Use a Firewall, Go to Jail

[DigitalSteel]

Use a Firewall, Go to Jail

Quote:

The states of Massachusetts and Texas are preparing to consider bills that apparently are intended to extend the national Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (TX bill; MA bill) The bills are obviously related to each other somehow, since they are textually similar.

Here is one example of the far-reaching harmful effects of these bills. Both bills would flatly ban the possession, sale, or use of technologies that "conceal from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication". Your ISP is a communication service provider, so anything that concealed the origin or destination of any communication from your ISP would be illegal -- with no exceptions.

If you send or receive your email via an encrypted connection, you're in violation, because the "To" and "From" lines of the emails are concealed from your ISP by encryption. (The encryption conceals the destinations of outgoing messages, and the sources of incoming messages.)

Worse yet, Network Address Translation (NAT), a technology widely used for enterprise security, operates by translating the "from" and "to" fields of Internet packets, thereby concealing the source or destination of each packet, and hence violating these bills. Most security "firewalls" use NAT, so if you use a firewall, you're in violation.

If you have a home DSL router, or if you use the "Internet Connection Sharing" feature of your favorite operating system product, you're in violation because these connection sharing technologies use NAT. Most operating system products (including every version of Windows introduced in the last five years, and virtually all versions of Linux) would also apparently be banned, because they support connection sharing via NAT.

And this is just one example of the problems with these bills. Yikes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

MPAA Lobbying for State Super-DMCA Bills
The MPAA has reportedly been lobbying in favor of the overreaching state super-DMCA bills I discussed yesterday. Apparently, the MPAA has been circulating this one-pager (see below) in support of the bills.

The one-pager refers to "proposed model state legislation", which explains the similarities between the various states' bills. But it doesn't say who is circulating the model legislative language. Anybody care to guess?

As a professor, I couldn't help but notice that I had seen documents like this before. The characteristics are familiar: the large space-filling font; the overlong introduction repeating obvious generalities (e.g., copyright infringement is bad); the circular arguments (e.g., the need "to make illegal the manufacture and use of unlawful ... devices"); and the lack of any specific reference to the text supposedly under discussion. It looks suspiciously like an essay turned in by a student who didn't do the reading.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


One pager that MPAA is circulating to get more companies and states involved in this proposed bill...

/hxxp://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/doc/2003/mpaa_27mar.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------

States already on the list or have already passed the law !


Alaska ----- Earlier report that bill may exist is probably erroneous.

Arkansas ----- HB 2361; sponsored by Reps. Wood, Adams, and Scroggin; text available; scheduled for consideration by House on April 1.

Colorado ----- HB 03-1303, sponsored by Crane (House) and Lamborn (Senate); text of bill available; already passed by House; bill reportedly withdrawn by sponsors for revision.

Delaware ----- Related bill passed into law in 2001; text available.

Florida ----- SB 1078; text and information available; currently in committee

Georgia ----- HB 867; sponsored by Gulick and Boggs; text available; bill currently in House.

Illinois ----- Passed into law in 2002; text available

Massachusetts ----- HB 2743; text available (updated April 1); current status available; will have a public hearing on April 2.

Maryland ----- Related bill passed into law in 2001; text of law available.

Michigan ----- Already passed into law; took effect March 31. Text of new laws: 1; 2; 3.

Oregon ----- Related bill exists, without "conceal place of origin or destination" language: SB 655; sponsored by Rep. Starr; text available.

Pennsylvania ----- Passed into law in 2000; text available.

South Carolina ----- "Theft of Communication Services Act"; text of bill available; status unknown.

Tennessee ----- SB 213 in Senate; sponsored by Person & Curtis; text available. HB 457 in House; sponsored by Briley; text available. Both bills in Senate Judiciary Committee.

Texas ----- SB 1116; sponsored by Sen. Tommy Williams; status and text available; in Criminal Justice Committee; no hearing scheduled.
HB 2121; sponsored by Rep. Ron Wilson; status and text available; in Regulated Industries Committee; no hearing scheduled.

Virginia ----- Related (though narrower) bill passed into law in 2002; text available.

Wyoming ----- Passed into law at unknown date; text available.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

In Oregon, where I live, they are proposing up to 10 years imprisonment and/or $200,000 fine

if you think its fake read the following links below

spread the word

Quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cnet.com/software/0-8888-8-20890031-1.html

http://thewhir.com/marketwatch/fir033103.cfm

http://www.articlecentral.com/story.asp?recordid=227

http://news.com.com/2100-1023-216521.html?legacy=cnet

http://www3.warblogging.com/archives/000407.php

http://joi.ito.com/archives/cat_us_p..._politics.html

http://solonor.com/blogger.html

http://www.isportal.com/thisweek.htm

http://www.dslreports.com/?cat=privacy
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Zynn @ xcessfourall

[Jessica]

[rikytik]

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.

[belthazor]

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

[Zone-MR]

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.

[rikytik]

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.

[rikytik]

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?

[Jessica]

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

[rikytik]

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]

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/lewis.html