Use a Firewall, Go to Jail


if you think its fake read the following links below

spread the word



Zynn @ xcessfourall

:(

http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/states/ is a good place to start.

I think we need to read the legislation and figure out what it is really saying.

Pretty scarey stuff. I see no mention of New York so far. ;)

If you can find the original text it would be useful. The way I see it, saying the law is targeted only at internet perverts is an excuse for whoever passed the law to win public support.

The only way to fight against illegal activity on the internet be it child pornography, perverts, copyright infringment, whatever is to ban people from using technology which can withhold their identity - exactly what this law is trying to do.

The internet is currently an environment which thrives with free speech. Anyone, anywhere can set up a site, voice an oppinion, and with a few simple steps they can ensure their privacy and annonimity so they will not be persecuted for speaking out what they believe in. It is a huge democracy, and a truly free realm of communication. Of course freedom of speech combined with annonimity has its potential for abuse. But I will NEVER support a law which forces users to reveal their identities in communications they make. Public support for the law may be easy to win "itll get rid of child pornography, and if you have nothing to hide why should you care?". However laws effectively requiring you to sign and be responsible for every piece of information you transmit have HUGE implications on the freedom of our society. The right to annonymity is a fundamental basis of free speech - this law makes annonymity illegal.

Taking a look at the Michigan legislation, and then looking at what happens with communications: Sending e-mail through a router doesn't alter the addresses, either of the adressee, nor of the sender. So, that isn't what they're after.

I don't think a NAT changes anything as far as the ability of law enforcement people to track you down. Afterall, your ISP assigned IP is still visible to any tracking device.

I've scanned some of the legislation just now, and it's full of boiler plate all encompasing cell phone usage theft, all sorts of data theft. Pretty boring reading, but I think before we panic we need to find a summary of this sutff. Reading it is going to put me to sleep for sure.

The links to the available docs are here: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/states

Or you can read the Michigan law, put in effect March 31st Here. Just hit the printer friendly version and you can print out the whole thing to read at your leisure http://www.michiganlegislature.org/m...0-219a-amended

Yawns-ville for sure.

Huh? Nobody reading the legislation? I'm disappointed. This is good stuff. Lets get some ideas going. Do we forget this, or do we start writing to our congressmen?

Personally I think it hasn't anything to do with routers and internet sharing. What do you think?

i gave this to a friend who's studying law...
and....he'll see what its all about..
but he said..if u really wanna be scared
to read the Patriot Act part Deux

In other words, fear GWB's right wing buddies, if you don't have a heavy duty corporate guy in your corner--watch out.

Jessica, I'm of two minds about this kind of stuff. I was living in France when the government insisted on retaining 40 bit encryption and prohibited importing Internet Explorer with 56 bit or more encryption, not to talk about PGP or other encryption programs. The idea was that the government wished to maintain its ability to monitor terrorist activity. Along about 1999 the government finally gave up and approved 128 bit encryption, figuring that the volume of data going over the internet defied monitoring. In those days you couldn't download 128 bit encyption program from the US if you came in over a French ISP.

I guess I don't mind if big brother monitors to catch bad guys. What this thread started out with was the idea that a router could be illegal. ...or that connection sharing could be illegal. Personally I don't think so. An IP is an IP, even if it is translated behind a router to an internal IP such as 192.168.1.1, the default for LinkSys routers.

The ISP assigned IP is still defined and specific, traceable to the subscriber. I dont' know of anyone who disguises his e-mail address tho I guess a lot of us would like to, given the high volume of porno and pharmacy spam.

That said, there are some disconcerting things going on in DC, I hope the US voters will wise up next time around.

i'm not trying to change the subject...or anything like that.
but what the patriot act 2 does, is ..the govn't well now be able to hold anybody indefinately if suspicion..and also revoke someones US citizenship...along w/ a bunch of other stuff.

like you, i had no problems w/ patriot act 1...when it was more along the lines of badguys....but now its getting closer to being able to target ANYONE.

but alas...thats for another thread.


i think the router stuff of this particular topic is bad too...since i use one.

Monitoring a public network is one thing. In fact, I believe anyone with the technology should be allowed to sniff the network all they want - its a public network and I dont believe in forbidden knowledge. If data passes through your computer, or a system you have control over, then you can do what you want with it. If people want to communicate privatly and securely they should use a form of encryption to defeat snooping - now here is the problem. This law has a huge potential for abuse, it is essentially outlawing annonymity. It is FORCING people to stop using ANY techniques that would hide the source or destination of communication from ISPs. That is just plain and simply wrong in a so called "free country". Its saying "you can be secure, but not secure enough so we cant spy on you". Similar to the encryption fiasco you mentioned.

Yes and no. I think thats an example of potential abuse. Whilst the source and destination IP is still known, you are hiding the computer the traffic is coming from. I know it may seem ridiculous, but lawyers could argue NAT does violate this law. For home computers it probably doesnt matter much. If a crime is commited - they know a member of the household is responsible, and with a little investigation they can probably find out WHICH member to punish. But what happens if you share your internet connection with your next door neighbours? If they cant prove who commited a crime (and they cant convict both you and your neighbour), they might abuse the law and say you set up a system which masks the true source of communication. What if a company wishes to give free wireless access in their area - something that is becoming increasingly popular and promising. The law could make it illegal as they can no longer keep an eye on who is doing what. What about coorporate NATs or proxies? Connecting via a proxy could be deemed as illegal as it again masks the source/destination of your traffic. The scope for abuse is extremely high. Then I think VPNs were mentioned. If you set up a VPN link to your office, they can no longer track where you are connecting to from there - again this law could be abused.

The way I see it, this law does NOTHING except outlaw annonimity. The government cant snoop on 128 bit encrypted links easilly, so instead they make it illegal to make any connections that mask the destination address from your ISP. Its sole purpose is to make government snooping easier. And I am NOT going to act ignorant and say I dont care about the right to annonimity as im not doing anything illegal. Annonimity is a fundamental RIGHT, something I am not going to allow to be taken away from me without putting up a damn good fight.

My reflex is to say that perhaps anonymity is less the issue than the right to privacy. I guess what has pushed this thing into the light is the tremendous pressure by various industry groups whose products are being compromised by electronic theft. Add to that concerns about terrorism and the porno trade that has flourished, seemingly without moral concience.

Seems to me we've got an evolutionary problem here. The corpsorate lobbies in DC are strong, well financed and "connected". How does the private user find a voice and lobby forum other than letters to his congressman?

^ PAC

Political Action Commitee.

if this passes microsoft's security won't look so bad anymore.... everything will be so insecure i'd almost refuse to use the internet from a computer that had personal info on it

I'm a very open person, but I believe that people should have the right to say what ever the "f@ck" :D they want. Seriously though, this may hurt everyone in the long run.

###I can never understand why people just can't respect others, you don't have to like them, nor KNOW them, but at least respect them.. Gessh....###