Merged: Use a firewall. Go to jail !! and State DMCA's Make NAT Illegal? - Page 4
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: Merged: Use a firewall. Go to jail !! and State DMCA's Make NAT Illegal?

  1. #31
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    13
    this is what happens when burecrats write laws to help them do their job. A big confusing mess. Wipe out 90% of govt rules and regs, written by govt executive branchs, and this might be a free country again.

  2. #32
    AO Security for Non-Geeks tonybradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    830
    How lucky am I?? Michigan was FIRST woo hoo!

    So am I a felon now or is this a misdemeanor or what? Can I expect the Michigan State Police at my door any minute. I have a firewall, use NAT, encrypt my communications, use a VPN across my ISP's network to get to my company's corporate network. They better just throw the book at me and set an example for other nefarious secure computer users!

    Seriously though, I believe that there are two possibilities. One is that this will be mis-interpreted, mis-construed and mis-applied the way its parent, the federal DMCA, has been and we will see some ridiculous charges and cases come up where they actually DO try to prosecute someone for using VPN.

    The other is that their true intent was to catch the IP spoofers, email spoofers and other spammers and hackers that may use tools and tricks to conceal their identities. However, because they obviously didn't get enough computer geeks to help them write the law they wrote it too broadly and made everything illegal. When they try to prosecute someone who was IP spoofing or email spoofing or some other illegal activity, this law may very well get challenged and thrown out because it is too broad to be reasonably applicable.

    Just my $.02. Gotta go hide in the basement- I think I saw the cops patrolling my street...

  3. #33
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324
    The issue is not just what true intent is but how it will be interpreted down the road. When the 2nd Amendment was written (Right to bear arms when no militia is present) the intent was to create a law to allow citizens to protect themselves when the state could not. I do not think it was intended to arm citizens to the teeth with uzis and such. It opens a door that could possibly be abused by state officials or others.
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  4. #34
    AO Security for Non-Geeks tonybradley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    830
    I agree with you completely about the 2nd Amendment. People use references to the Bill of Rights where its convenient the same way many only refer to their religious tenets or the Ten Commandments, etc when it suits their current need.

    Anything written has the potential to be interpreted different ways when read by different people. Sticking with my religious reference (no intent to offend anyone- apologies in advance), two people can read the Bible. One person comes away feeling that it absolutely proves the existence of God and the other walks away thinking what a crock- but its a nice collection of fables.

    My point is that even if they write the law perfectly it can still be interpreted differently than it was intended and can be spun to mean whatever prosecutors want it to mean for the case at hand.

    Its possible that they wrote it broadly on purpose to leave the door open for them to sort of pick and choose how and when they want to apply it. A good lawyer could probably get a case thrown out just by proving that the law is too broad to be applicable. Until a case goes to court under this law and a legal precedent is set though it remains to be seen how the government and judicial system will apply it.

    I can pretty much guarantee that the Michigan State government is using firewalls, VPN's, encryption and NAT. Plus, as someone pointed out somewhere- given the wording:

    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:
    ...Microsoft and many other hardware / software vendors are guilty as well. They "manufacture, deliver, offer to deliver and advertise...intended to be used to...conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service ". My Windows XP comes with a built-in firewall and the ability through Internet Connection Sharing to set up NAT.

    The whole thing is a joke. Like one post said- how is it legal to buy handguns and illegal to have a firewall???

  5. #35
    O.O;;; wow...atleast this idiocy hasnt reached MN yet, but it probobly will soon, i can bet on it....so: heres what im going to do....
    1. download 5 gigabytes of encryption software,firewalls.etc.
    2. buy thinkgeeks "Cypher Punk" shirt.http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts/coder/57ee/
    3.qoute the bible: and Jesus wept.
    4. protest.protest,protest.Mmmm.....

  6. #36
    AO Ancient: Team Leader
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    5,197
    Er.... Guys and Gals.......

    Before we mire ourselves in panic, fear and hostility let's go back and re-read the legal bit and what it _actually_ says not what some moron, (the Register's cub reporter), has subsequently interpreted from it.

    The first provision starts out "for the commission of a theft of a communication service ......". Well.... It doesn't say you can't have and use this stuff. I simply says if you use it for bad purposes they will come down on you...... Hmmmm..... Sounds kinds like "You can have a gun but don't murder anyone with it and you're ok" to me.

    The second point is aimed at hiding the origin and destination of a communication. Hmmm... Stuff like PGP doesn't hide either - only the content.... That's ok then. NAT doesn't hide the destination nor the source because it is still attached to a device with a public address. So NAT isn't something that they are discussing. VPN's are fine because you can still determine the source and destination whether or not you can determine content.

    I dunno...... comprehension ain't what it used to be....... Or was everyone just reading what they wanted/expected to read?
    Don\'t SYN us.... We\'ll SYN you.....
    \"A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards, and its fighting done by fools.\" - Thucydides

  7. #37
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324
    Uhh.. Tiger: go check out the links I posted (direct word-for-word from the actual legal wording). The potential is there. And given the present state of mind of Government(s) in the US (paranoia, fear, etc.) it leaves open the door for the possibility.
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  8. #38
    AO Curmudgeon rcgreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    2,716
    given the present state of mind of Government(s) in the US (paranoia, fear, etc.) it leaves open the door for the possibility.
    That's why we may need those guns after all.
    I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides