any serious debate. I wonder how many more laws like this have to pass before people start realizing that they are no longer living in the America they were born into.
sooo... one more thing to add to my list of "why i am a terrorist" list.
1. Wifi networking
2. high-level encryption
3. sharpies (paraphanalia of 'economic terrorism')
4. a few boxcutters laying around from old jobs
5. firewall/NAT
and to the "im pretty sure they could break it" comment i read in this thread... you would be surprised at how weak the NSA is. anything that is 48-bit true encryption takes their server farms months to get through. (SSL-128 is not true encryption btw). once you get to 256-true, it is more or less impossible for them to break. They currently have a Distributed Computing program out for breaking RSA keys too. hasn't done much for them either. :P
much perceived power is only a mere illusion.... | |
| ParanoiaInc
join:2002-08-28
Tucker, GA | Sweet! This would mean that every LEC in their area would be put out of business.
Again, another fine example of the ignorant lawmakers making law on something they have no concept or understanding of. | |
| SoulStorm
Don'T Think, Drink
join:2003-01-27
Lincoln, NE | Last time I checked A firewall will only protect you computer from hackers. It will not hide your IP address. | |
| | |
FearlessFudd
@attbi.com | Egad! It looks like owning a radio receiver that can pick up non-broadcast bands is now illegal in Michigan, along with various types of KNOWLEDGE!
So which library books do they start burning and when? | |
| | | | |
|
|
·
Re: This is total crap
·
