nanog mailing list archives

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True


From: "McBurnett, Jim" <jmcburnett () msmgmt com>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:43:49 -0500


Well, if it is that big.. no IPSEC.. then I suspect Cisco, Checkpoint, and others
to stand up ASAP..
This is no right.... As I see it a growing percentage of companies are
moving to IPSEC VPNs and leaving dedicated ckts behind..
I can't believe that legislators would be so un-informed, and Cisco/the industry 
would be so out of touch..

J

-----Original Message-----
From: William Allen Simpson [mailto:wsimpson () greendragon com]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:39 AM
To: nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True



Jack Bates wrote:

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.

That is not correct. 

I'm very sensitive to these issues.  As those of you that have been 
around for awhile may recall, I was investigated by the FBI 
for "treason" 
merely for *WRITING* the specification for PPP CHAP and 
discussing it at 
the IETF (under Bush I).  I don't expect it to be different 
for Bush II. 

As Larry Blunk points out, to "possess" an encryption device 
is a felony!

Jack, you need to actually look at the text of the Act: 

    (1) 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:

    (a) ... 

    (b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any
    telecommunications service.

[no encryption, no steganography, no remailers, no NAT, no tunnels]
[no Kerberos, no SSH, no IPSec, no SMTPTLS]

    (c) To receive, disrupt, decrypt, transmit, retransmit, acquire,
    intercept, or facilitate the receipt, disruption, decryption,
    transmission, retransmission, acquisition, or interception of any
    telecommunications service without the express authority or actual
    consent of the telecommunications service provider.

[no NAT, no wireless, no sniffers, no redirects, no war driving, ...]

    (2) A person shall not modify, alter, program, or reprogram a
    telecommunications access device for the purposes described in
    subsection (1).

[no research, no mod'ing]

    (3) A person shall not deliver, offer to deliver, or advertise
    plans, written instructions, or materials for ...

[no technical papers detailed enough to matter]

    (4) A person who violates subsection (1), (2), or (3) is 
guilty of a
    felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a
    fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both. All fines shall 
be imposed
    for each unlawful telecommunications access device or
    telecommunications access device involved in the offense. Each
    unlawful telecommunications access device or telecommunications
    access device is considered a separate violation.

[big penalties]


    (a) "Telecommunications" and "telecommunications service" mean any
    service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation to 
facilitate
    the origination, transmission, retransmission, emission, or
    reception of signs, data, images, signals, writings, sounds, or
    other intelligence or equivalence of intelligence of any 
nature over
    any telecommunications system by any method, including, but not
    limited to, electronic, electromagnetic, magnetic, optical,
    photo-optical, digital, or analog technologies.

[everything from a DVD, to the network, to the monitor, to t-shirts]

-- 
William Allen Simpson
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 
6A 15 2C 32



Current thread: