State Super-DMCA Too True

Sun Mar 30 05:22:11 UTC 2003

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. 
> 
> (Most folks around here are willing to settle for 56Kbps + 56Kbps -- 
> fixed fee -- instead of 64Kbps + 64Kbps -- per minute.)
> 

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