|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
William Allen Simpson wrote: It outlaws all encryption, and all remailers.I'm missing where it outlaws these? In fact, it outlaws others (say your ISP) from decryping your encrypted data. It outlaws connecting any device "without the express authority of the telecommunications service provider". No NATs. No wireless.Not true. An ISP can choose to allow NAT and wireless or not allow it. This is the ISPs choice. The law is designed to protect the ISPs rights from existing technology so that the ISP can bill appropriately according to what service is being used. This does not mean that every ISP will not allow NAT. (Some DSL/cable companies try to charge per machine, and record the machine address of the devices connected.)And to use NAT to circumvent this should be illegal. It is theft of service. The ISP has the right to setup a business model and sell as it wishes. Technology has allowed ways to bypass or steal extra service. This law now protects the ISP. There will be some ISPs that continue to allow and support NAT. It outlaws configuring your ISDN to be a voice device, and then sending data over the device. Isn't ISDN regulated still? It outlaws configuring a wire pair purchased as a burglar alarm circuit, and then using it as DSL.The alarm circuit trick was getting caught onto and stopped as it was. It was only a matter of time before laws/regulations stopped this. It outlaws using Linux/*BSD for reading DVDs and a host of other things. How does it outlaw this? 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.Correct me if I'm wrong, but the DCMA(sp?) already performed this function. Circumventing copyright protection has always been deamed illegal and they are just now implementing laws to help protect it from technology. Heck, it is possible to read this Act to prohibit changing your operating system from M$ to Linux.It would be a far stretch, and I do not feel that it would hold up in court as applying. One thing to note, a telecommunications service provider is defined in such a way that anyone running a network is included. This means that running a business or home network protects your network. If in the nature of security, you have encrypted tunnels to other offices, those tunnels are protected from decryption by this Act. It is also important to note that NAT and tunnelling does not hide the source and destination in such scenario's, as the NAT IP is the correct customer and the network behind that is the Service Provider that owns that network. HOWEVER, it does make the abuse of an open proxy illegal. I will conceed that the Act is poorly written and is subject to abuse. It should have been worded more clearly concerning interconnected networks and jurisdiction. The definitions shouldn't have any ambiguity to them. The act also presumes that the service provider has declared specifically what can and cannot be done with the service. As most existing contracts show that this is not the case, there is room for the service providers to abuse this Act in their favor. Jack Bates Network Engineer BrightNet Oklahoma
|