[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[FYI] (Fwd) FC: An analysis of Michigan and Colorado "mini-DMCA" bills
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Date sent: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:02:12 -0500
To: politech@politechbot.com
From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: FC: An analysis of Michigan and Colorado "mini-DMCA" bills
Send reply to: declan@well.com
Previous Politech message:
http://www.politechbot.com/p-04602.html
---
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 09:32:21 -0500
From: Michael Powe <michael@trollope.org>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: mini-DMCA
section 1b unambiguously makes vpns and some sorts of connection
encryption software illegal. anonymous remailers are now illegal in
michigan. it may even affect ssl connections.
section 1c makes wardriving illegal, along with making connections to
open wireless networks.
section 1c.2 makes illegal installing vpn software &c.
note that this wording is different from that of other bills mentioned
earlier. other bills made the distinction that the 'concealment' had
to be tied to attempts to defraud the service provider. this bill
does not make that distinction.
mp
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mc
l-750-540c-amended
***** 750.540c.amended THIS AMENDED SECTION IS EFFECTIVE MARCH 31,
2003 *****
750.540c.amended Prohibited conduct with regard to telecommunications
access device; violation as felony; penalty; amateur radio service;
forfeiture; order; definitions. Sec. 540c.
(1) A person shall not assemble, develop, manufacture, possess,
deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise an unlawful telecommunications
access device or assemble, develop, manufacture, possess, deliver,
offer to deliver, or advertise a telecommunications device intending
to use those devices or to allow the devices to be used to do any of
the following or knowing or having reason to know that the devices are
intended to be used to do any of the following:
(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.
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any
telecommunications service.
(c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire,
intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption,
transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any
telecommunications service without the express authority or actual
consent of the telecommunications service provider.
(2) A person shall not modify, alter, program, or reprogram a
telecommunications access device for the purposes described in
subsection (1).
(3) A person shall not deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise plans,
written instructions, or materials for the manufacture, assembly, or
development of an unlawful telecommunications access device or for the
manufacture, assembly, or development of a telecommunications access
device that the person intends to be used or knows or has reason to
know will be used or is likely to be used to violate subsection (1).
As used in this subsection, "materials" includes any hardware, cables,
tools, data, computer software, or other information or equipment used
or intended for use in the manufacture, assembly, or development of an
unlawful telecommunications access device or a telecommunications
access device.
--
Michael Powe Waterbury, CT USA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"It stands to reason that self-righteous, inflexible, single-minded,
authoritarian true believers are politically organized. Open-minded,
flexible, complex, ambiguous, anti-authoritarian people would just as
soon be left to mind their own fucking business." - R.U. Sirius
---
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 11:12:42 -0700
From: Chris May <chris@westernet.net>
To: declan@well.com
Subject: Re: FC: State "mini-DMCA" bills raise alarums
Declan, thanks for the alert. I sent the following to my
representative:
Honorable Representative Mark Larson
Colorado House of Representatives
Dear Mark,
I've recently been made aware of the following bill, and think you may
want to consider the effects of a "law of unintended consequence". I
quote directly the paragraphs I'm concerned about:
http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/inetcbill.nsf/fsbillcont/A2F0DA113DF2
BFC087256CC2006BFB94?Open&file=1303_ren.pdf
---------------------------
SECTION 2. 18-9-309, Colorado Revised Statutes, is amended to read:
--- (2) A person commits a --- VIOLATION UNDER THIS SECTION if he or
she knowingly:
(a) --- POSSESSES, USES, MANUFACTURES, DEVELOPS, ASSEMBLES,
DISTRIBUTES, TRANSFERS, IMPORTS INTO THIS STATE, LICENSES, LEASES,
SELLS, OFFERS TO SELL, PROMOTES, OR ADVERTISES FOR SALE, USE, OR
DISTRIBUTION ANY COMMUNICATION DEVICE: --- (IV) TO CONCEAL OR TO
ASSIST ANOTHER TO CONCEAL FROM ANY COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER, OR
FROM ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY, THE EXISTENCE OR PLACE OF ORIGIN OR
DESTINATION OF ANY COMMUNICATION THAT UTILIZES A COMMUNICATION DEVICE;
-----------------------------
Now for my comments:
This bill bans the possession, sale, or use of (or assisting others to
use) technologies that "conceal from a communication service provider
... the existence or place of origin or destination of any
communication". An ISP is a communication service provider, so
anything that concealed the origin or destination of any communication
from an ISP would be illegal -- with no exceptions. Magnificent
simplicity, but let's put it in perspective.
If you send or receive your email via an encrypted connection, it's a
violation, because the "To" and "From" lines of the emails are
concealed from the ISP by encryption. (The encryption conceals the
destinations of outgoing messages, and the sources of incoming
messages.) I should point out that in cable modem, satellite and
wireless systems, all communications are fully encrypted while
travelling on that medium, and for good reason: it protects from
tampering or observing. On the net, the same happens when you engage
in a financial transaction, such as with Amazon or your bank.
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
firewalls use NAT, so if you use a firewall, you're clearly in
violation. Another method is Proxy, and it has the same effect: all
packets from users behind the Proxy Server have the address of the
Proxy Server while transiting the net. This bill would make networks
more vulnerable by removing these very important and universally used
security tools.
Companies such as banks and larger corporations also use VPN, Virtual
Private Networking, to connect remote offices to the company network,
using a "tunnel"
through the net in which all traffic is completely hidden by
encryption. Again, this is a clear violation under this bill, yet
their intent is simple: to preserve the integrity and security of
their own data while it is passing through a public medium.
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 Unix)
would also apparently be banned, because they support connection
sharing via NAT. Many home users use this technique to allow the
family to share a single connection, be it high speed or standard.
The purpose is to lower their connection costs, and we are fully
supportive of this.
How prevalent are these techniques? Let me speak from experience. As
you may remember, we were the first to offer cable modem service in
the state, some four years ago. That by itself would make us the most
egregious violator, so I guess I'm offering myself up for the first
prosecution. ;-^)
It's my experience that 50% of my customers use the sharing feature at
home, since it allows each child to have his own computer and use it
simultaneously. 100% of businesses, government offices, schools and
nonprofits use either NAT or share.
On our cable modem network, all transmissions are thoroughly
encrypted. We are thus guilty for 100% of our users, since that is
how our architecture works.
Additionally, our customers fall into two classes: Firewalled or
Dedicated IP. Most prefer the security offered by our firewall, so we
are guilty again for each of them. Those who have Dedicated IP all
have firewalls to protect from malicious users, but since they operate
them themselves, you will have to slam them for that. Of course, I am
guilty of sending them to companies that provide firewalls, such as
ZoneAlarm ( http://www.zonelabs.com/ ) and Tiny (
http://www.tinysoftware.com/home/tiny2?la=EN ) You may see a scope of
the offerings at
http://www.spirit.com/cgi-new/report.pl?dbase=fw&function=view I guess
I just racked up another count for "(II) KNOWINGLY ASSISTING OTHERS IN
SUCH ACTIVITY.", namely, by giving you this dangerous information.
Less than 10% of our users use VPN, but they account for a significant
portion of our traffic. Since the responsible parties are corporate
executives around the state and nation, I hope you will attach a rider
to this bill funding resort prisons with decent golf and other
facilities.
For myself, all I ask in my prison cell is good TV, preferably from a
locally owned cable TV system, and a high speed data connection on a
secure network. Oops, I guess that will be impossible!
If I can help in any way, please feel free to contact me.
Chris May
Rural Route Video & Westernet
POB 640
Ignacio CO 81137-0640
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- POLITECH evening reception in New York City at 7 pm, April 1, 2003
at CFP: http://www.politechbot.com/events/cfp2003/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing
list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this
notice. To subscribe to Politech:
http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is
archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs
are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ Like Politech? Make a donation here:
http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
------- End of forwarded message -------
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: debate-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: debate-help@lists.fitug.de