State Super-DMCA Laws Make Firewalls & Anonymity Illegal

Gamers can also use this forum to chat about any game related subject, news, rumours etc.

Moderator: maddog986

Post Reply
User avatar
Veldor
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:32 am
Location: King's Landing

State Super-DMCA Laws Make Firewalls & Anonymity Illegal

Post by Veldor »

If you live in Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania or Wyoming, your state has recently passed into law a bill you should be aware of. More states will follow suit soon.

While I will not argue the new electronic laws are flawed, perhaps even highly, it is with the best of intentions I believe they have been put into effect.

What do the new laws due? Well the most talked about and disputed part is that they make it illegal to develop, program, sell, own, etc. any software program or hardware device that lets you obscure where a particular communication came from or was destined to. As well as spelling out some other more obvious things for people who already know what they are doing is illegal (like downloading Pirated software, movies, MP3's etc.)

Now what could be bad about the above? Well, included in that list would be "legitimate" hardware such as firewalls and other Network Address Translation devices, software and so forth.

Basically its simply a re-affirmation that ISP's, Corporations, or basically anyone else is required to LOG everything so that under a court issued subpeona, the source and destination of every single communication can be determined as well as in many cases its content.

Anonymity software devices and software are the software equilevant of "money laundering" and ISP's and Newgroup services are the software equivelant of "drug smugglers". Since abuse is so rampant the US in any case has finally decided to do something about it.

The laws are purposefully broad in power to allow easier prosecution. combined with existing laws this could be devastating at first to some companies that continue to provide such devices and services, and in time, those who use them..

Looks like the free ride won't be around forever... Imagine a world where we have to pay for our computer games, music and movies again....

----

A pretty good website that sumarizes the laws follows:

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/superdmca.html
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Posts: 3943
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am

Post by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 »

Two thumbs up, I suppose Canada will be right in there when the US figures it out.

Yeah I know Big Brother this and Big Brother that. I say take that bunk and file it where I put Area 51 stupidity.

I have a buddy that doesn't pay for his bandwidth, know why, cause he knows how.
I pay for my bandwidth, and it costs me 45 bucks a month. Doesn't bother me either.

Doesn't bother me if people know where I go online either. Hell all my friends no I like schoolgirls from Japan, so why should I care if the government does. What are they going to do, tell my friends?

I remember the good ole days walking into the games store, seeing a new game, and frantically calculating how to buy it. I bought the ASL system that way, along with quite a lot of other wargames. Its not like you have to be rich, just responsible with your cash.

I have several computer programs I didn't spend any effort to get, but then I didn't have to. I would still be able to get them if I had no choice but the way I bought all my wargames.
But you won't see me out there crying the blues if P2P becomes defacto non viable.

The only reason I need a firewall, is to protect me from jerks that currently can send me a virus and not be traced. So you can bet I won't mind seeing some jerk clever nerdy anti social scum bag get squashed.
Crack files, oh yeah people will still try to outwit the system to be sure. But I won't be on the front lines defending my right to use no cd cracks. Come to think of it I don't need no cd cracks.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

Post by Charles2222 »

This reminds me of the gun control argument. All you do is make the people defenseless, while the thieves roam around freely. No hacker etc. is going to let his protection devises down. The crooks don't worry about the illegality of pirating, so why should they worry about the alleged illegality of protection software? It just opens up the door for the government to further take away the rights of the common man. The rich can afford to hire bodyguards for defending themselves from armed crooks (or get off by having enough money for a shrewd enough lawyer), and they can also buy another computer or some such at the drop of a hat should they be infiltrated. Do they really think they will have pirates stopped in the least? I ponder whether this sort of illegal law wouldn't encourage just more illegality, including possibly those jumping onto piracy who had not before. When the common man cannot defend himself from harm, there's bound to be trouble soon.

I do find this a bit of a double standard though. What they're telling me, is that the big money people can protect themselves while I cannot. What if I'm writing a program or book on my computer? They're now saying I have no right to protect myself from such things, copyrighted or not, from being stolen due to lack of protective software. Sounds like a panacea for expensive corporations who've ran out of original ideas to have perpetual tap into enterpenuers.
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Posts: 3943
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am

Post by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 »

Charles you are terminally Texan hehe. Don't worry some of my best friends are from Texas.

Up here in Canada, where the right to bear arms is not some looney permission to carry a gun, I live in peace and don't have a paranoid fear of the "government".

That also applies to the government doing it's best to make life a pain for illegal online activities. I don't feel threatened.

Like mom always said, if you are innocent, what do you have to fear? I tend to think mom was usually right more than she was wrong.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

Post by Charles2222 »

Les the Sarge 9-1:
Doesn't bother me if people know where I go online either. Hell all my friends no I like schoolgirls from Japan, so why should I care if the government does. What are they going to do, tell my friends?
No. Their motive isn't to 'embarass' for such activities, it's to 'imprison'. I know a guy at work who was hauled off to jail in handcuffs for getting into kiddy porn. I'm sketchy on the details, but I think he was using the company computers for some of his stash, as well as I think the real problem may had stemmed from some contact he had with a minor, be that email or chat, and actually met up with them.
Like mom always said, if you are innocent, what do you have to fear? I tend to think mom was usually right more than she was wrong.
I always like that silly argument but my mom never said it; a government commie mom sure, but not mine. It infers, probably from either the thieves or the ones gullible enough to think nobody will ever steal from them, that you're guilty of some illegality because you don't make your every possession unprotected. And to think....people lock the doors to their home every night. Those hiders of their crimes!!!
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Posts: 3943
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am

Post by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 »

No. Their motive isn't to 'embarass' for such activities, it's to 'imprison'. I know a guy at work who was hauled off to jail in handcuffs for getting into kiddy porn. I'm sketchy on the details, but I think he was using the company computers for some of his stash, as well as I think the real problem may had stemmed from some contact he had with a minor, be that email or chat, and actually met up with them.


Well I suppose it comes down to this, I suppose, a female is no longer a child when she becomes a woman (I am talking bilogically, not socially).
I find people that get off on kids a bit wierd myself though), but to me a child is a person not yet sexually developed.
That might be at odds with the current popular social thinking, but then I have little interest in "current popular social thinking".

But as you said,

I'm sketchy on the details, but I think he was using the company computers for some of his stash, as well as I think the real problem may had stemmed from some contact he had with a minor, be that email or chat, and actually met up with them.

Actually meeting an under 18 year old female (whether or not mother nature calls her a woman at 14) is the actions of an idiot. So I think it is way more than him "looking" at pics, which I think most will agree are usually of bogus "teens". He likely was arrested for actions any sane person would not have indulged.

As for the locking the door comment though, I don't lock it to keep out the police, just the crooks. A locked door doesn't imply you have something to hide.
Heck the fact is everyone has something to hide, its called personal property. And I am not worried about the establishment taking my personal property, only the criminal element.

You have to guard against to willingly buying it to the paranoia Charles. No one is out to get you, accept maybe a thief, but if you leave your front door open, you likely have need of re thinking that.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
User avatar
Veldor
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:32 am
Location: King's Landing

Post by Veldor »

Originally posted by Charles_22

I do find this a bit of a double standard though. What they're telling me, is that the big money people can protect themselves while I cannot. What if I'm writing a program or book on my computer? They're now saying I have no right to protect myself from such things, copyrighted or not, from being stolen due to lack of protective software. Sounds like a panacea for expensive corporations who've ran out of original ideas to have perpetual tap into enterpenuers.


The bulk of the law is legit, it simply needs to be a bit more specific in regards to some items. For instance, it is not practical for you as a home user to keep sophisticated logs from your firewall, nor do you really need to as long as the device does not in anyway tamper with your publicly assigned IP address (the allocation of which is or should be logged by your ISP) and traces a communication back to your home, not necessarily which individual home pc (you are responsible for all of them anyway and if you share with a neighbor you are already stupid). This already today allows most things to be traced back to you accept for all the proxies, anonymity software and etc which is what would really be illegal for you to use. Corporations and ISP's and firewalls are different. In order to use them they would have to keep sophisticated and details logs so that under court subpeona they could provide the source and destination info. If you have logs you are not actually providing any anonymity or "true" masking of source and destination thus you TECHNICALLY are not violating the new laws. The problem is that these facts just are not made clear enough in the law (LAWS need to be exact and list all exceptions) but the intent is just and correct.
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

Post by Charles2222 »

Les the Sarge 9-1:
Actually meeting an under 18 year old female (whether or not mother nature calls her a woman at 14) is the actions of an idiot. So I think it is way more than him "looking" at pics, which I think most will agree are usually of bogus "teens". He likely was arrested for actions any sane person would not have indulged.
That may be true, but I emphasize the 'looking' aspect, because from what I've heard that's just as guilty a prison charge as the doing, it's just that the doing is probably a steeper charge.
As for the locking the door comment though, I don't lock it to keep out the police, just the crooks. A locked door doesn't imply you have something to hide.
Heck the fact is everyone has something to hide, its called personal property. And I am not worried about the establishment taking my personal property, only the criminal element.

You have to guard against to willingly buying it to the paranoia Charles. No one is out to get you, accept maybe a thief, but if you leave your front door open, you likely have need of re thinking that.
If you didn't get it already, that was my entire point. The "you must be hiding something" mentality also strips you of your right to be protected from those intent on evil. You make firewalls illegal, then just how am I protected from such persons then? Anonymity software, which I don't have, and it's banning "might" be understandable, but NOT banning firewalls.
User avatar
Jim1954
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 8:31 pm
Location: Dallas

Post by Jim1954 »

Consider for a moment, if you will, the case of that large corporation being a bank and all of the data that might be compromised that directly affects you, and your financial future.

With no way to firewall and keep the baddies out, a lot of them would flat bail out of doing business online because of the nature of the info they protect.
Image
Jim1954
KMC/T
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Posts: 3943
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am

Post by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 »

Ok must have mangled that detail originally.

I don't see the purpose to taking firewalls from me. Might as well tell me it's illegal to have a lock on the door under that line of thinking.

Taken to extreme anything that protects me is illegal. So hmmm I guess auto insurance should go. After all it is protecting me correct?

Taken to idiotic levels, maybe I should be allowed to walk around naked. After all if I have nothing on, I am unable to conceal anything at all.

I don't routinely have my firewall on actually. My computer guru buddy has told me it is usually easier to just format a system acting odd.

I actually format the computer about every 6 months even if it doesn't need it. Makes me busy for a couple of days though. But aside from getting more skilled at installing windows, it hasn't hurt me for doing it.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
User avatar
Charles2222
Posts: 3687
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2001 10:00 am

Post by Charles2222 »

Les the Srage 9-1:
Taken to extreme anything that protects me is illegal. So hmmm I guess auto insurance should go. After all it is protecting me correct?
No, the idea is to take liberties away from you. I would never consider insurance a liberty, but in many cases more of a chain. As to the wearing of clothing being protective, no, because with the mindset we're talking about here, the idea is to take from you what is valuable to them, and deprive you of what they can get, therefore, for you to be naked would be more burdensome to their eyesight than to the satisfaction of denying you another basic or non-basic need.

Jim1954: I'm imagining that corporations are immune to it, afterall, who do you think are the ones complaining about piracy? And surely, even if this were strictly a government source driving this, they will not be banned from using them.
User avatar
Jim1954
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 8:31 pm
Location: Dallas

Post by Jim1954 »

I hope that if this thing ever comes to pass it doesn't include corporations such as the one type I mentioned. I work in one in the IT dept and keeping the bad guys out WITH a firewall isn't the easiest thing as creative as they can get, I shudder to think what it would be like without one.
Image
Jim1954
KMC/T
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Posts: 3943
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am

Post by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 »

But how does a firewall lost translate into liberties lost?

I mean having a firewall protects me from viciousness, but then again, I have not got my firewall on currently, and I am not really suffering from its loss. But it does tend to make me feel less protected.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
User avatar
Veldor
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:32 am
Location: King's Landing

Post by Veldor »

The purpose of the law now ALREADY in place in 7 states is not meant to make ALL firewalls or firewall software illegal (though depending on who reads and interprets the law as stated it could be argued that it does include all of them).

But generally anyone arguing for that interpretation is someone who doesn't want the law to affect ANYTHING at all and is focusing on that small section of verbage to try to get the whole thing revoked.

As already stated, the larger purpose of the law is to make ANYTHING software or hardware that conceals the source or destination of an electronic communication illegal. A firewall does not necessarily do that.

Electronic laws in ALL states already make you responsible for all content found on any computer in your home (Uhm it must have been the neighbor kid looking at kiddie porn on my machine). So all most home firewalls do is concel WHICH specific machine in your home was responsible. Thats irrelevant to tracing communications and finding you guilty of piracy, child porn, or whatever.

Now in a Corporations, a firewall potentiallys masks thousands of computers and it is much harder to determine which person is trading kiddie porn or pirated files on company time illegally. Enter the requirement to log all this so that under a court subpoena the details could be provided or else the corporation would face as stiff a fine potentially as the actual culprit.

So you can keep your hundred dollar home firewall in place all youd like. It doesnt stop anyone from tracing anything, as long as your not using any other device, anonymity software or servers, proxies or whatever to conceal your illegal activities.

So the firewall argument is moot.
User avatar
Veldor
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:32 am
Location: King's Landing

Post by Veldor »

Originally posted by Jim1954
I hope that if this thing ever comes to pass it doesn't include corporations such as the one type I mentioned. I work in one in the IT dept and keeping the bad guys out WITH a firewall isn't the easiest thing as creative as they can get, I shudder to think what it would be like without one.


Does your company LOG firewall traffic?
Does your company PREVENT peer to peer file sharing programs and other software that can be used for piracy (You are then providing a conduit for illegal electronic activities)?
Does your company FILTER web or email traffic for innappropriate images or conversations?

Another company in my state was just named in the largest sexual harrassment lawsuit in 5 years in large part do to pornographic images seen throughout the workplace by female employees that were not filtered out or prevented.

And that is just the effects of otherwise LEGAL photos and such .. Now imagine the effects on the company if it were found to be child pornography or severe amounts of pirated files going in and out.

Corporations have to take responsibility for the systems they run and provide to employees.

Employees in turn have to take responsibility for their own actions, and of course home users are responsible for what goes on on their home machines.

All other arguments are just stupid excuses by the guilty. No different than any episode of COPS (Uh I don't know how all that crack got into my car.. Someone else musta planted it there officer.)
User avatar
Jim1954
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 8:31 pm
Location: Dallas

Post by Jim1954 »

Yes, Yes and Yes.
Image
Jim1954
KMC/T
User avatar
Veldor
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:32 am
Location: King's Landing

Post by Veldor »

Originally posted by Jim1954
Yes, Yes and Yes.


Well then you don't really have anything to worry about. I suppose if you ****** off someone enough they could use the "vague" interpretation of the law to come at you merely because of the physical firewall and such but that is doubtful as such abuses of wording are not common in reverse (meaning people or corporations are often let go due to technicality but not often prosecuted simply because of one).

So just hope the law is ammended to be more clear and your company is already in compliance.
User avatar
Jim1954
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 8:31 pm
Location: Dallas

Post by Jim1954 »

I don't think it's passed in my state, still in House and Senate, AFAIK. Lets hope that intelligence will prevail.
Image
Jim1954
KMC/T
Les_the_Sarge_9_1
Posts: 3943
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2000 10:00 am

Post by Les_the_Sarge_9_1 »

Well as Veldor has commented on it, it appears as if the issue is not to important to me then potentially.

The only thing I would want my firewall to do, is prevent unauthorised jerks from damaging my computer and or software.

A law enforcement agency can look at it if they want.
I LIKE that my life bothers them,
Why should I be the only one bothered by it eh.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”