Do you get the idea that something is wrong when you are no longer allowed to use a firewall to protect your computer from illegal access and hacking ?
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1033071,00.asp
Seems the Motion Picture Association of America is beiong allowed to run riot.
Regards,
hutch@movsd.com
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1033071,00.asp
Seems the Motion Picture Association of America is beiong allowed to run riot.
Regards,
hutch@movsd.com
Well, that's just silly. They also have to stop shipping all internet browsers under that law as they are capable of using an anonymous proxy server and therefore capable of "conceal or to assist another to conceal from any communication service provider or from any lawful authority the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication." Might as well scrap the whole darn Internet as there is not a single TCP/IP network product that isn't capable of hiding your true IP if you know how to set up a proxy. Actually the whole TCP/IP protocol is illegal under that law.
Nope, things aren't as bad as they seem... Look more carefully.
This is from Illionois:
And Colorado:
And this is from Texas:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally
or knowingly manufactures, assembles, imports into the state,
exports out of the state, distributes, advertises, sells, or
leases, or offers for sale or lease:
(1) a communication device with an intent to [...]
(B) conceal from a communication service
provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of
origin or destination of any communication
As you can see, internet browsers and firewalls are not forbidden by any of these.
If a company has a firewall, it is not hiding its communication. And an internet browser that is capable of using a proxy is hardly illegal, because it is the proxy that conceals the origin of the communication, not the internet browser.
The site mentions a program made by a Tom Liston, designed to make the job difficult for worms that scan a network for victims. Although it is an "unlawful communication device" (just as a computer, a phone or your own mouth), Tom is not breaking the law, because he does not knowingly distribute it to disrupt communications without the authorization of the communication service provider (in this case, the company or person who owns the network). He distributes it for the purpose of using it for the intended use.
This is from Illionois:
Sec. 16-19. Prohibited acts. A person commits an offense if he or
she knowingly: [...]
(2) possesses, uses, manufactures, assembles, distributes, leases,
transfers, or sells, or offers, promotes or advertises for sale, lease,
use, or distribution an unlawful communication device: [...]
(B) to conceal or to assist another to conceal from any
communication service provider or from any lawful authority the
existence or place of origin or destination of any communication
she knowingly: [...]
(2) possesses, uses, manufactures, assembles, distributes, leases,
transfers, or sells, or offers, promotes or advertises for sale, lease,
use, or distribution an unlawful communication device: [...]
(B) to conceal or to assist another to conceal from any
communication service provider or from any lawful authority the
existence or place of origin or destination of any communication
And Colorado:
(2) A person commits VIOLATION UNDER THIS SECTION if he or she knowingly AND WITH THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD
A COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER:
(a) POSSESSES, USES,
MANUFACTURES, DEVELOPS, ASSEMBLES, DISTRIBUTES, TRANSFERS,
IMPORTS INTO THIS STATE, LICENSES, LEASES, SELLS, OFFERS TO SELL,
PROMOTES, OR ADVERTISES FOR SALE, USE, OR DISTRIBUTION ANY
COMMUNICATION DEVICE: [...]
(IV) TO CONCEAL OR TO ASSIST ANOTHER TO CONCEAL FROM ANY COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER, OR FROM ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY,
THE EXISTENCE OR PLACE OF ORIGIN OR DESTINATION OF ANY
COMMUNICATION THAT UTILIZES A COMMUNICATION DEVICE IF SUCH
CONCEALMENT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING A VIOLATION OF
SUBPARAGRAPH (I), (II), OR (III) OF THIS PARAGRAPH (a);
A COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER:
(a) POSSESSES, USES,
MANUFACTURES, DEVELOPS, ASSEMBLES, DISTRIBUTES, TRANSFERS,
IMPORTS INTO THIS STATE, LICENSES, LEASES, SELLS, OFFERS TO SELL,
PROMOTES, OR ADVERTISES FOR SALE, USE, OR DISTRIBUTION ANY
COMMUNICATION DEVICE: [...]
(IV) TO CONCEAL OR TO ASSIST ANOTHER TO CONCEAL FROM ANY COMMUNICATION SERVICE PROVIDER, OR FROM ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY,
THE EXISTENCE OR PLACE OF ORIGIN OR DESTINATION OF ANY
COMMUNICATION THAT UTILIZES A COMMUNICATION DEVICE IF SUCH
CONCEALMENT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING A VIOLATION OF
SUBPARAGRAPH (I), (II), OR (III) OF THIS PARAGRAPH (a);
And this is from Texas:
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally
or knowingly manufactures, assembles, imports into the state,
exports out of the state, distributes, advertises, sells, or
leases, or offers for sale or lease:
(1) a communication device with an intent to [...]
(B) conceal from a communication service
provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of
origin or destination of any communication
As you can see, internet browsers and firewalls are not forbidden by any of these.
If a company has a firewall, it is not hiding its communication. And an internet browser that is capable of using a proxy is hardly illegal, because it is the proxy that conceals the origin of the communication, not the internet browser.
The site mentions a program made by a Tom Liston, designed to make the job difficult for worms that scan a network for victims. Although it is an "unlawful communication device" (just as a computer, a phone or your own mouth), Tom is not breaking the law, because he does not knowingly distribute it to disrupt communications without the authorization of the communication service provider (in this case, the company or person who owns the network). He distributes it for the purpose of using it for the intended use.
The problem is that the scope of laws are always perverted and expanded by the courts. You just need one judge with an agenda and all of a sudden, IE is a device that includes the ability to use a proxy server to "change" the IP presented to the internet (that is after all it's intended use). This can under the law be construed as willfully including an option whose purpose is to conceal the identity of the user from law enforcement. After all MS knows full well that the proxy settings can be used for the purpose of hiding your IP and if they don't change the way proxies (and TCP/IP) work then they are intentionally assisting in the crime as accomplces. It's a stretch sure, but I've seen worse in the court system than this.
To be more specific, i think most of the problem is that the guys interpreting the law (ie the judges) have trouble just using an ATM (cash) machine, let alone know the intracacies of proxies, NAT, TCP/IP, etc. And the corporations that sponsered these laws know that.
well its not IE that faciliates the proxy, its TCP/IP, you can do proxy from the command line.. obviously... so it seems like it is way to broad, and ridiculous..
i'm glad i don't live in the usa :)
next thing u know unix will be illegal...
i'm glad i don't live in the usa :)
next thing u know unix will be illegal...
Well, your computer also facilitates it. And your modem. If it weren't for those, you wouldn't be able to carry out your heinous crimes with such ease. Your computer monitor is an unlawful communication device, as are your fingers. But this is ok, as they are not meant for illegal purposes. They can sell them as much as they want, because they don't know what each buyer is going to do with them. You can't argue with that. And if you lose, you could always file an appeal... after all, what are the chances that you'll encounter a corrupt judge twice in a row? And you could organize riots and whatnot (hmm, am I doing something illegal by saying that?)
when firewalls are outlawed olny outlaws will have firewalls