|
ru.linux
- RU.LINUX ---------------------------------------------------------------------
From : Svyatoslav Abramenkov 2:464/8088.100 22 Apr 2003 10:53:39
To : All
Subject : Illegal to use a router?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Forwarded by Svyatoslav Abramenkov (2:464/8088.100)
* Area : LINUX
* From : Roy J Tellason, 1:270/615 (18 Apr 03 12:06:18)
* To : Paul Rogers
* Subj : Illegal to use a router?
=============================================================================
Paul Rogers wrote in a message to All:
PR> Damn, it went out in the trash this morning so I can't quote, but I
PR> saw an article in the trade press that eight states are considering
PR> passing a law that makes it illegal to use a communications device
PR> that hides the source of a communication. Sounds like a
PR> router/firewall qualifies!
It's worse than that. Extracted from Risks Digest 22.66:
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 15:36:25 -0500
From: Monty Solomon <monty@roscom.com>
Subject: Use a Firewall, Go to Jail
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000336.html
March 26, 2003
Ed Felten, Use a Firewall, Go to Jail
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 e-mail via an encrypted connection, you're in
violation, because the "To" and "From" lines of the e-mails 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.
UPDATE (6:35 PM): It's worse than I thought. Similar bills are on the table in
South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alaska, Tennessee, and Colorado.
UPDATE (March 28, 9:00 AM): Clarified the paragraph above about encrypted
e-mail, to eliminate an ambiguity.
Posted by Edward W. Felten
[Moderator's note: This item is NO JOKE, despite the date of this issue.
Check out the thread that is occurring subsequent to Ed Felten's message:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000336.html
as well as the next two messages in this issue, from Steve Bellovin and
William Allen Simpson. PGN]
--
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:08:42 -0500
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
Subject: Re: Use a Firewall, Go to Jail
After reading the full text of the Texas bill
(http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/data/docmodel/78r/billtext/pdf/HB02121I.PDF),
I think it may be even worse than Felten portrays it.
First, a number of people have claimed that the bill isn't a problem, since it
only applies if you intend to harm or defraud an ISP. I don't think that
that's the case.
Section 2 of the bill, which does contain the phrase "with the intent to harm
or defraud a communication service", bars theft of service. (I'm speaking
loosely here; read it for yourself.)
Section 4 also contains that phrase; it bars possession of devices for
defrauding providers. (The language is very broad, and seems to bar possession
even a computer or modem if you have evil intent.)
The ban on concealing origin or destination is in Section 6.
That section does *not* have the "intent to harm" phrase. Given that the bill
is amending three consecutive sections of the state penal code (31.12, 31.13,
and 31.14), and given that the first two sections have that language but the
third doesn't, it's hard for me to conclude that evil intent is required by the
proposed statute.
But it's worse than that: the bill bars concealment of "existence or place of
origin or destination of any communication" from "any lawful authority". In
other words, it would appear to outlaw many forms of cryptography or
steganography, or anonymous remailers. (As an aside, I would note that the
constitutional justification for easy law enforcement access to source and
destination address information via the pen register statute is flimsy at best
-- see my analysis at
http://www.research.att.com/~smb/talks/Wiretaps/index.htm)
Even Web proxy servers and the Ethernet connectivity from many hotels would be
covered by this bill -- they obscure the origin, too.
What's unclear to me is who is behind this. Felten implies it's content
providers trying for a state-level DMCA; I think it's broadband ISPs who are
afraid of 802.11 hotspots. In fact, if the "intent to cause harm" phrase were
added to that section, it would clearly criminalize behavior that some ISPs are
trying to ban today via their terms of service.
Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb http://www.wilyhacker.com
--
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:53:32 -0500
From: William Allen Simpson <wsimpson@greendragon.com>
Subject: State Super-DMCA too true (from NANOG)
[Courtesy of Steve Bellovin. PGN]
Declan McCullagh sent out an e-mail this morning, referencing his full report
at: http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994667.html
I was shocked to see that Michigan has *already* passed such a law! (Also
Virginia, Delaware, and Illinois.)
I've found the new law(s), and they basically outlaw my living in Michigan
starting March 31st (this Monday, two days from now):
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/printDocument.asp
?objName=mcl-750-219a-amended&version=txt
http://www.michiganlegislature.org/printDocument.asp
?objName=mcl-750-540c-amended&version=txt
The Bill analysis basically quotes the MPAA website!
http://michiganlegislature.org/documents/2001-2002/
billanalysis/house/htm/2001-HLA-6079-b.htm
It outlaws all encryption, and all remailers.
It outlaws connecting any device "without the express authority of the
telecommunications service provider". No NATs. No wireless.
(Some DSL/cable companies try to charge per machine, and record the machine
address of the devices connected.)
It outlaws configuring your ISDN to be a voice device, and then sending data
over the device.
(Most folks around here are willing to settle for 56Kbps + 56Kbps -- fixed fee
-- instead of 64Kbps + 64Kbps -- per minute.)
It outlaws configuring a wire pair purchased as a burglar alarm circuit, and
then using it as DSL.
It outlaws using Linux/*BSD for reading DVDs and a host of other things.
Also, "reprogramming" a device (and software and computer chips are explicitly
included) "that is capable of facilitating the interception, transmission,
retransmission, decryption, acquisition, or reception of any
telecommunications, transmissions, signals, or services" would seem to prohibit
mod'ing of M$ Xboxen.
Heck, it is possible to read this Act to prohibit changing your operating
system from M$ to Linux.
This was passed in a lame duck session (December 11, 2002) as part of a big
omnibus crime act that covered everything from "adulteration of butter and
cream", to "trick or acrobatic flying" to "false weights and measures", mostly
increasing fines and/or jail for existing offenses. Michigan is a leader in
overcrowding its prisons.
There was other lame duck legislation passed, before a new Governor took
office, almost all of it bad for civil liberties!
William Allen Simpson
(End excerpt)
That should give you some info to go on...
-+-
+ Origin: TANSTAAFL BBS 717-838-8539 (1:270/615)
=============================================================================
Hello, All!
--
Svyatoslav <absolute_sh@mail.ru>
[Registered Linux user #219421]
--- QDed/Linux
* Origin: AbSolute Soft&Hard (2:464/8088.100)
Вернуться к списку тем, сортированных по: возрастание даты уменьшение даты тема автор
|
