RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[Robert Cannon]

If you want to splinter off to lists that already
exist and actually have a number of NANOG
participants, can I recommend

Cybertelecom-l : federal initiatives that impact the
Internet with an emphasis on the FCC 
www.cybertelecom.org

Cyberia-l : general rabble about Internet law with
lots of intellectual property bickering



=
| Washington Internet Project |
| www.cybertelecom.org|
|  cannon(a)cybertelecom.org  |

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Kuhtz, Christian]

> > In other words, you reasoning is quite flawed the way I see it, and
> > blocking DoS is indeed legitimate and legally supportable.  Excesses
> > are rarely protected by any legal statutes.
> 
> To the extent a customer attacks or defrauds the carrier itself,
protection
> measures are allowed.  But you cannot "protect" the public at large
without
> a court order to do so.

I think that's what I said.  "excesses are rarely protected by any legal
statutes."  Any response must be measured by a given cause.



*
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all
computers."

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

[todd glassey]

Thanks Stephen -

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of
Stephen Sprunk
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:57 PM
To: todd glassey; Dan Hollis; Jack Bates
Cc: Kuhtz, Christian; Michael Loftis; Robert A. Hayden;
North American
Noise and Off-topic Gripes
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True



Thus spake "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By the way - the big one these days is the claim from the
> Tier-2/3 player that they are really subject to the same
> rules that the Tier-1 players are and that simply isn't
> true - nor should it be.

There is no technical or legal difference between tier-1 and
tier-2/3
service providers.  Heck, NANOG has been collectively
working on it for
years and we haven't even come up with definitions for the
various "tiers"
yet.

The distiction is between those who provide network
transport and those who
provide application services across that network.  The
former can seek
refuge as common carriers, but the latter clearly cannot.

I pity the ABA if you really are their liaison to our
industry.  Worse, I
pity our industry for what kinds of ridiculous laws we'll
soon be subjected
to.

S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert
Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He
throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen
Hawking

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By the way - the big one these days is the claim from the
> Tier-2/3 player that they are really subject to the same
> rules that the Tier-1 players are and that simply isn't
> true - nor should it be.

There is no technical or legal difference between tier-1 and tier-2/3
service providers.  Heck, NANOG has been collectively working on it for
years and we haven't even come up with definitions for the various "tiers"
yet.

The distiction is between those who provide network transport and those who
provide application services across that network.  The former can seek
refuge as common carriers, but the latter clearly cannot.

I pity the ABA if you really are their liaison to our industry.  Worse, I
pity our industry for what kinds of ridiculous laws we'll soon be subjected
to.

S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

RE: [RE: State Super-DMCA Too True]

[todd glassey]

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of
Joshua Smith
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 3:48 PM
To: todd glassey; Stephen Sprunk; Michael Loftis; Robert A.
Hayden
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
Subject: Re: [RE: State Super-DMCA Too True]



"todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
[cut]
>
> If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to
jail
> too?
>
> THIS IS A REALLY BAD EXAMPLE -

not really, did the us postal service get in trouble for
delivering
anthrax laden letters?  no.  if someone at the post office
bypassed
the postal inspectors to 'hand deliver' those letters, then
that person
will be in trouble, not the entire office.


YES IT REALLY IS A BAD EXAMPLE. THE US POST OFFICE DID NOT
ACT AS THE PACKAGER OF THE LETTER OR THE TOOL FOR
INTERPRETING IT. IN THIS CASE THESE ARE PROVIDED BY THE
TIER-3 INTERCONNECT AND THE US POST OFFICE IS THE TIER-1
PROVIDER HERE.


>
>  No.
> If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to
> jail too?
>
> DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEY DIALED THE PHONE FOR YOU.
>

operator - "what city and state please"

you - mumble mumble mumble

operator - "here is the number, thank you for using $telco"

i suppose there is a slight chance here, provided that same
operator
connected all of your repeated calls and then listened and
knew you
were being obscene, but kept connecting you anyway.

TRY THIS ONE - DIAL- OPERATOR ANSWER'S - HEY OPERATOR I WANT
TO MAKE A CALL BUT I DON'T WANT THE OTHER PERSON TO KNOW
WHAT NUMBER I AM DIALING FROM SO CAN YOU PLACE THE CALL FOR
ME FROM YOUR CONSOLE SO IT SHOWS UP AS ESSENTIALLY
ANONYMOUS?

THAT'S A BETTER ANALOGY.

> No.
>
> BUT IF YOUR AGENT OPENS THE PACKAGE TO INSURE THAT IT HAD
A
> CORRECT ADDRESS ON IT AND FINDS IT CONTAINS CONTRABAND -
> THEN ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE? - BETTER YET - IF THEY OPENED
THE
> PACKAGE TO INSPECT THE DELIVERY ADDRESS AND THEN REFUSED
TO
> APPLY ANY DILIGENCE ON THE PACKAGES PAYLOAD OR OTHER
ADDRESS
> DATA BEYOND THAT OF A LOCAL DELIVERY ADDRESS,  MY TAKE IS
> THAT THIS IS WHY THERE WILL BE SO MANY ADMIN'S IN JAIL IN
> THE COMING YEAR OR TWO - WITH THEIR ATTITUDES, THEY MAY
> OUT-NUMBER THE DRUNK DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS SOON.
>

if my 'agent' takes delivery of the 'package', that is
essentially the
same as if i signed for the package.  if they don't know
what is in it,
and don't look, then they will probably not be charged with
anything
harsher than ignorance - if they look and participate, then
yes, they
will get in trouble too.

EXPLAIN THAT TO THE NUMBER OF MULES THAT ARE BUSTED DRIVING
ACROSS THE BOARDER WITH CONTRABAND IN THEIR TRUNKS THAT THEY
WERE UNAWARE OF.


> ANYWAY - THE OPENING OF THE MAIL TO DO ANYTHING INCLUDING
> DELIVER IT OBLIGATES YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY AND ALL THE
> DATA REPRESENTED IN THE HEADER IS REAL AS WELL. IF YOU
PARSE
> THE RFC822 DATA TO PROCESS IT THEM PROCESS IT. THAT'S THE
> POINT AND THAT THIS IS NOT AN OPTION UNDER THESE LAWS -
ITS
> JUST THAT TO DATE THE TIER-2/3 ISP'S HAVE NEVER BEFORE
BEEN
> THREATENED WITH JAIL FOR NOT GOING THE WHOLE ROUTE...
>

since when did a tier 2/3 carrier become the 'nanny' for
naughty
customers?  just because they don't move quite as much data
as a 'tier 1'
means that they have the extra time and resources to read
all of my mail
to ensure that i am not doing anything naughty...

THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN - ITS JUST THAT THEY NEGLIGENTLY
SHIRKED THEIR DUTY - BETTER YET - WHO TOLD THE TIER-2/3
PLAYERS THAT THEY WERE NOT RESISTIBLE FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS?

> Common carrier status exists for this very reason.
>
> I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE ISP'S ARE BY DEFINITION NOT COMMON
> CARRIERS. ONLY THE TIER-1 PROVIDERS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS
> CC'S UNDER INTERNET DEFINITIONS, AND ANYONE THAT OPERATES
> MORE THAN ONE TIER-1 SERVICE, AS IN A TIER-2 OR TIER-3
> OPERATION TOO, HAS A LARGER ISSUE THAT ALL OF THEIR
> INFRASTRUCTURE LIKELY HAS TO COMPLY -
>

so what is a tier 1/2/3/4 carrier again?  if these laws do
not define
each one explicitly, then the definition is arbitrary.  if
said
definitions are published as operational requirements, then
you might
have a case...

YES BUT THAT'S LIFE. THE ISP'S TOLD THE WORLD WHAT WAS
POSSIBLE BASED ON WHAT THEY WANTED AND DIDN'T WANT TO
IMPLEMENT. THE PEOPLE SAID WE HAVE LAWS AND RULES AND THE
ISP'S SAID "HEY THIS IS THE INTERNET AND WE ARE BEYOND YOU
LOCAL LAWS" AND NOW THE PEOPLE OF THE VARIOUS STATES ARE
SAYING "BS YOU ARE" IN RESPONSE.

> Unfortunately, it
> probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like
spam
> and DoS, since
> filtering on content inherently violates common carrier
> protection --
>
> NO - QUITE THE 

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

[todd glassey]

Actually from an end-user perspective actionable notice of
anything will originate with the customers more often than
not.

If the police come to you as an ISP and they inform you of
something illegal happening inside your ISP you have blown
it. ISP's need to be able to at least tell themselves that
they know what is happening.

By the way - the big one these days is the claim from the
Tier-2/3 player that they are really subject to the same
rules that the Tier-1 players are and that simply isn't
true - nor should it be.

Todd


-Original Message-
From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 4:29 PM
To: Dan Hollis; Jack Bates
Cc: Kuhtz, Christian; todd glassey; Michael Loftis; Robert
A. Hayden;
North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True


Thus spake "Dan Hollis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> > On the other hand, an ISP that *is* aware of illegal
activity would be
> > negligent not to look into it.
>
> How about the tier1's who route abuse@ to /dev/null? IMHO
they are
> negligent and should be held liable...

Any actionable notice about illegal activities will come via
conventional
channels from law enforcement officials -- not via email
from customers or
other operators.

Since a common carrier can't filter on content -- only
fraudulent and
malicious activity against the carrier itself -- there's not
much (legal)
purpose in maintaining an abuse@ alias.

Abuse reporting exists in its current form today because (a)
there's no laws
against most "abuse", and (b) the cops refuse to act unless
you claim at
least $250k in damages per event.  As the lawyers sink their
teeth into the
net, you're going to find less and less "good will" out
there simply because
it opens you to liabilty in court.

S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert
Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He
throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen
Hawking

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Alex Lambert]

> From: "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Common carrier status exists for this very reason.  Unfortunately, it
> probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS,
since
> filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection -- see
> the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.

Allow me to continue to pummel the poor horse --

What about the customer that requests that the telco block calls from
certain numbers? I don't think that affects common carrier status, but
IANAL.





apl

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Dan Hollis]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Since a common carrier can't filter on content -- only fraudulent and
> malicious activity against the carrier itself -- there's not much (legal)
> purpose in maintaining an abuse@ alias.

Of course these are the same tier1s who whinge when people nullroute 
them...

-Dan
-- 
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Dan Hollis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> > On the other hand, an ISP that *is* aware of illegal activity would be
> > negligent not to look into it.
>
> How about the tier1's who route abuse@ to /dev/null? IMHO they are
> negligent and should be held liable...

Any actionable notice about illegal activities will come via conventional
channels from law enforcement officials -- not via email from customers or
other operators.

Since a common carrier can't filter on content -- only fraudulent and
malicious activity against the carrier itself -- there's not much (legal)
purpose in maintaining an abuse@ alias.

Abuse reporting exists in its current form today because (a) there's no laws
against most "abuse", and (b) the cops refuse to act unless you claim at
least $250k in damages per event.  As the lawyers sink their teeth into the
net, you're going to find less and less "good will" out there simply because
it opens you to liabilty in court.

S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Jack Bates]

Dan Hollis wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:

On the other hand, an ISP that *is* aware of illegal activity would be 
negligent not to look into it.


How about the tier1's who route abuse@ to /dev/null? IMHO they are 
negligent and should be held liable...

I completely agree. Of course, they may be relying on the fact that they 
don't do anything outside of the scope of being a common carrier, so 
they shouldn't be held liable, despite the fact that they go against the 
agreed upon common good (i.e. abuse@ being manned).

-Jack

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Dan Hollis]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> On the other hand, an ISP that *is* aware of illegal activity would be 
> negligent not to look into it.

How about the tier1's who route abuse@ to /dev/null? IMHO they are 
negligent and should be held liable...

-Dan
-- 
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Jack Bates]

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Okay, I'll admit filtering DoS will probably survive given it's a problem
for the carrier, not just the customer.  But my original point is that as
long as ISPs do not examine the contents of a customer's packets, they
cannot be held liable for what's in them.  Content filtering, whether for
smut, spam, or piracy, is a serious argument against ISPs claiming common
carrier status.

Content filtering can get you in trouble. It will be interesting to see 
what happens if a virus makes it through one of these ISP's virus 
protectors and infects someone; especially since they give it as a 
selling point. On the other hand, and ISP that does an action such as 
executable stripping or virus scanning not as a selling point, but as a 
protection measure of the carrier itself has no responsibility to the 
customer.

In the same reguards, filtering has a limited scope. While an ISP can 
filter for spam and viruses, to actually filter for illegal activity is 
more difficult. Given the war on spam and the fact that it's not going 
to end soon, I'd say trying to say an ISP is liable for scams or other 
illegal activity is a little far fetched. On the other hand, an ISP that 
*is* aware of illegal activity would be negligent not to look into it. 
In piracy cases, however, a simple 'give me the supoena and I'll give 
you the name and address' should suffice. After all, if you are being 
harrassed, you don't call the phone company to take care of the 
customer. You call the legal authorities.

-Jack

Re: [RE: State Super-DMCA Too True]

[Joshua Smith]

"todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
[cut]
> 
> If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail
> too?
> 
> THIS IS A REALLY BAD EXAMPLE - 

not really, did the us postal service get in trouble for delivering
anthrax laden letters?  no.  if someone at the post office bypassed
the postal inspectors to 'hand deliver' those letters, then that person
will be in trouble, not the entire office.


> 
>  No.
> If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to
> jail too?
> 
> DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEY DIALED THE PHONE FOR YOU.
> 

operator - "what city and state please"

you - mumble mumble mumble

operator - "here is the number, thank you for using $telco"

i suppose there is a slight chance here, provided that same operator
connected all of your repeated calls and then listened and knew you
were being obscene, but kept connecting you anyway.

> No.
> 
> BUT IF YOUR AGENT OPENS THE PACKAGE TO INSURE THAT IT HAD A
> CORRECT ADDRESS ON IT AND FINDS IT CONTAINS CONTRABAND -
> THEN ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE? - BETTER YET - IF THEY OPENED THE
> PACKAGE TO INSPECT THE DELIVERY ADDRESS AND THEN REFUSED TO
> APPLY ANY DILIGENCE ON THE PACKAGES PAYLOAD OR OTHER ADDRESS
> DATA BEYOND THAT OF A LOCAL DELIVERY ADDRESS,  MY TAKE IS
> THAT THIS IS WHY THERE WILL BE SO MANY ADMIN'S IN JAIL IN
> THE COMING YEAR OR TWO - WITH THEIR ATTITUDES, THEY MAY
> OUT-NUMBER THE DRUNK DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS SOON.
> 

if my 'agent' takes delivery of the 'package', that is essentially the
same as if i signed for the package.  if they don't know what is in it,
and don't look, then they will probably not be charged with anything
harsher than ignorance - if they look and participate, then yes, they
will get in trouble too.

> ANYWAY - THE OPENING OF THE MAIL TO DO ANYTHING INCLUDING
> DELIVER IT OBLIGATES YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY AND ALL THE
> DATA REPRESENTED IN THE HEADER IS REAL AS WELL. IF YOU PARSE
> THE RFC822 DATA TO PROCESS IT THEM PROCESS IT. THAT'S THE
> POINT AND THAT THIS IS NOT AN OPTION UNDER THESE LAWS - ITS
> JUST THAT TO DATE THE TIER-2/3 ISP'S HAVE NEVER BEFORE BEEN
> THREATENED WITH JAIL FOR NOT GOING THE WHOLE ROUTE...
> 

since when did a tier 2/3 carrier become the 'nanny' for naughty 
customers?  just because they don't move quite as much data as a 'tier 1'
means that they have the extra time and resources to read all of my mail
to ensure that i am not doing anything naughty...

> Common carrier status exists for this very reason.
> 
> I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE ISP'S ARE BY DEFINITION NOT COMMON
> CARRIERS. ONLY THE TIER-1 PROVIDERS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS
> CC'S UNDER INTERNET DEFINITIONS, AND ANYONE THAT OPERATES
> MORE THAN ONE TIER-1 SERVICE, AS IN A TIER-2 OR TIER-3
> OPERATION TOO, HAS A LARGER ISSUE THAT ALL OF THEIR
> INFRASTRUCTURE LIKELY HAS TO COMPLY -
> 

so what is a tier 1/2/3/4 carrier again?  if these laws do not define
each one explicitly, then the definition is arbitrary.  if said 
definitions are published as operational requirements, then you might
have a case...

> Unfortunately, it
> probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam
> and DoS, since
> filtering on content inherently violates common carrier
> protection --
> 
> NO - QUITE THE OPPOSITE - ACTUALLY WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT FOR
> ANY SERVICE FOR WHICH YOU ARE THE ORIGINATING OR TERMINATION
> ENTITY, THAT "THE DATA REPRESENTED IN ANYTHING YOU PROCESS
> MUST BE RELIABLE AND TRUE". THAT MEANS IF YOU ACCEPT EMAIL
> FROM SOMEWHERE AND PROFFER IT ONWARD TO YOUR CLIENT'S, AND
> YOU DON'T BOTHER TO FILTER AND PROOF IT - THAT YOU STAND A
> GOOD CHANCE TO "GET YOUR PEE-PEE WHACKED BY THE BAILIFF" -
> TO QUOTE FROM CHEECH AND CHONG.
> 

so i must now proof-read my customer's emails?  i didn't realize that i
was a secretary too (guess i should be charging more) - should i charge 
to spell-check by the word, sentence, or email?

> see
> the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.
> 
> I KNOW -  I WAS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN ONE OF THEM. I ALSO AM
> THE INDUSTRY LIAISON TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S
> INFORMATION SECURITY COMMITTEE, BUT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY SO
> IGNORE THIS IF YOU WANT.
> 

yep, this is smut... ;-)

> S
> 
> Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert
> Einstein
> CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He
> throws the
> K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen
> Hawking
> 



"Walk with me through the Universe,
 And along the way see how all of us are Connected.
 Feast the eyes of your Soul,
 On the Love that abounds.
 In all places at once, seemingly endless,
 Like your own existence."
 - Stephen Hawking -

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Richard A Steenbergen]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 04:32:18PM -0600, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> 
> Thus spake "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP
> > should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth
> > and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that these
> > laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing
> > these there will be some arrests.
> 
> If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail too?  No.
> If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to jail too?  No.
> 
> Common carrier status exists for this very reason.  Unfortunately, it
> probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS,
> since filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection
> -- see the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.

And yet, if FedEx notices a package is ticking, they have the right to 
reject it without being held responsable for ones they don't catch.

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Kris Foster]

Regarding common carriers, Geoff Huston wrote a good article for IPJ

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/759/ipj_5-3/ipj_5-3_uncommon_carrier.html

Kris

(top posting because below this line is a complete mess)

> -Original Message-
> From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 6:30 PM
> To: todd glassey
> Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes; Michael 
> Loftis; Robert A.
> Hayden
> Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
> 
> 
> 
> As reading your message both hurts my eyes and would take 
> excessive effort
> to reformat for a reply, I won't do so.
> 
> However, I do question the credibility of anyone who cites 
> Cheech and Chong
> to back up his position.
> 
> S
> 
> Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
> CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
> K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
> - Original Message -
> From: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael Loftis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Robert A. Hayden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, 31 March, 2003 17:07
> Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True
> 
> 
> > Stephen -  my responses in caps -
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Behalf Of
> > Stephen Sprunk
> > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:32 PM
> > To: todd glassey; Michael Loftis; Robert A. Hayden
> > Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
> > Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
> >
> >
> >
> > Thus spake "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP
> > > should be accountable for what people do with its
> > bandwidth
> > > and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that
> > these
> > > laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing
> > > these there will be some arrests.
> >
> > If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail
> > too?
> >
> > THIS IS A REALLY BAD EXAMPLE - IF YOU WANT I WILL GIVE YOU
> > THE ADDRESSES OF HALF A DOZEN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTORS
> > IN SAN FRANCISCO AND OAKLAND, AND THEY CAN ANSWER THAT ONE -
> > I THINK HERE IN CALIFORNIA, IF YOU ARE IN A CITY THAT DOES
> > NOT PROSECUTE THE MEDICINAL USE OF MARIJUANA - THEN NO ONE
> > GOES TO JAIL FOR SHIPPING IT.
> >
> >  No.
> > If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to
> > jail too?
> >
> > DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEY DIALED THE PHONE FOR YOU.
> >
> > No.
> >
> > BUT IF YOUR AGENT OPENS THE PACKAGE TO INSURE THAT IT HAD A
> > CORRECT ADDRESS ON IT AND FINDS IT CONTAINS CONTRABAND -
> > THEN ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE? - BETTER YET - IF THEY OPENED THE
> > PACKAGE TO INSPECT THE DELIVERY ADDRESS AND THEN REFUSED TO
> > APPLY ANY DILIGENCE ON THE PACKAGES PAYLOAD OR OTHER ADDRESS
> > DATA BEYOND THAT OF A LOCAL DELIVERY ADDRESS,  MY TAKE IS
> > THAT THIS IS WHY THERE WILL BE SO MANY ADMIN'S IN JAIL IN
> > THE COMING YEAR OR TWO - WITH THEIR ATTITUDES, THEY MAY
> > OUT-NUMBER THE DRUNK DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS SOON.
> >
> > ANYWAY - THE OPENING OF THE MAIL TO DO ANYTHING INCLUDING
> > DELIVER IT OBLIGATES YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY AND ALL THE
> > DATA REPRESENTED IN THE HEADER IS REAL AS WELL. IF YOU PARSE
> > THE RFC822 DATA TO PROCESS IT THEM PROCESS IT. THAT'S THE
> > POINT AND THAT THIS IS NOT AN OPTION UNDER THESE LAWS - ITS
> > JUST THAT TO DATE THE TIER-2/3 ISP'S HAVE NEVER BEFORE BEEN
> > THREATENED WITH JAIL FOR NOT GOING THE WHOLE ROUTE...
> >
> > Common carrier status exists for this very reason.
> >
> > I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE ISP'S ARE BY DEFINITION NOT COMMON
> > CARRIERS. ONLY THE TIER-1 PROVIDERS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS
> > CC'S UNDER INTERNET DEFINITIONS, AND ANYONE THAT OPERATES
> > MORE THAN ONE TIER-1 SERVICE, AS IN A TIER-2 OR TIER-3
> > OPERATION TOO, HAS A LARGER ISSUE THAT ALL OF THEIR
> > INFRASTRUCTURE LIKELY HAS TO COMPLY -
> >
> > Unfortunately, it
> > probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam
> > and DoS, since
> > filtering on content inherently violates common carrier
> > protection --
> >
> > NO - QUITE THE OPPOSITE - ACTUALLY WHAT IT M

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Kuhtz, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [..]
> > AT&T/Comcast doesn't sell business accounts
> > (at least not here) but they will now sell you a more expensive package,
> > 3.5Mbit/384kbit, for $95/mo, including 'model rental fee', it includes
> > 5 IP addresses "VPN Capability"(?) as well.
>   ^^
>
> Perhaps that is advertised as such because of issues around VPN
> clients behind NAT/PAT devices.  Some work better than others.
> Having a non-NAT address stops most of those issues.
>
> Or, that's me trying to figure out what a marketeer might've been
> thinking.  Ugh. Ouch. Stop. That hurts. Quit it. Ouch. Ouch.

Some cable ISPs block IPsec and PPTP for "residential" service, claiming
VPNs are only used by telecommuters and thus require their more expensive
"business" services.

S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Kuhtz, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [..]
> > Common carrier status exists for this very reason.  Unfortunately, it
> > probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS,
> > since filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection
> > -- see the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.
>
> Come on, don't go lumping DoS and smut into the same basket.
> You can't be possibly serious about considering the two to be equals.

Okay, I'll admit filtering DoS will probably survive given it's a problem
for the carrier, not just the customer.  But my original point is that as
long as ISPs do not examine the contents of a customer's packets, they
cannot be held liable for what's in them.  Content filtering, whether for
smut, spam, or piracy, is a serious argument against ISPs claiming common
carrier status.

> In other words, you reasoning is quite flawed the way I see it, and
> blocking DoS is indeed legitimate and legally supportable.  Excesses
> are rarely protected by any legal statutes.

To the extent a customer attacks or defrauds the carrier itself, protection
measures are allowed.  But you cannot "protect" the public at large without
a court order to do so.

S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Stephen Sprunk]

As reading your message both hurts my eyes and would take excessive effort
to reformat for a reply, I won't do so.

However, I do question the credibility of anyone who cites Cheech and Chong
to back up his position.

S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
- Original Message -
From: "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Michael Loftis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Robert A. Hayden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, 31 March, 2003 17:07
Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True


> Stephen -  my responses in caps -
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of
> Stephen Sprunk
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:32 PM
> To: todd glassey; Michael Loftis; Robert A. Hayden
> Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
> Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
>
>
>
> Thus spake "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP
> > should be accountable for what people do with its
> bandwidth
> > and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that
> these
> > laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing
> > these there will be some arrests.
>
> If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail
> too?
>
> THIS IS A REALLY BAD EXAMPLE - IF YOU WANT I WILL GIVE YOU
> THE ADDRESSES OF HALF A DOZEN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTORS
> IN SAN FRANCISCO AND OAKLAND, AND THEY CAN ANSWER THAT ONE -
> I THINK HERE IN CALIFORNIA, IF YOU ARE IN A CITY THAT DOES
> NOT PROSECUTE THE MEDICINAL USE OF MARIJUANA - THEN NO ONE
> GOES TO JAIL FOR SHIPPING IT.
>
>  No.
> If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to
> jail too?
>
> DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEY DIALED THE PHONE FOR YOU.
>
> No.
>
> BUT IF YOUR AGENT OPENS THE PACKAGE TO INSURE THAT IT HAD A
> CORRECT ADDRESS ON IT AND FINDS IT CONTAINS CONTRABAND -
> THEN ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE? - BETTER YET - IF THEY OPENED THE
> PACKAGE TO INSPECT THE DELIVERY ADDRESS AND THEN REFUSED TO
> APPLY ANY DILIGENCE ON THE PACKAGES PAYLOAD OR OTHER ADDRESS
> DATA BEYOND THAT OF A LOCAL DELIVERY ADDRESS,  MY TAKE IS
> THAT THIS IS WHY THERE WILL BE SO MANY ADMIN'S IN JAIL IN
> THE COMING YEAR OR TWO - WITH THEIR ATTITUDES, THEY MAY
> OUT-NUMBER THE DRUNK DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS SOON.
>
> ANYWAY - THE OPENING OF THE MAIL TO DO ANYTHING INCLUDING
> DELIVER IT OBLIGATES YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY AND ALL THE
> DATA REPRESENTED IN THE HEADER IS REAL AS WELL. IF YOU PARSE
> THE RFC822 DATA TO PROCESS IT THEM PROCESS IT. THAT'S THE
> POINT AND THAT THIS IS NOT AN OPTION UNDER THESE LAWS - ITS
> JUST THAT TO DATE THE TIER-2/3 ISP'S HAVE NEVER BEFORE BEEN
> THREATENED WITH JAIL FOR NOT GOING THE WHOLE ROUTE...
>
> Common carrier status exists for this very reason.
>
> I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE ISP'S ARE BY DEFINITION NOT COMMON
> CARRIERS. ONLY THE TIER-1 PROVIDERS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS
> CC'S UNDER INTERNET DEFINITIONS, AND ANYONE THAT OPERATES
> MORE THAN ONE TIER-1 SERVICE, AS IN A TIER-2 OR TIER-3
> OPERATION TOO, HAS A LARGER ISSUE THAT ALL OF THEIR
> INFRASTRUCTURE LIKELY HAS TO COMPLY -
>
> Unfortunately, it
> probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam
> and DoS, since
> filtering on content inherently violates common carrier
> protection --
>
> NO - QUITE THE OPPOSITE - ACTUALLY WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT FOR
> ANY SERVICE FOR WHICH YOU ARE THE ORIGINATING OR TERMINATION
> ENTITY, THAT "THE DATA REPRESENTED IN ANYTHING YOU PROCESS
> MUST BE RELIABLE AND TRUE". THAT MEANS IF YOU ACCEPT EMAIL
> FROM SOMEWHERE AND PROFFER IT ONWARD TO YOUR CLIENT'S, AND
> YOU DON'T BOTHER TO FILTER AND PROOF IT - THAT YOU STAND A
> GOOD CHANCE TO "GET YOUR PEE-PEE WHACKED BY THE BAILIFF" -
> TO QUOTE FROM CHEECH AND CHONG.
>
> see
> the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.
>
> I KNOW -  I WAS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN ONE OF THEM. I ALSO AM
> THE INDUSTRY LIAISON TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S
> INFORMATION SECURITY COMMITTEE, BUT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY SO
> IGNORE THIS IF YOU WANT.
>
> S
>
> Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert
> Einstein
> CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He
> throws the
> K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen
> Hawking
>

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Kuhtz, Christian]

[..]
> AT&T/Comcast doesn't sell business accounts
> (at least not here) but they will now sell you a more expensive package,
> 3.5Mbit/384kbit, for $95/mo, including 'model rental fee', it includes
> 5 IP addresses "VPN Capability"(?) as well.
  ^^

Perhaps that is advertised as such because of issues around VPN clients
behind NAT/PAT devices.  Some work better than others.  Having a non-NAT
address stops most of those issues.

Or, that's me trying to figure out what a marketeer might've been thinking.
Ugh. Ouch. Stop. That hurts. Quit it. Ouch. Ouch.

Thanks,
Christian



*
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all
computers."

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Kuhtz, Christian]

> From: Stephen Sprunk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[..]
> Common carrier status exists for this very reason.  Unfortunately, it
> probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS,
since
> filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection -- see
> the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.

Come on, don't go lumping DoS and smut into the same basket.  You can't be
possibly serious about considering the two to be equals.

In other words, you reasoning is quite flawed the way I see it, and blocking
DoS is indeed legitimate and legally supportable.  Excesses are rarely
protected by any legal statutes.

Thanks,
Christian



*
"The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or
privileged material.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use
of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.  If you received
this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from all
computers."

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

[todd glassey]

Stephen -  my responses in caps -



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of
Stephen Sprunk
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 2:32 PM
To: todd glassey; Michael Loftis; Robert A. Hayden
Cc: North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True



Thus spake "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP
> should be accountable for what people do with its
bandwidth
> and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that
these
> laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing
> these there will be some arrests.

If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail
too?

THIS IS A REALLY BAD EXAMPLE - IF YOU WANT I WILL GIVE YOU
THE ADDRESSES OF HALF A DOZEN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTORS
IN SAN FRANCISCO AND OAKLAND, AND THEY CAN ANSWER THAT ONE -
I THINK HERE IN CALIFORNIA, IF YOU ARE IN A CITY THAT DOES
NOT PROSECUTE THE MEDICINAL USE OF MARIJUANA - THEN NO ONE
GOES TO JAIL FOR SHIPPING IT.

 No.
If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to
jail too?

DEPENDS ON WHETHER THEY DIALED THE PHONE FOR YOU.

No.

BUT IF YOUR AGENT OPENS THE PACKAGE TO INSURE THAT IT HAD A
CORRECT ADDRESS ON IT AND FINDS IT CONTAINS CONTRABAND -
THEN ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE? - BETTER YET - IF THEY OPENED THE
PACKAGE TO INSPECT THE DELIVERY ADDRESS AND THEN REFUSED TO
APPLY ANY DILIGENCE ON THE PACKAGES PAYLOAD OR OTHER ADDRESS
DATA BEYOND THAT OF A LOCAL DELIVERY ADDRESS,  MY TAKE IS
THAT THIS IS WHY THERE WILL BE SO MANY ADMIN'S IN JAIL IN
THE COMING YEAR OR TWO - WITH THEIR ATTITUDES, THEY MAY
OUT-NUMBER THE DRUNK DRIVERS IN CALIFORNIA PRISONS SOON.

ANYWAY - THE OPENING OF THE MAIL TO DO ANYTHING INCLUDING
DELIVER IT OBLIGATES YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY AND ALL THE
DATA REPRESENTED IN THE HEADER IS REAL AS WELL. IF YOU PARSE
THE RFC822 DATA TO PROCESS IT THEM PROCESS IT. THAT'S THE
POINT AND THAT THIS IS NOT AN OPTION UNDER THESE LAWS - ITS
JUST THAT TO DATE THE TIER-2/3 ISP'S HAVE NEVER BEFORE BEEN
THREATENED WITH JAIL FOR NOT GOING THE WHOLE ROUTE...

Common carrier status exists for this very reason.

I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE ISP'S ARE BY DEFINITION NOT COMMON
CARRIERS. ONLY THE TIER-1 PROVIDERS WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS
CC'S UNDER INTERNET DEFINITIONS, AND ANYONE THAT OPERATES
MORE THAN ONE TIER-1 SERVICE, AS IN A TIER-2 OR TIER-3
OPERATION TOO, HAS A LARGER ISSUE THAT ALL OF THEIR
INFRASTRUCTURE LIKELY HAS TO COMPLY -

Unfortunately, it
probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam
and DoS, since
filtering on content inherently violates common carrier
protection --

NO - QUITE THE OPPOSITE - ACTUALLY WHAT IT MEANS IS THAT FOR
ANY SERVICE FOR WHICH YOU ARE THE ORIGINATING OR TERMINATION
ENTITY, THAT "THE DATA REPRESENTED IN ANYTHING YOU PROCESS
MUST BE RELIABLE AND TRUE". THAT MEANS IF YOU ACCEPT EMAIL
FROM SOMEWHERE AND PROFFER IT ONWARD TO YOUR CLIENT'S, AND
YOU DON'T BOTHER TO FILTER AND PROOF IT - THAT YOU STAND A
GOOD CHANCE TO "GET YOUR PEE-PEE WHACKED BY THE BAILIFF" -
TO QUOTE FROM CHEECH AND CHONG.

see
the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.

I KNOW -  I WAS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN ONE OF THEM. I ALSO AM
THE INDUSTRY LIAISON TO THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION'S
INFORMATION SECURITY COMMITTEE, BUT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY SO
IGNORE THIS IF YOU WANT.

S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert
Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He
throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen
Hawking

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Matthew S. Hallacy]

On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 01:50:22AM -0800, Mike Lyon wrote:
> 
> Ahh! But you see it ain't "all you can eat" or rather, "use as much 
> bandwidth as you want as we don't throttle you at all." I recently signed 
> up for Comcast and had it installed. I get some really nice download 
> speeds, would be surprised if the download has a cap on it. However, 
> upload is definetly throttled, stops at about 250 kbps.

It is, Comcast has a rate limit of 1.8mbit/.3mbit pretty much across
the board. As for the NAT arguement, AT&T (now Comcast) has been advertising
the Linksys WAP's for all your wireless+NAT needs, they'll even sell it to
you, and install it for you. AT&T/Comcast doesn't sell business accounts
(at least not here) but they will now sell you a more expensive package,
3.5Mbit/384kbit, for $95/mo, including 'model rental fee', it includes
5 IP addresses "VPN Capability"(?) as well.

Of course, you can get that down to $85/mo if you have cable or phone
service through them.

> -Mike

-- 
Matthew S. HallacyFUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified
http://www.poptix.net   GPG public key 0x01938203

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "todd glassey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP
> should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth
> and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that these
> laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing
> these there will be some arrests.

If you ship pot via FedEx, does the delivery guy go to jail too?  No.
If you make obscene phone calls, does the operator go to jail too?  No.

Common carrier status exists for this very reason.  Unfortunately, it
probably means we'll have to stop filtering things like spam and DoS, since
filtering on content inherently violates common carrier protection -- see
the smut suit against AOL a few years ago.

S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Petri Helenius]

>
> Probably because of blocking at the origin point, such as corporate net-mgrs
> trying to prevent bandwidth hogs or liability issues.
>
Sure but my point is, that unless you run your private p2p network somewhere
which is not connected to the internet, you´ll end up with similar figures because
these "net-mgrs" will be out there doing their thing and there is nothing you can do
about them doing it.

Pete


>
> Rubens
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Petri Helenius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jack Bates"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Richard A Steenbergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Peter Galbavy"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mike Lyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Simon
> Lyall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tony Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "North
> American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 6:08 PM
> Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
>
>
> |
> | > Well, most p2p apps live on well-known ports, and Cisco's QOS mechanism
> | > allows easy classification on ports.  Yes, most of the p2p apps are
> | > port-agile -- but only if they are completely blocked.  My experience is
> | > that if you let the p2p stuff through, it'll stick to its default port
> and
> | > you can police with impunity.
> |
> | Our data shows that between 30% and 50% of p2p data flows on
> "non-standard"
> | ports if you run an unblocked environment.
> |
> | Pete
> |
>
>

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

[todd glassey]

Yes but this is specific to the argument on whether an ISP
should be accountable for what people do with its bandwidth
and what I think is ultimately going to happen is that these
laws are going to be put in place and as part of enforcing
these there will be some arrests.

Now beyond that I don't know, but I am sure that being a
co-conspirator to any number of illegal acts by facilitating
them through what is set as the standard of "operational
negligence", i.e. that what is generally expected of you, is
still prosecutable. And when the first round of Network
Admin's go to jail for being complicit in these frauds, the
tunes regarding "hey you cant do this to us" will all vanish
as your individual lawyers tell you to shut-up before
contempt citations cost you more jail time.

I wish this was different or that the general class of
Admin's wasn't willing to fight this out - but after a few
people wind up in jail, the general tune will change - I
assure you.

My one embedded comment in caps below "TSG -->"

Todd Glassey

-Original Message-
From: Michael Loftis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 10:04 AM
To: todd glassey; Robert A. Hayden; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True


Yah but that's all akin to asking hte telephone company to
make a log of
each and every phone conversation above and beyond billing
records.

Unless you get billed per-piece of e-mail, or per HTTP
connection an ISP
should have to nor need ot keep a log of that data and be
legally compelled
to divulge any of that.

TSG --> EXCEPT THAT THEY BECOME A PARTNER TO THE DECEPTION
BY THEIR FACILITIES CONTINUING TO FACILITATE THE FRAUD.
LOOK - IT MAY NOT BE RIGHT - BUT IT IS WHAT'S COMING - SO DO
YOU WANT TO BE READY FOR IT OR SLAMMED BY IT? TAKE YOUR
PICK.

TSG --> THE WORST PART IS IF SOMEONE IN ANOTHER STATE SENDS
THIS ILLEGAL DATA GRAM TO YOU AND YOU FORWARD IT, YOU
TECHNICALLY BECOME A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN WHAT CAN ONLY BE
DESCRIBED AS "INTERSTATE FRAUD BY WIRE" AND THAT BRINGS THE
FBI INTO IT POST HASTE.

Just my $.02

TSG --> JUST MY $2.

TSG --> Todd


--On Monday, March 31, 2003 9:50 AM -0800 todd glassey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>
> How about this - The issue is really one of the commission
> of fraud and preventing it. So is NAT really an issue? I
> think not. I think it may be part of the legislation but
> that is because that the writers didn't have our input...
>
> So if you as an ISP have a good operating process model
and
> you log and sort your log data. What is the difference
> between a log that shows a bunch of stuff moving to a DHCP
> lease that was assigned to "xxx-" at "zz:zz" time on
> "dd-mm-" day. And that this lease was issued to
account
> "blah" - then you have the most evidence that is available
> over a TCP connection anyway. And its as good as the
> testimony of the logs regarding that there was only one
> address at the end of that pipe serviced.
>
> What I am saying is that any legislation preventing NAT is
> ludicrous and in fact counter productive. What it needs to
> be is legislation regarding how well ISP's have to audit
> what their customers do. That's it. Nothing more.
>
> Look - what is the difference between the log data shown
in
> a scenario where I don't use NAT but instead use
Microsoft's
> Internet Sharing Feature in the  Win2000 Servers? the
answer
> is simple. Poof NAT gateway. And so now it is illegal to
use
> a facility already distributed in every copy of MS Server
> deployed in these states
>
> Look what this law-shtick is all about is the mandating
that
> ISP's know what their customers are doing data wise, on
> their wires (the ISP's) and that's it.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of
> Robert A. Hayden
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:34 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
>
>
>
> Can't NAT-like devices be just as viable as a security
> device as well?
> Is the ISP willing to take responsiblity for security
> breaches on my home
> network because they banned my firewall?  From a
> political/public-perception standpoint, treat those ISPs
> that are
> complaining about NAT as being soft on security and
> encouraging hacking.
> In todays paranoid political climate, there might even be
> some milage
> here.
>
> I have Charter pipeline in Madison, WI, and they've been
> very open about
> people using NAT devices to the point that they are
> recommended in some
> cases as security devices as well as being sold by
Charter's
> professional-services group as inexpensi

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Rubens Kuhl Jr.]

Probably because of blocking at the origin point, such as corporate net-mgrs
trying to prevent bandwidth hogs or liability issues.


Rubens


- Original Message -
From: "Petri Helenius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Stephen Sprunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Jack Bates"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Richard A Steenbergen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Peter Galbavy"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Mike Lyon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Simon
Lyall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Tony Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "North
American Noise and Off-topic Gripes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 6:08 PM
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True


|
| > Well, most p2p apps live on well-known ports, and Cisco's QOS mechanism
| > allows easy classification on ports.  Yes, most of the p2p apps are
| > port-agile -- but only if they are completely blocked.  My experience is
| > that if you let the p2p stuff through, it'll stick to its default port
and
| > you can police with impunity.
|
| Our data shows that between 30% and 50% of p2p data flows on
"non-standard"
| ports if you run an unblocked environment.
|
| Pete
|

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Petri Helenius]

> Well, most p2p apps live on well-known ports, and Cisco's QOS mechanism
> allows easy classification on ports.  Yes, most of the p2p apps are
> port-agile -- but only if they are completely blocked.  My experience is
> that if you let the p2p stuff through, it'll stick to its default port and
> you can police with impunity.

Our data shows that between 30% and 50% of p2p data flows on "non-standard"
ports if you run an unblocked environment.

Pete

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Jack Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Actually, I think it was all the people going bust that were begging for
> the "killer app". Us country folk were happy with the way things were.
> As for using QoS for p2p traffic, would you like to explain to me how
> my Cisco routers can tell the difference between the various flavors of
> p2p and say ftp?

Well, most p2p apps live on well-known ports, and Cisco's QOS mechanism
allows easy classification on ports.  Yes, most of the p2p apps are
port-agile -- but only if they are completely blocked.  My experience is
that if you let the p2p stuff through, it'll stick to its default port and
you can police with impunity.

If that's not good enough, Cisco's software routers (i.e. not GSR, Cats) can
find Napster and Gnutella on any port based on packet contents.

S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Jack Bates" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Granted, 99% of the oversell problem with home users has now
> become piracy. It's no longer the one or two power users, but
> everyone and their dog that is computer illiterate but can still install
> p2p software or at least use it if their friend installs it for them.

Some ISPs (such as mine) have fixed this by enforcing 'no p2p' clauses in
their AUP.  Specifically, p2p apps share content to the rest of the Net,
which means it is a server -- and running servers is an AUP violation of
nearly every 'residential' service agreement I've seen.  Others add explicit
prohibitions for p2p apps in the AUP in case a user disables serving
content.

A few get sneakier, rate-limiting customers below the speed they
purchased if they become a nuisance.  After all, the marketing material says
you get "up to 1.5Mb/s", and 128kb/s meets that definition legally if not
ethically.

S

Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSSdice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[todd glassey]

JA - in answer to your commentary not only are you wrong but
you are in fact mistaken about the laws underlying what is
and is not restraint of trade and what would constitute
Antitrust... And as to the Super DCMA laws... in your
response to that no one would do these things - My friend
then the US Department of Justice will implement these laws
around you and you will wind up looking this on the wrong
end of an arrest warrant potentially. I am not worried about
this happening - its already in place. The legislation is
already in place in six US states. All it takes is the first
arrest warrants to be issued.

Look, you seem to think that this evolution is something
that you as a System's Or Network Admin get to, or possibly
can control, and that arrogance is what is justifying
putting these ideas in place. Now - you may not like these
ideas personally, but they are not mine alone, in fact I am
just one of many messengers all saying pretty much the same
thing - and whether you personally like it or not it is very
likely that these things are going to come to happen. This
is evidenced by the legislation in question here.

In response to your statement #2 - I believe this also to be
rather inaccurate. In fact the operational protocols
alliance is no different that any of the participants in
MFN's peering agreements or in the micro groups like
OpenPeering.ORG that are around. In fact its no different
than MERIT's or IANA's operating models, really - so this
commentary is not only wrong its abusive since it seeks to
cast a tone of "illegality" around the commentary to
discredit it.

In answer to the only real question you asked  (your comment
#2), i.e. what would happen if your employer wanted to route
a protocol that others did not want to route? Simple - that
protocol would stay within MFN.

By the way were you formally speaking for MFN as their
representative when you coined the abusive term "fantasy
group"...

Todd Glassey


-Original Message-
From: J.A. Terranson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:01 PM
To: todd glassey
Cc: Rafi Sadowsky; Jared Mauch; Jack Bates; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too
True)



On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, todd glassey wrote:

> And then it hit me - NANOG has the opportunity to create a
> consortium of networking providers really do run the
> Internet here in North America... and this would be done
by
> creating agreements on what is and is not routed between
the
> members of this little tribunal so to speak. The
membership
> would be limited to a representative to each carrier that
> was a participant in this program. And all participants
> would agree to limit their routed protocols to the
approved
> "list". These players would also get to approve those work
> products developed in the Operations WG as operational
> standards too.
>
> Think this through before you say no.

No.

(1) There is no carrier on this planet that is going to join
your fantasy
group when the group is in a position to make calls on their
business model.

(2) The US has federal [anti-trust] laws under which this
may well be illegal
anyway.

(3) What do you do when carrier-x decides they have a need
for a protocol the
group does not wish to carry?

Forget this idea: it is beyond stillborn.

--
Yours,
J.A. Terranson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

[todd glassey]

How about this - The issue is really one of the commission
of fraud and preventing it. So is NAT really an issue? I
think not. I think it may be part of the legislation but
that is because that the writers didn't have our input...

So if you as an ISP have a good operating process model and
you log and sort your log data. What is the difference
between a log that shows a bunch of stuff moving to a DHCP
lease that was assigned to "xxx-" at "zz:zz" time on
"dd-mm-" day. And that this lease was issued to account
"blah" - then you have the most evidence that is available
over a TCP connection anyway. And its as good as the
testimony of the logs regarding that there was only one
address at the end of that pipe serviced.

What I am saying is that any legislation preventing NAT is
ludicrous and in fact counter productive. What it needs to
be is legislation regarding how well ISP's have to audit
what their customers do. That's it. Nothing more.

Look - what is the difference between the log data shown in
a scenario where I don't use NAT but instead use Microsoft's
Internet Sharing Feature in the  Win2000 Servers? the answer
is simple. Poof NAT gateway. And so now it is illegal to use
a facility already distributed in every copy of MS Server
deployed in these states

Look what this law-shtick is all about is the mandating that
ISP's know what their customers are doing data wise, on
their wires (the ISP's) and that's it.

Todd Glassey

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of
Robert A. Hayden
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 7:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True



Can't NAT-like devices be just as viable as a security
device as well?
Is the ISP willing to take responsiblity for security
breaches on my home
network because they banned my firewall?  From a
political/public-perception standpoint, treat those ISPs
that are
complaining about NAT as being soft on security and
encouraging hacking.
In todays paranoid political climate, there might even be
some milage
here.

I have Charter pipeline in Madison, WI, and they've been
very open about
people using NAT devices to the point that they are
recommended in some
cases as security devices as well as being sold by Charter's
professional-services group as inexpensive firewalls.  About
six months
ago I got a 1-page flier from Charter offering a 4-port
Linksys and an
on-site installation.

Since a "NAT device" could include virtually any operating
system and any
PC with two or more ethernet ports, it might be better to
push the
"firewall" aspects  of them rather than try to defend or
justify the
MANY-to-1 routing aspects of NAT.

RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[todd glassey]

I don't look at this as diluting but in rather achieving
Critical Mass -

Todd


-Original Message-
From: Kris Foster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 7:05 AM
To: 'todd glassey'; Rafi Sadowsky; Jared Mauch
Cc: Jack Bates; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too
True)


> I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But
maybe
> not all at once.

why don't we just get it over with and break apart/dilute
into the usual
suspect: social, technological, legal, economic, political.

[sarcasm]

Kris

Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[Nathan J. Mehl]

In the immortal words of Jack Bates ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 
> > Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
> 
> The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However, 
> there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system, 
> and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to keep track of 
> legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic.

If the word "offtopic" is bugging people, I'll happily alias or change
the name to nanog-nonoperational, or whatever floats your boat.

-n

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  "Very funny, Space Moose."

Remembers, Non-Op Topics Have a Home (was Re: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[Nathan J. Mehl]

In the immortal words of Avleen Vig ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> 
> Look it's very simple.
> If you steal something, you go to jail. That's really nto hard to
> understand, and the reason it doesn't happen more often, is because
> prison systems are already too full of people convicted of more serious
> crimes.

I believe that the phrase you were searching for there was actually
"less serious crimes."  But I digress.

This seems like an apropos point to remind people of the existance of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  All of the friendly bickering with
the people you know and love and/or loathe; 100% less of the
annoying-of-Susan and people-looking-for-operational-content.

To subscribe, drop a line to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Thank you, one and all.

-n

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Reading [James] Ellroy can be like deciphering Morse code tapped out by a 
pair of barely sentient testicles."  (--Dwight Garner, in _Salon_)

RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[Kris Foster]

> I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But maybe
> not all at once.

why don't we just get it over with and break apart/dilute into the usual
suspect: social, technological, legal, economic, political.

[sarcasm]

Kris

RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[todd glassey]

Actually K - what I am saying now - is exactly what I said
some time ago - that NANOG of all the professional
organizations, has the unique capability of being ***the***
down-on-the-metal BCP's people, otherwise maybe it makes
sense to specifically LIMIT the NANOG charter so that it
wont ever be expanded to address these issues and other orgs
will be formed to address those needs. The question is
really one of whether there is any reason to continue NANOG
if it refuses to expand with the role's requirements for
which it has chosen to stake its claim.

Personally - I believe that NANOG will evolve from just this
mailing list and its current projects to potentially be the
formal keeper here in the US and North America - at least in
an operational sense. Its clear that ICANN and the other
ICANN-ish  organizations and the PSO's and the IAB have
really no idea what is going on in a collective sense. And
that's because they are just idea houses. This is the place
where the ideas hit practice and that's what makes NANOG so
special -

Dr. Susan - you and I have differed politically on NANOG and
its roles and have come to "paper blows" over it and I
apologize for that, but what I was trying to point out to
you and the NANOG Sponsorship there at Merit, is that we are
on the cusp of some real changes in how we as a culture and
a race deal with each other electronically, and that if
NANOG is not in the midst of it then..., nay if NANOG s not
directing the charge then it will be directed by it, and I
don't think that is what anyone here wants.

This is not me predicting doom - but rather a change in what
scopes are important to this Internet thing and its
operators.

Just my two cents.

Todd Glassey

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of
Krzysztof Adamski
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 6:54 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too
True)



You are two days to early.

K

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, todd glassey wrote:

>
> Rafi
> I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But
maybe
> not all at once.
>
> The groups would be the "NANOG Network Operations" WG and
> they would create and debate the issues of network
operator
> BCP's. I would also task that WG to produce a set of
> documents regarding the operations of networks as well as
to
> develop liaisons to other orgs formally - especially
> security and auditor orgs. This WG would periodically
report
> to the Main List as well on its progress or the
availability
> of new materials.
>
> The second would be a group on Forensics, which for all
> intents and purposes could be a subgroup of the first
group
> but the conversations would be very different so I think
> that two lists might be necessary if they are the same
> group - but who knows.
>
> ---
>
> And then it hit me - NANOG has the opportunity to create a
> consortium of networking providers really do run the
> Internet here in North America... and this would be done
by
> creating agreements on what is and is not routed between
the
> members of this little tribunal so to speak. The
membership
> would be limited to a representative to each carrier that
> was a participant in this program. And all participants
> would agree to limit their routed protocols to the
approved
> "list". These players would also get to approve those work
> products developed in the Operations WG as operational
> standards too.
>
> Think this through before you say no. This is the golden
> opportunity to take control of the Internet and manage it
> properly here in North America. The Government and
Homeland
> Defense will applaud this and be there with you in a heart
> beat.  Please chew on this last idea for a while before
you
> say no or decide that I am some whacked megalomaniac. This
> is a real opportunity to do some real good here and it
> should be passed around both MERIT and NANOG.
>
> Check your customer agreements - I will bet that for all
of
> you, that you don't have to keep adding protocols, that is
> until the law figures them out and also these new laws
will
> mean changes to some of the old systems for more assurance
> and auditing capability.
>
> Look - the politicians and lawyers are going to put our
> actions under more and more scrutiny as time goes on and
as
> they get more comfortable with the technologies, so rather
> that being two steps behind them its better to see them
> coming and stay two steps ahead.
>
> Todd Glassey
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Rafi Sadowsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:36 AM
> To: Jared Mauch
> Cc: todd glassey; Jack Bates; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA
Too

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Jack Bates]

Dan Hollis wrote:
They dont need to adjust their pricing, they just need to lobby for new 
laws to protect their flawed business models. Oh wait, they just did that.

IANAL, but the laws won't last. If they are enforced, the courts will 
overturn them. The exceptions are the mods for console game systems. 
People are already being charged with that under the DMCA if I'm not 
mistaken. Sadly(yeah right), some politicians will have trouble getting 
re-elected now.

-Jack

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Dan Hollis]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> It's aggrivating to wait while businesses finally keel over dead or 
> adjust their pricing to match the real costs.

They dont need to adjust their pricing, they just need to lobby for new 
laws to protect their flawed business models. Oh wait, they just did that.

-Dan
-- 
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Jack Bates]

Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
Get some QoS for the p2p traffic and stop complaining. One moment everyone
is begging for the "killer app" to motivate high-speed residential
connectivity, the next they're pissing and moaning because it actually
happened.
Actually, I think it was all the people going bust that were begging for 
the "killer app". Us country folk were happy with the way things were. 
As for using QoS for p2p traffic, would you like to explain to me how my 
Cisco routers can tell the difference between the various flavors of p2p 
and say ftp?

As stated in my previous post, we do fine with our pricing. It's all our 
competitors that are now buying transit from us and dropping 
multi-homing because they can't afford it anymore that have problems. 
Then, on the other hand, you have the people that scream we are too 
high, and so and so offers it cheaper (say an RBOC or any major city). 
It's aggrivating to wait while businesses finally keel over dead or 
adjust their pricing to match the real costs.

-Jack

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Richard A Steenbergen]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2003 at 02:49:29AM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
> 
> Yeah. Give things away for free and you go bust. In Oklahoma, the telco 
> price for DSL is around $35. SWBell was doing a plan for the longest 
> time (may still be doing it) of allowing ISPs to use their DSL, but the 
> problem with the deal is that the ISP only got $10 out of it. $10/mo for 
> 1.5Mb bandwidth? ha! If I'm nice, I might give you 64k for $10/mo. 
> Modems have the luxury of working well on oversell because we 1) 
> oversell the lines going into the modems at anywhere from 4:1 to 10:1 
> depending on the town and 2) oversell the bandwidth because p2p is too 
> slow and takes too long, so many modem users don't use it. Take this to 
> DSL speeds and then it's suddenly attractive and they'll suck a 1.5Mb/s 
> worth in nothing flat. Let's see. It costs me a minimum of $1000/mo for 
> a T1 (loop charge, not port) to some of these DSL supporting towns. The 
> home user isn't going to pay $1000/mo for their 24/7 p2p. I can't afford 
> to support it at $50/mo either. Even cranking up to DS3, I don't save 
> much on the oversell. 30 customers doing p2p will do well on saturation 
> of a DS3 and even if I have 180 customers with only 30 doing p2p, 
> $9,000/mo (50/per) is hardly going to pay for the DS3. Much less the 
> SWBell "you get $10" plan. Thus I charge more than $50/mo and you can 
> forget getting 1.5Mb at that price. Unfortunately, there are ISPs out 
> there who are trying to compete against people in Chapter 11 or people 
> who are subsidizing DSL costs with other costs (ie, SWBell does 1.5Mb/s 
> for $49.95/mo which they are subsidizing with the telco and business 
> customers but still lose money on the home user).

Get some QoS for the p2p traffic and stop complaining. One moment everyone
is begging for the "killer app" to motivate high-speed residential
connectivity, the next they're pissing and moaning because it actually
happened.

-- 
Richard A Steenbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Jack Bates]

Peter Galbavy wrote:
Er, isn't that the fundamental difference between IP and fixed-bandwidth
voice ? I have spent any number of years trying to 'educate' old guard telco
management and planners that one of the key economic benefits of the
Internet over old fashioned private networks is that the sharing of capacity
actully works 99.99% of the time...
Yes, this is the fundamental difference, and it isn't a bad thing. 
However, the theory of oversell is dependant on the type of customer. In 
production, businesses actually oversell better than other customer 
type. ISP transit customers oversell next. Then there is the home user 
who can be oversold the least amount. Granted, 99% of the oversell 
problem with home users has now become piracy. It's no longer the one or 
two power users, but everyone and their dog that is computer illiterate 
but can still install p2p software or at least use it if their friend 
installs it for them.

To many telcos came into this market and sold 'no overbooking' QOS and then
wondered why so few bought their overpriced services compared to the new
(also going bust now) network operators ?
Yeah. Give things away for free and you go bust. In Oklahoma, the telco 
price for DSL is around $35. SWBell was doing a plan for the longest 
time (may still be doing it) of allowing ISPs to use their DSL, but the 
problem with the deal is that the ISP only got $10 out of it. $10/mo for 
1.5Mb bandwidth? ha! If I'm nice, I might give you 64k for $10/mo. 
Modems have the luxury of working well on oversell because we 1) 
oversell the lines going into the modems at anywhere from 4:1 to 10:1 
depending on the town and 2) oversell the bandwidth because p2p is too 
slow and takes too long, so many modem users don't use it. Take this to 
DSL speeds and then it's suddenly attractive and they'll suck a 1.5Mb/s 
worth in nothing flat. Let's see. It costs me a minimum of $1000/mo for 
a T1 (loop charge, not port) to some of these DSL supporting towns. The 
home user isn't going to pay $1000/mo for their 24/7 p2p. I can't afford 
to support it at $50/mo either. Even cranking up to DS3, I don't save 
much on the oversell. 30 customers doing p2p will do well on saturation 
of a DS3 and even if I have 180 customers with only 30 doing p2p, 
$9,000/mo (50/per) is hardly going to pay for the DS3. Much less the 
SWBell "you get $10" plan. Thus I charge more than $50/mo and you can 
forget getting 1.5Mb at that price. Unfortunately, there are ISPs out 
there who are trying to compete against people in Chapter 11 or people 
who are subsidizing DSL costs with other costs (ie, SWBell does 1.5Mb/s 
for $49.95/mo which they are subsidizing with the telco and business 
customers but still lose money on the home user).

-Jack

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Neil J. McRae]

> Er, isn't that the fundamental difference between IP and fixed-bandwidth
> voice ? I have spent any number of years trying to 'educate' old guard telco
> management and planners that one of the key economic benefits of the
> Internet over old fashioned private networks is that the sharing of capacity
> actully works 99.99% of the time...

It only works because there is more bandwidth provisioned on
most of the Internet than is needed. When this isn't the case things
start to go downhill pretty rapidly. IP provides a mechanism for easier 
bandwidth management and resourcing but if you run out - you run out.

Regards,
Neil.

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Peter Galbavy]

Jack Bates wrote:
> Please see Saphire worm. Then tell me that an ISP doesn't oversell
> services. The fact is, the entire Internet is oversold. If everyone
> did their full capacity, it would crash. DSL is also based on this
> assumption. Most of the providers selling DSL at the cheap rates are

Er, isn't that the fundamental difference between IP and fixed-bandwidth
voice ? I have spent any number of years trying to 'educate' old guard telco
management and planners that one of the key economic benefits of the
Internet over old fashioned private networks is that the sharing of capacity
actully works 99.99% of the time...

To many telcos came into this market and sold 'no overbooking' QOS and then
wondered why so few bought their overpriced services compared to the new
(also going bust now) network operators ?

Peter

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Bruce Pinsky]

Jack Bates wrote:
Dan Hollis wrote:

Using the law to defend deceptive business practices. Makes perfect 
sense.

It's either that or start charging the customer's what it really costs. 
They've been so happy to get away from that. Large networks have cut 
their rates based on oversell so that mid-sized networks could cut their 
rates, so that small networks could cut their rates, so that @home can 
have service for $50/mo. If @home uses full bandwidth, and each of the 
networks steps up to meet the bandwidth, either a) @home gets billed no 
less than 4 times as much or b) any network that doesn't step up pricing 
goes into Chapter 11. In addition, it's questionable if the overall 
network infrastructure can handle that amount of throughput. 1.5Mb/s to 
the house sounds so wonderful, but at $50/mo, it's not really feasible 
without a lot of oversell. People traditionally base oversell per 
computer connection (taken from dialup overselling).

I disagree with the method, but who am I to say someone else's business 
plan is faulty and they shouldn't be allowed to enforce it?

Then charge what it really costs.

Look, I'm buying transit from an ISP.  You know, moving bits.  This kind 
of legislation is as absurd as telling me what devices I'm allowed to 
view my DVD's on, listen to my CD's on, or how I should watch a movie 
because it happens to come on a little silver disk vs a dark stream of tape.

If ISPs have to resort to these kind of tactics to preserve "value" of 
their services, perhaps they need to find a way to offer more "value" 
than they do today.

As for the security aspects, I have privacy of communication when I put 
a letter into an envelope.  Just because I'm communicating 
electronically doesn't mean I've abdicated that right.

==
bep

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Bruce Pinsky]

William Allen Simpson wrote:
...snip...snip...
(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]

Sounds like I better start charging my neighbors a $0.01/month :-)

==
bep

RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[Krzysztof Adamski]

You are two days to early.

K

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, todd glassey wrote:

> 
> Rafi
> I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But maybe
> not all at once.
> 
> The groups would be the "NANOG Network Operations" WG and
> they would create and debate the issues of network operator
> BCP's. I would also task that WG to produce a set of
> documents regarding the operations of networks as well as to
> develop liaisons to other orgs formally - especially
> security and auditor orgs. This WG would periodically report
> to the Main List as well on its progress or the availability
> of new materials.
> 
> The second would be a group on Forensics, which for all
> intents and purposes could be a subgroup of the first group
> but the conversations would be very different so I think
> that two lists might be necessary if they are the same
> group - but who knows.
> 
> ---
> 
> And then it hit me - NANOG has the opportunity to create a
> consortium of networking providers really do run the
> Internet here in North America... and this would be done by
> creating agreements on what is and is not routed between the
> members of this little tribunal so to speak. The membership
> would be limited to a representative to each carrier that
> was a participant in this program. And all participants
> would agree to limit their routed protocols to the approved
> "list". These players would also get to approve those work
> products developed in the Operations WG as operational
> standards too.
> 
> Think this through before you say no. This is the golden
> opportunity to take control of the Internet and manage it
> properly here in North America. The Government and Homeland
> Defense will applaud this and be there with you in a heart
> beat.  Please chew on this last idea for a while before you
> say no or decide that I am some whacked megalomaniac. This
> is a real opportunity to do some real good here and it
> should be passed around both MERIT and NANOG.
> 
> Check your customer agreements - I will bet that for all of
> you, that you don't have to keep adding protocols, that is
> until the law figures them out and also these new laws will
> mean changes to some of the old systems for more assurance
> and auditing capability.
> 
> Look - the politicians and lawyers are going to put our
> actions under more and more scrutiny as time goes on and as
> they get more comfortable with the technologies, so rather
> that being two steps behind them its better to see them
> coming and stay two steps ahead.
> 
> Todd Glassey
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: Rafi Sadowsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:36 AM
> To: Jared Mauch
> Cc: todd glassey; Jack Bates; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too
> True)
> 
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> 
>  Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
> 
> 
> --
>   Rafi
> 
> 
> 
> ## On 2003-03-30 14:07 -0500 Jared Mauch typed:
> 
> JM>
> JM>
> JM>   Hello,
> JM>
> JM>   Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let
> me know.
> JM>
> JM>   I can host such a list.
> JM>
> JM>   - Jared
> JM>
> JM> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey
> wrote:
> JM> >
> JM> > That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a
> real
> JM> > issue though and its important to the global
> operations of
> JM> > the bigger picture Internet -
> JM> >
> [snipped]
> 
> 

RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[todd glassey]

Rafi
I think that we possibly may need three subgroups. But maybe
not all at once.

The groups would be the "NANOG Network Operations" WG and
they would create and debate the issues of network operator
BCP's. I would also task that WG to produce a set of
documents regarding the operations of networks as well as to
develop liaisons to other orgs formally - especially
security and auditor orgs. This WG would periodically report
to the Main List as well on its progress or the availability
of new materials.

The second would be a group on Forensics, which for all
intents and purposes could be a subgroup of the first group
but the conversations would be very different so I think
that two lists might be necessary if they are the same
group - but who knows.

---

And then it hit me - NANOG has the opportunity to create a
consortium of networking providers really do run the
Internet here in North America... and this would be done by
creating agreements on what is and is not routed between the
members of this little tribunal so to speak. The membership
would be limited to a representative to each carrier that
was a participant in this program. And all participants
would agree to limit their routed protocols to the approved
"list". These players would also get to approve those work
products developed in the Operations WG as operational
standards too.

Think this through before you say no. This is the golden
opportunity to take control of the Internet and manage it
properly here in North America. The Government and Homeland
Defense will applaud this and be there with you in a heart
beat.  Please chew on this last idea for a while before you
say no or decide that I am some whacked megalomaniac. This
is a real opportunity to do some real good here and it
should be passed around both MERIT and NANOG.

Check your customer agreements - I will bet that for all of
you, that you don't have to keep adding protocols, that is
until the law figures them out and also these new laws will
mean changes to some of the old systems for more assurance
and auditing capability.

Look - the politicians and lawyers are going to put our
actions under more and more scrutiny as time goes on and as
they get more comfortable with the technologies, so rather
that being two steps behind them its better to see them
coming and stay two steps ahead.

Todd Glassey

-Original Message-
From: Rafi Sadowsky [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 11:36 AM
To: Jared Mauch
Cc: todd glassey; Jack Bates; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too
True)


Hi guys,


 Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?


--
Rafi



## On 2003-03-30 14:07 -0500 Jared Mauch typed:

JM>
JM>
JM> Hello,
JM>
JM> Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let
me know.
JM>
JM> I can host such a list.
JM>
JM> - Jared
JM>
JM> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey
wrote:
JM> >
JM> > That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a
real
JM> > issue though and its important to the global
operations of
JM> > the bigger picture Internet -
JM> >
[snipped]

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Dan Hollis]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> As Larry Blunk points out, to "possess" an encryption device is a felony!

The law as written would seem to make microsoft windows nt/2k/xp/etc 
illegal to possess. Perhaps someone can print up a bunch of stickers 
"Under 750.540c enacted 03/31/2003 it is a felony to possess this 
software/device" and put them on microsoft windows boxes and hardware 
routers wherever they appear.

Wonder how long it will take for someone to discover michigan government 
officers committing 1000's of felonies...

-Dan
-- 
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Dan Hollis]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> I disagree with the method, but who am I to say someone else's business 
> plan is faulty and they shouldn't be allowed to enforce it?

Enforcing your business plan yourself or having uncle same enforce it for 
you are two different things. Apparently you prefer the latter.

-Dan
-- 
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Kevin Loch]

- Original Message -
From: William Allen Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:39 am
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

>(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]

"place of origin or destination" could mean street address, not IP
address or email address.  In the context of the rest of the law, 
it is likely they meant physical location.  Especially since it
refers to "service" and not just "telecommunications".

KL

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

[McBurnett, Jim]

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:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
> 

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[William Allen Simpson]

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

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Jack Bates]

Dan Hollis wrote:
Using the law to defend deceptive business practices. Makes perfect sense.

It's either that or start charging the customer's what it really costs. 
They've been so happy to get away from that. Large networks have cut 
their rates based on oversell so that mid-sized networks could cut their 
rates, so that small networks could cut their rates, so that @home can 
have service for $50/mo. If @home uses full bandwidth, and each of the 
networks steps up to meet the bandwidth, either a) @home gets billed no 
less than 4 times as much or b) any network that doesn't step up pricing 
goes into Chapter 11. In addition, it's questionable if the overall 
network infrastructure can handle that amount of throughput. 1.5Mb/s to 
the house sounds so wonderful, but at $50/mo, it's not really feasible 
without a lot of oversell. People traditionally base oversell per 
computer connection (taken from dialup overselling).

I disagree with the method, but who am I to say someone else's business 
plan is faulty and they shouldn't be allowed to enforce it?

-Jack

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Dan Hollis]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Dave Howe wrote:
> it is the hop from 4 to 5 I am having trouble with

Using the law to defend deceptive business practices. Makes perfect sense.

-Dan
-- 
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Dave Howe]

I am not sure I am following the argument here.

as far as I can make out

1. Many (all!) providers underprovision (aka oversell) their bandwidth,
expecting peak utilisations to be approximately the provisioned amount
because experience has shown that actual usage is only a percentage of
theoretical purchased bandwidth
2. If "power users" use even half the bandwidth they were *sold*, then that
has to be made up from low-bandwidth users to maintain an average in line
with actual provisioning; the price charged is actually based on the
provisioning, not actual usage or sold bandwidth, and is therefore
profitable only if the actual usage matches statistically
3. most power users eat bandwidth from a single machine downloading at the
maximum achievable rate and/or running servers; however, some could well do
so using multiple machines using NAT, and some otherwise low-bandwidth users
could possibly use more bandwidth if running multiple machines behind NAT
(based on the idea that low bandwidth users can't possibly use a multi-user
OS like linux and dumb terminals)
4. Trying to bandwidth limit users to a fraction of the bandwidth they were
theoretically sold (and/or similar schemes like total data transferred caps
and excess data usage charges) are politically and techically awkward;
customers don't like trying to understand that you sold them a product that
you knew in advance you couldn't provide, and tend to look around for
lawyers when that happens
5. therefore making the sale or advertisting of NAT devices illegal (and by
extension, commercial firewalls such as checkpoint's fw-1 and nat-capable
cisco routers) is only reasonable and perfectly defendable.

it is the hop from 4 to 5 I am having trouble with

Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) (why notnanog-legal ?)

[Mark Rogaski]

--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

An entity claiming to be McBurnett, Jim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
:=20
: I am not for or against either..
: just putting thoughts out there..
: NANOG-Legal would be a good thing for the legal eagles,
:=20

I would suggest calling it "nanog-policy".  I think the policy subheading
is a little more inclusive than "legal" and fits nicely with the
implementation/policy division that many consider to be fundamental in
system engineering.

Just my $0.02,
Mark

--=20
[] Mark 'Doc' Rogaski | Guess what? I got a fever! And the only
[] [EMAIL PROTECTED]  | prescription ... is more cowbell!
[] 1994 Suzuki GS500ER| -- Christopher Walken (as Bruce Dickinson)
[] 1975 Yamaha RD250B |

--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+h3Vb79qnkXHz9aMRAhw7AJ9oXxkNKGM40C3a+bk581MWH6ariQCfaXdQ
CSKawXTsWLHwTLIp3ksJnj8=
=Vhyb
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi--

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

[E.B. Dreger]

JM> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:18:42 -0500
JM> From: "McBurnett, Jim"


JM> maybe I should have said Stateful inspection..
JM> IE inspection of SMTP whereas it limits the commands
JM> that are allowed and makes protocol adjustments.

That would be a protocol-level proxy, and is orthogonal to state.
:-)


Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita

~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT)
From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to
be blocked.

RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) (why not nanog-legal ?)

[McBurnett, Jim]

I am not for or against either..
just putting thoughts out there..
NANOG-Legal would be a good thing for the legal eagles,
and a more consuming one for those of us already on numerous lists..
all in all, NANOG as a whole single list usually inspires more 
information sharing when taken whole, IMHO

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: William Devine, II [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 5:15 PM
> To: McBurnett, Jim; 'Jack Bates'; 'Rafi Sadowsky'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True) (why
> not nanog-legal ?)
> 
> 
> Why not a nanog-legal   list ?
> 
> wiliam
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> McBurnett, Jim
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 01:47 PM
> To: Jack Bates; Rafi Sadowsky
> Cc: Jared Mauch; todd glassey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
> 
> 
> 
> I agree...Partially
> Legal issues are important, but those below a
> management level, mostly don't care..
> I would not necessarily want another list to watch..
> But, it sometimes get's overly consuming to look at topics I care less
> about...
> 
> anyway, that's my 10 cents worth.. Inflation ya know..
> 
> Jim
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jack Bates [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:41 PM
> > To: Rafi Sadowsky
> > Cc: Jared Mauch; todd glassey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
> >
> >
> >
> > Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
> > >
> > >  Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
> > >
> >
> > The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However,
> > there are some that want to know what's going on in the 
> legal system,
> > and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to
> > keep track of
> > legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic.
> >
> > -Jack
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

[McBurnett, Jim]

maybe I should have said Stateful inspection..
IE inspection of SMTP whereas it limits the commands
that are allowed and makes protocol adjustments.

thanks,
J

> -Original Message-
> From: E.B. Dreger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 5:11 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: State Super-DMCA Too True 
> 
> 
> 
> JM> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:34:28 -0500
> JM> From: "McBurnett, Jim"
> 
> 
> JM> NAT-- HMMM - In my eyes that is a security precaution for the
> JM> ignorant.. Think of this: Joe user goes to Wally World, or
> JM> Staples and get's a Linksys BEFSR11 cable/dsl router. He adds
> JM> NAT, and walla, his computer is no longer wide open to the
> JM> world... Albeit not a stateful firewall, it is much more
> 
> Actually, it _is_ stateful.  It tracks state so it knows what
> inbound traffic is directed to what IP:port on the inside, or
> dropped if no match is found.
> 
> Run 1:1 NAT and see how secure that is.  Run a "public" IP
> address with stateful rules that drop inbound traffic unless
> outbound traffic happened "recently".  Compare.
> 
> NAT's "security" is a by-product of state that is necessary to
> achieve 1:N mapping.
> 
> 
> Eddy
> --
> Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
> Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
> Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
> Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita
> 
> ~
> Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT)
> From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.
> 
> These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
> Do NOT send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to
> be blocked.
> 
> 

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

[E.B. Dreger]

JM> Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 10:34:28 -0500
JM> From: "McBurnett, Jim"


JM> NAT-- HMMM - In my eyes that is a security precaution for the
JM> ignorant.. Think of this: Joe user goes to Wally World, or
JM> Staples and get's a Linksys BEFSR11 cable/dsl router. He adds
JM> NAT, and walla, his computer is no longer wide open to the
JM> world... Albeit not a stateful firewall, it is much more

Actually, it _is_ stateful.  It tracks state so it knows what
inbound traffic is directed to what IP:port on the inside, or
dropped if no match is found.

Run 1:1 NAT and see how secure that is.  Run a "public" IP
address with stateful rules that drop inbound traffic unless
outbound traffic happened "recently".  Compare.

NAT's "security" is a by-product of state that is necessary to
achieve 1:N mapping.


Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita

~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT)
From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to
be blocked.

Re[2]: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Richard Welty]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:13:24 -0800 (PST) Dan Hollis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> > enough to scare people into not breaking them. However, history has 
> > shown that we instead make it a criminal offense and use that as the
> > way to scare people into doing what is right to begin with.
 
> Since when should breaking an ISP's TOS incur a heavier prison term than
> a guy who beats his wife?

i've been holding my tongue, but i'm quite frankly concerned that numerous
corporate interests (MPAA, RIAA, etc.) are trying hard to get certain
things criminalized that are dealt with perfectly well already in civil
contract law.

an ISP can permit or ban NAT as they see fit, per their TOS. no need for
this to be criminal.

richard
--
Richard Welty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592
  Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Dan Hollis]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Avleen Vig wrote:
> I can't see why you have a problem sending someone to jail for commiting
> a crime.

The punishment does not fit the crime. The punishment here is more severe 
than a lot of violent crimes.

Unless of course you feel that "stealing service via NAT" is a truly 
serious offense...

-Dan
-- 
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Jack Bates]

Dan Hollis wrote:
Since when should breaking an ISP's TOS incur a heavier prison term than a 
guy who beats his wife?

And like wife beating, I'm sure that people will still break the ISP's TOS.

-Jack

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Dan Hollis]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Jack Bates wrote:
> enough to scare people into not breaking them. However, history has 
> shown that we instead make it a criminal offense and use that as the way 
> to scare people into doing what is right to begin with.

Since when should breaking an ISP's TOS incur a heavier prison term than a 
guy who beats his wife?

-Dan
-- 
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[David Lesher]

Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
> 
> Not true. An ISP can choose to allow NAT and wireless or not allow it.= 20
> > This is the ISPs choice. The law is designed to protect the ISPs rights= 


Shades of "You MUST rent your telephones from Ma; FOREIGN EQUIPMENT
may damage the network..." of years past.




-- 
A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
& no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead20915-1433

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 11:22:11PM -0600, Jack Bates wrote:
> 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.

I find this argument interesting, because a lot of people seem to
share your feeling that the ISP can, in the terms of service, allow
or disallow specific uses.

I submit at this point in time they can, but it would be amazingly
stupid for them to do that.  As much as ISP's don't want it admit
it an internet connection is being treated more and more like a
utility.  Drop into that mix that many consumers who can get DSL
or Cable Modems only have a single ISP to buy from and it looks
even more like a utility.

Now, does the electric company tell you what you can and can't plug
in? Do they tell you that you can only use 120v devices, or 220v
devices? No, they simply bill you for what you use.

Does the water company tell you that you can't drink the water?
Share it with a stranger that stops by?  Bill you based on how many
sinks and showers you have?  No, they simply bill you for what you
use.

Does the phone company tell you how many phones you can have?  Do
they prevent you from using a cordless phone, or loaning that
cordless phone to your neighbor?  No, they simply bill you for what
you use.

The last one is an interesting case.  The phone company used to
lease you the phones (and you didn't have a choice).  They kept
tally of every connection, required you to use them to run all the
wires.  They screamed for years that if the system was run any
other way it would all fall apart.  Well, the people revolted,
broke up AT&T, and put in a pile of government regulation to allow
people to plug up (at least from a phone point of view) pretty much
anything.

If ISP's keep imposing these overly restrictive terms of service
eventually the people will revolt.  The government will come in
and make a huge mess of the industry, but probably "fix" things
from the consumer point of view.  ISP's would be wise to look at
what the other utilities do, and make their service be the dropping
off of an Ethernet port on a billing device (eg, meter) and simply
bill per bit.

In the end, I think users would be more happy (plug up whatever
you want, however you want, we don't care!), and I think the ISP's
would make more money.  First, more people would plug up more stuff.
Second, they would make revenue off things they don't today.  They
outlaw servers because they can't make money on them with $49.95
a month pricing.  Well, if you bill by the bit the guy who runs a
server can pay $50 in usage charges.  He has his server, the ISP
has the money to scale their network to support it.  We call this
a win-win situation.  Third, they could lower the entry point price
for people with low needs.  $25 could get you DSL with 1G a month
for grandma and her e-mail, while $100 could get you DSL with 8G
a month for a gamer.  The grandma who won't pay $50 today might
pay $25.

So, while the ISP's may not be doing anything illegal, and in fact
may be having success in passing laws to make what they seem to
want to do even easier, they are being extremely short sighted and
stupid.  They may get a couple of good years out of this run, but
eventually the people will be fed up, and fed up people get the
government involved, and the government will fix it in it's usual
bull-in-a-china-shop way, which will be very bad for the ISP, and
hopefully only slightly bad for the consumer.

--
   Leo Bicknell - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.tmbg.org


pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Tony Rall]

On Sunday, 2003-03-30 at 09:07 CST, Jack Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>  Please see Saphire worm. Then tell me that an ISP doesn't oversell
> services. The fact is, the entire Internet is oversold. If everyone did
> their full capacity, it would crash. DSL is also based on this
> assumption. 

It's fine to oversell your capacity, as long as you inform your customers 
that that is what you're doing.  And it's ok to put bandwidth limits on 
usage (or tiered pricing), as long as you're up front with your customers 
about it (don't advertise a 2 Mb/s connection for $50 and then, in the 
fine print, say that the customer can't average more than 50 kb/s).

It's not fine (although an ISP can do it if they choose) and it is 
somewhat stupid to try to control what you care about (bandwidth) by 
limiting something that is not necessarily related to that resource (NAT, 
certain apps, etc.).

In summary, charge appropriately for what costs you money.  NAT does not 
cost you anything.  Charge for bandwidth, helpdesk calls (not due to ISP 
problems), whatever really is a direct expense to the provider.  Again, 
tell the customer plainly about these limitations (before they commit to 
them).

Tony Rall

RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[McBurnett, Jim]

I agree...Partially
Legal issues are important, but those below a 
management level, mostly don't care..
I would not necessarily want another list to watch..
But, it sometimes get's overly consuming to look at topics I care less about...

anyway, that's my 10 cents worth.. Inflation ya know..

Jim

> -Original Message-
> From: Jack Bates [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 2:41 PM
> To: Rafi Sadowsky
> Cc: Jared Mauch; todd glassey; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)
> 
> 
> 
> Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
> > 
> >  Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?
> > 
> 
> The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However, 
> there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system, 
> and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to 
> keep track of 
> legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic.
> 
> -Jack
> 
> 
> 

Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[Jack Bates]

Rafi Sadowsky wrote:
 Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?

The legal issues are technical on-topic and nanog related. However, 
there are some that want to know what's going on in the legal system, 
and others that don't. At the same time, those wanting to keep track of 
legal issues may not want to be subscribed to nanog-offtopic.

-Jack

Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[Rafi Sadowsky]

Hi guys,


 Whats wrong with the nanog-offtopic list ?


-- 
Rafi



## On 2003-03-30 14:07 -0500 Jared Mauch typed:

JM> 
JM> 
JM> Hello,
JM> 
JM> Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know.
JM> 
JM> I can host such a list.
JM> 
JM> - Jared
JM> 
JM> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey wrote:
JM> > 
JM> > That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real
JM> > issue though and its important to the global operations of
JM> > the bigger picture Internet -
JM> > 
[snipped]

Re: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[Jared Mauch]

Hello,

Someone write up a list charter for a new list and let me know.

I can host such a list.

- Jared

On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:04:07AM -0800, todd glassey wrote:
> 
> That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real
> issue though and its important to the global operations of
> the bigger picture Internet -
> 
> besides this is ***the*** golden opportunity for you ISP's
> to hit your customers for more money since you now have
> serious legal issues constraining how you architect your
> business.

> -->I completely agree, Todd. I think that the legal
> -->aspects are relevant to
> -->NANOG, but there are some who feel that it is
> -->excess in their mailbox
> -->and deters them from the technical aspects of networking.
> -->
> -->-Jack

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.

RE: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[todd glassey]

That's why we need separate lists for them. This is a real
issue though and its important to the global operations of
the bigger picture Internet -

besides this is ***the*** golden opportunity for you ISP's
to hit your customers for more money since you now have
serious legal issues constraining how you architect your
business.

Todd


-->-Original Message-
-->From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
-->Jack Bates
-->Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 9:59 AM
-->To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-->Subject: NANOG Splinter List (Was: State
-->Super-DMCA Too True)
-->
-->
-->
-->todd glassey wrote:
-->> Actually I proposed that NANOG also consider several
-->> splinter lists. Including one concerned with the Legal
-->> Issues with operating network services, and
-->since there are
-->> jail terms being talked about I suggest that
-->these are now
-->> sub-organizations who's time as come.
-->>
-->
-->I completely agree, Todd. I think that the legal
-->aspects are relevant to
-->NANOG, but there are some who feel that it is
-->excess in their mailbox
-->and deters them from the technical aspects of networking.
-->
-->-Jack
-->
-->

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Niels Bakker]

* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Lambert) [Sun 30 Mar 2003, 20:19 CEST]:
> http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/StealingBandwidth?action=highlight&va
> lue=CategoryPhilosophy
> 
> (quoting)
>  "Traditional broadband providers cry foul when users take their cable modem
> or DSL connections and beam them to friends, family and passsers-by through
> Wi-Fi networks. "It constitutes a theft of service per our user agreement,"
> says AT&T Broadband's Sarah Eder. But at least one very important observer
> doesn't buy that. "I don't think it's stealing by any definition of law at
> the moment," says FCC chairman Michael Powell. "The truth is, it's an
> unintended use."

Right.  How would you feel when your butcher started selling meat only
for personal use, and if you wanted to feed your family with it you
would have to buy the family meat package (which comes presliced for up
to three kids)?

And now you'd go to jail if you didn't cook it in separate frying pans.


-- Niels (stretching analogies for fun and profit)

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Alex Lambert]

> If you price your product on the assumption that the average customer only
> uses 5% of their bandwidth then it doesn't take many customers using 50%
> or 100% of it to really spoil your economics

Personal Telco has some interesting opinions on this:

http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/StealingBandwidth?action=highlight&va
lue=CategoryPhilosophy

(quoting)
 "Traditional broadband providers cry foul when users take their cable modem
or DSL connections and beam them to friends, family and passsers-by through
Wi-Fi networks. "It constitutes a theft of service per our user agreement,"
says AT&T Broadband's Sarah Eder. But at least one very important observer
doesn't buy that. "I don't think it's stealing by any definition of law at
the moment," says FCC chairman Michael Powell. "The truth is, it's an
unintended use."



apl

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Jack Bates]

Jamie Lawrence wrote:
Perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree, if you think those where good
laws.
I don't necessarily think they are good laws. What it comes down to is 
this. A person will do whatever they think they can get away with if the 
punishment is only losing their service. I personally think that ISPs 
should write in penalty costs for breaking TOS and AUP and set them high 
enough to scare people into not breaking them. However, history has 
shown that we instead make it a criminal offense and use that as the way 
to scare people into doing what is right to begin with.

Extending this to criminalizing devices capable of doing NAT, or port 
forwarding, or (seemingly, in some cases) encryption, or anonymous 
remailers, is stupid and wrong.

I do think that the Act was poorly written and have stated such. There 
is too much room for abuse of the Act. They tried to incorporate too 
many things under one umbrella. And ISP should not be grouped with telco 
or even cable. It has it's own sets of problems, and those problems 
should be handled uniquely. Combining legislation has never been a good 
deal.

If you need to criminalize what you should be enforcing by contract,
your business has a problem.
People, especially home users, don't fear breach of contract, especially 
if they feel they might get away with it. They do fear the law and going 
to jail; reguardless of if it's enforced heavily or not.

-Jack

NANOG Splinter List (Was: State Super-DMCA Too True)

[Jack Bates]

todd glassey wrote:
Actually I proposed that NANOG also consider several
splinter lists. Including one concerned with the Legal
Issues with operating network services, and since there are
jail terms being talked about I suggest that these are now
sub-organizations who's time as come.
I completely agree, Todd. I think that the legal aspects are relevant to 
NANOG, but there are some who feel that it is excess in their mailbox 
and deters them from the technical aspects of networking.

-Jack

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[David Lesher]

Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
> 
> 
> Banning NAT and servers is a simple way to filter out most of the "power
> users" without scaring the "mom and pop" customers with bandwidth and
> download quotas.

Problem solved -- all my local machines are not on a NAT block,
but {say} Broken Ring or ArcNet...

Now, am I a felon or not? [we'll leave "insane" out of this...]



-- 
A host is a host from coast to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
& no one will talk to a host that's close[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead20915-1433

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Avleen Vig]

On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 11:55:44AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
> > If it takes a few months for the ISP to cut you off for not paying your 
> > bill, that is their own fault. Concerning someone going to jail for 
> > running NAT in breach of TOS, I find it supportable. There is precedence 
> > set with the Cable companies (using equipment to allow service to be 
> > used on more than tv's than allowed by the cable company would be 
> > equivelent here).
> 
>   Sigh.  My point is this is a question of extremes and punishment
> commensurate with the "crime".   I can understand how one could
> consider NAT to be "theft" under a terms of service agreement.  I
> can even understand how one might think this should be a criminal
> offense (although I would disagree - consider how many ISP's
> consider NAT to be perfectly acceptable).   However, going beyond a
> misdemeanor offense and a fine - advocating prison time and felony
> convictions - is something I simply can't understand or find
> supportable.  

[I think this is starting to step slightly outside the bounds of nanog,
but it's still linked.]

Look it's very simple.
If you steal something, you go to jail. That's really nto hard to
understand, and the reason it doesn't happen more often, is because
prison systems are already too full of people convicted of more serious
crimes.

You've already agreed to the statement that the act can be considered
theft. If you steal, you go to jail. Simple. If you steal, you're a
criminala because, you've commited a crime.. Simple.
Aquiring a service outside the bounds of any existing contract with the
intention of not paying for it, is also fraud.

I can't see why you have a problem sending someone to jail for commiting
a crime.

The same works the OTHER way. If you violate federal or state laws on
computer crimes, you're a criminal, you go to jail.
I don't know the statistics on how many people are convicted annually
under various pieces of computer-misuse related legislation, but I'm
sure someone does.

-- 
Avleen Vig   "Say no to cheese-eating surrender-monkeys"
Systems Admin"Fast, Good, Cheap. Pick any two."
www.silverwraith.com "Move BSD. For great justice!"

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Larry J. Blunk]

> Larry J. Blunk wrote:
> > 
> >I'm not trying to justify allowing the use of NAT where it is
> > prohibited by a terms of service agreement and thus grounds for
> > termination of service.   However, going beyond termination of
> > service and making this an illegal act under law (possibly
> > punishable by a felony conviction and 4 years in prison) is an
> > entirely different case.  If you stop paying your ISP bill 
> > (thus getting several months for free until the ISP cuts you
> > off) wouldn't that also be theft of service?  Should one
> > also be subject to a felony conviction and 4 years of prison for
> > such an act?
> 
> If it takes a few months for the ISP to cut you off for not paying your 
> bill, that is their own fault. Concerning someone going to jail for 
> running NAT in breach of TOS, I find it supportable. There is precedence 
> set with the Cable companies (using equipment to allow service to be 
> used on more than tv's than allowed by the cable company would be 
> equivelent here).
> 
> -Jack


  Sigh.  My point is this is a question of extremes and punishment
commensurate with the "crime".   I can understand how one could
consider NAT to be "theft" under a terms of service agreement.  I
can even understand how one might think this should be a criminal
offense (although I would disagree - consider how many ISP's
consider NAT to be perfectly acceptable).   However, going beyond a
misdemeanor offense and a fine - advocating prison time and felony
convictions - is something I simply can't understand or find
supportable.  

 

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Michael Airhart]

[snip]
You can be assured that what ever references to "trick or acrobatic flying" 
will be challenged by the AOPA (aopa.org) .  Those rules/laws are the 
domain of the FAA.

Sounds like too long of a winter and it froze their brains.

M
This was passed in a lame duck session (December 11, 2002) as part of
a big omnibus crime act that covered everything from "adulteration of
butter and cream", to "trick or acrobatic flying" to "false weights and
measures", mostly increasing fines and/or jail for existing offenses.
Michigan is a leader in overcrowding its prisons.
There was other lame duck legislation passed, before a new Governor
took office, almost all of it bad for civil liberties!
--
William Allen Simpson
Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Jack Bates]

Larry J. Blunk wrote:
   I'm not trying to justify allowing the use of NAT where it is
prohibited by a terms of service agreement and thus grounds for
termination of service.   However, going beyond termination of
service and making this an illegal act under law (possibly
punishable by a felony conviction and 4 years in prison) is an
entirely different case.  If you stop paying your ISP bill 
(thus getting several months for free until the ISP cuts you
off) wouldn't that also be theft of service?  Should one
also be subject to a felony conviction and 4 years of prison for
such an act?
If it takes a few months for the ISP to cut you off for not paying your 
bill, that is their own fault. Concerning someone going to jail for 
running NAT in breach of TOS, I find it supportable. There is precedence 
set with the Cable companies (using equipment to allow service to be 
used on more than tv's than allowed by the cable company would be 
equivelent here).

-Jack

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Larry J. Blunk]

> On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 03:58:17AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
> >The problem is that these laws not only outlaw the use of NAT devices
> > where prohibited, but also the sale and possession of such devices.
> > Futher, I think many would disagree that the use of NAT where prohibited
> > necessarily should be considered an illegal activity.   Note that the
> > customer is still paying for a service, so the question of "theft"
> > is debatable.  It is one thing for an ISP to terminate service for
> > breach of contract by using a NAT device, it is quite something
> > else to put someone in prison for such a breach.
> 
> I really fail to see what the problem is.
> You're trying to justify that you should be allowed to use NAT (and by
> implication, mulitple nodes behind your NAT) and it not be illegal.
> If your ISP says that you are paying for access *per node* and not
> allwoedto use NAT, then your use of NAT is theft of service, because
> you're not paying for those extra nodes to access (through) the ISP's
> network.
> The extra cost (or lack there of) to the ISP is irrelevent. If you're
> not allwoed to use NAT, you're not allowed to use NAT.
> If you're paying for per-node access, breach of this is theft of
> service.

   I'm not trying to justify allowing the use of NAT where it is
prohibited by a terms of service agreement and thus grounds for
termination of service.   However, going beyond termination of
service and making this an illegal act under law (possibly
punishable by a felony conviction and 4 years in prison) is an
entirely different case.  If you stop paying your ISP bill 
(thus getting several months for free until the ISP cuts you
off) wouldn't that also be theft of service?  Should one
also be subject to a felony conviction and 4 years of prison for
such an act?


> 
> >I found one large broadband provider in Michigan that prohibits
> > the use of NAT devices -- Charter Communications.  Comcast, Verizon,
> > and SBC seem to allow them for personal household use (although they
> > do have value-add services that charge extra for multiple routable static
> > IP addresses).
> 
> Interesting that Charter Communications in Los Angeles doesn't mind you
> doing this.

   Here is my reference for Charter Communications in Michigan, however,
this web page could be out of date.

http://support.chartermi.net/gh/residential/pipeline/

Additional Computers:
Charter Communications allows up to 3 computers behind each cable
modem connected via a hub. The customer is responsible for the
purchase and installation of the hub, cross over cables and ethernet
cables necessary to connect the additional computers. Charter
Communications does not support or install hubs or additional
computers. Charter prohibits the use of routers or proxy servers
behind cable modems. Use of these methods to connect additional
computers and Local Area Networks is grounds for disconnection
of service. For more than 3 computers or for a Local Area Networks
please speak to our Commercial Sales Team: 888-968-3442. 

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Jack Bates]

Jamie Lawrence wrote:
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the
notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the
public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged 
with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face
of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange 
doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals
nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock
of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."
   - Robert Heinlein, "Life Line", 1939.


It's not a matter of guaranteeing profit. It is a matter of stopping 
theft. Please see the old laws protecting telephone and cable companies. 
Now they asked it to be extended to help protect ISPs.

The only part I do have an issue with in the Act is the fact that it 
limits the use of NAT devices where an ISP does not allow them. However, 
I do not construe this as a serious problem, as people using the service 
shouldn't use such technologies in the first place. They are knowingly 
bypassing the terms of service. As for the other providers, the Act 
doesn't apply.

While many whine and complain, I particularly like the protections on 
the copyrights, including the X-box. Most people didn't have the 
knowledge to make blank cartriges in the olds days and download the code 
to the cartriges to play a game. Everyone can download software and burn 
a CD. Smack in a mod chip and you're good to go. I may not like M$, but 
I have to respect their copyrights.

-Jack

RE: State Super-DMCA Too True

[McBurnett, Jim]

 
> > 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.

NAT-- HMMM - In my eyes that is a security precaution for the ignorant..
Think of this: Joe user goes to Wally World, or Staples and get's a 
Linksys BEFSR11 cable/dsl router. He adds NAT, and walla, his computer is
no longer wide open to the world... Albeit not a stateful firewall,
it is much more effective than Norton or others, as it does not use the
resources of the system. If this is illegal, then the law truely is contradictoriy.
As I understand it, it says that a network operator has the right to protect
themselves. A network can be defined as 1 or more computers connected to 1
or more other computers.


>The problem is that these laws not only outlaw the use of 
> NAT devices
> where prohibited, but also the sale and possession of such devices.
HMMM - Cisco just bought Linksys-- This should prove interesting

> Futher, I think many would disagree that the use of NAT where 
> prohibited
> necessarily should be considered an illegal activity.   Note that the
> customer is still paying for a service, so the question of "theft"
> is debatable.  It is one thing for an ISP to terminate service for
> breach of contract by using a NAT device, it is quite something
> else to put someone in prison for such a breach.
See note above... NAT- A poor man's type of firewall.

>I found one large broadband provider in Michigan that prohibits
> the use of NAT devices -- Charter Communications.  Comcast, Verizon,
> and SBC seem to allow them for personal household use (although they
> do have value-add services that charge extra for multiple 
> routable static
> IP addresses).
That is surprising.. IN SC I know charter does not say that..
As a Matter of fact, I have worked closely with several local
Charter Engineers. And they have really been exactly opposite...

>The Michigan law covers only commercial telecommunications service
> providers that charge fees.  It most definitely does not cover
> anyone running a network.

how do they define a network? If I have a computer at home and it talks
to other computers.. Then don't I operate a network?

Later,
Jim

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Robert A. Hayden]

Can't NAT-like devices be just as viable as a security device as well?
Is the ISP willing to take responsiblity for security breaches on my home
network because they banned my firewall?  From a
political/public-perception standpoint, treat those ISPs that are
complaining about NAT as being soft on security and encouraging hacking.
In todays paranoid political climate, there might even be some milage
here.

I have Charter pipeline in Madison, WI, and they've been very open about
people using NAT devices to the point that they are recommended in some
cases as security devices as well as being sold by Charter's
professional-services group as inexpensive firewalls.  About six months
ago I got a 1-page flier from Charter offering a 4-port Linksys and an
on-site installation.

Since a "NAT device" could include virtually any operating system and any
PC with two or more ethernet ports, it might be better to push the
"firewall" aspects  of them rather than try to defend or justify the
MANY-to-1 routing aspects of NAT.

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Jack Bates]

Mike Lyon wrote:
Ahh! But you see it ain't "all you can eat" or rather, "use as much 
bandwidth as you want as we don't throttle you at all." I recently signed 
up for Comcast and had it installed. I get some really nice download 
speeds, would be surprised if the download has a cap on it. However, 
upload is definetly throttled, stops at about 250 kbps.

Please see Saphire worm. Then tell me that an ISP doesn't oversell 
services. The fact is, the entire Internet is oversold. If everyone did 
their full capacity, it would crash. DSL is also based on this 
assumption. Most of the providers selling DSL at the cheap rates are 
actually losing money and subsidising it with their other revenues. What 
right do we have to say that one business model is better than another, 
and circumvent the business model? Thus there are laws being made to 
help protect the business models. This is what happens when people take 
advantage of something because they *can*. Personally, I don't like the 
limit by machine approach. On the other hand, I give out private 
addresses and NAT all my users. Real IP addresses cost the same amount 
that I pay for the bandwidth (and it's expensive way out in the sticks). 
We also run at a higher rate than SWBell one town over. Why? They are 
subsidising the costs; we aren't. When it's cheaper to run bandwidth 100 
miles into the country, then we'll lower our rates to reflect based on 
the usage of the users. Since they p2p and feel they will use 100% all 
the time, the price stays high. We don't care how much they complain. 
We're in the profit business, not filing chapter 11 like our competitors.

--
-Jack
"Why can't I have 1.5Mb/s for 39.95?"
"You live in the sticks. 59.95 for 256Kb/s is a fair price."

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Avleen Vig]

On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 03:58:17AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
>The problem is that these laws not only outlaw the use of NAT devices
> where prohibited, but also the sale and possession of such devices.
> Futher, I think many would disagree that the use of NAT where prohibited
> necessarily should be considered an illegal activity.   Note that the
> customer is still paying for a service, so the question of "theft"
> is debatable.  It is one thing for an ISP to terminate service for
> breach of contract by using a NAT device, it is quite something
> else to put someone in prison for such a breach.

I really fail to see what the problem is.
You're trying to justify that you should be allowed to use NAT (and by
implication, mulitple nodes behind your NAT) and it not be illegal.
If your ISP says that you are paying for access *per node* and not
allwoedto use NAT, then your use of NAT is theft of service, because
you're not paying for those extra nodes to access (through) the ISP's
network.
The extra cost (or lack there of) to the ISP is irrelevent. If you're
not allwoed to use NAT, you're not allowed to use NAT.
If you're paying for per-node access, breach of this is theft of
service.

>I found one large broadband provider in Michigan that prohibits
> the use of NAT devices -- Charter Communications.  Comcast, Verizon,
> and SBC seem to allow them for personal household use (although they
> do have value-add services that charge extra for multiple routable static
> IP addresses).

Interesting that Charter Communications in Los Angeles doesn't mind you
doing this.

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Mike Lyon]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Simon Lyall wrote:

> 
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Tony Rall wrote:
> > No, it is not theft of service.  It doesn't cost an ISP more for me to
> > have 20 machines than it does if I have just 1.  Nor does it cost them if
> > I use NAT.
> >
> > What might cost them more is if I use more bandwidth or use additional IP
> > addresses (for which there may be an associated expense).  But a user with
> > one machine can potentially use as much or more bandwidth than a user with
> > 20.  There simply isn't a decent correlation between number of machines
> > and amount of service consumed.  Even so, an ISP doesn't have a legitimate
> > complaint against users that are simply consuming the bandwidth that the
> > ISP advertised as being part of their service.
> 
> So if I own an "all you can eat" restaurant you would say that I should
> allow you and your whole family to eat for the price of one person as
> long as only one of your was in the restaurant at any one time?

Ahh! But you see it ain't "all you can eat" or rather, "use as much 
bandwidth as you want as we don't throttle you at all." I recently signed 
up for Comcast and had it installed. I get some really nice download 
speeds, would be surprised if the download has a cap on it. However, 
upload is definetly throttled, stops at about 250 kbps.

So that is what I am paying for. It's not limitless. I payed for a big 
mac and a drink with free refills, If I share that with my room mate, I am 
not stealing from them.

-Mike


> 
> Of course you'll say your family of vegetarian dieters eats less food
> than some truck driver I had in last week so thats okay.
> 
> The ISP is able to charge the low price for "flat rate" Internet because
> it knows there is only one computer in the house and it's (99% of the
> time) doing normal web browsing and email type stuff for only a limited
> amount of time each day (p2p has screwed up the economics a bit).
> 
> If you price your product on the assumption that the average customer only
> uses 5% of their bandwidth then it doesn't take many customers using 50%
> or 100% of it to really spoil your economics.
> 
> Banning NAT and servers is a simple way to filter out most of the "power
> users" without scaring the "mom and pop" customers with bandwidth and
> download quotas.
> 
> 

-- 

-Mike Lyon -
-Network Admin/Engineer for hire:  -
-www.mikelyon.net  -
-  Cell:  408-621-4826 -

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Rubens Kuhl Jr.]

| If you price your product on the assumption that the average customer only
| uses 5% of their bandwidth then it doesn't take many customers using 50%
| or 100% of it to really spoil your economics.

Turn this assumption a part of the service: place a monthly transfer limit
of some gigabytes. This will also scare p2p heavy-users and leave you with
the high-margin low-usage customers.

| Banning NAT and servers is a simple way to filter out most of the "power
| users" without scaring the "mom and pop" customers with bandwidth and
| download quotas.

NAT doesn't always imply simultaneous users. Many people use it for
security, I personally use for a 2-computer network with my desktop and my
notebook, but never use both at the same time...


Rubens

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Dan Hollis]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Simon Lyall wrote:
> Banning NAT and servers is a simple way to filter out most of the "power
> users" without scaring the "mom and pop" customers with bandwidth and
> download quotas.

Hardly. Banning NAT doesn't filter out anyone. There are plenty of "power 
users" without NAT.

Instead of using dishonest marketing, just explicitly ban bandwidth hog 
stuff like p2p services up front...

-Dan
-- 
[-] Omae no subete no kichi wa ore no mono da. [-]

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Simon Lyall]

On Sat, 29 Mar 2003, Tony Rall wrote:
> No, it is not theft of service.  It doesn't cost an ISP more for me to
> have 20 machines than it does if I have just 1.  Nor does it cost them if
> I use NAT.
>
> What might cost them more is if I use more bandwidth or use additional IP
> addresses (for which there may be an associated expense).  But a user with
> one machine can potentially use as much or more bandwidth than a user with
> 20.  There simply isn't a decent correlation between number of machines
> and amount of service consumed.  Even so, an ISP doesn't have a legitimate
> complaint against users that are simply consuming the bandwidth that the
> ISP advertised as being part of their service.

So if I own an "all you can eat" restaurant you would say that I should
allow you and your whole family to eat for the price of one person as
long as only one of your was in the restaurant at any one time?

Of course you'll say your family of vegetarian dieters eats less food
than some truck driver I had in last week so thats okay.

The ISP is able to charge the low price for "flat rate" Internet because
it knows there is only one computer in the house and it's (99% of the
time) doing normal web browsing and email type stuff for only a limited
amount of time each day (p2p has screwed up the economics a bit).

If you price your product on the assumption that the average customer only
uses 5% of their bandwidth then it doesn't take many customers using 50%
or 100% of it to really spoil your economics.

Banning NAT and servers is a simple way to filter out most of the "power
users" without scaring the "mom and pop" customers with bandwidth and
download quotas.

-- 
Simon Lyall.|  Newsmaster  | Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Senior Network/System Admin |  Postmaster  | Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ihug Ltd, Auckland, NZ  | Asst Doorman | Web: http://www.darkmere.gen.nz

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Larry J. Blunk]

> 
> 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.

   The problem is that these laws not only outlaw the use of NAT devices
where prohibited, but also the sale and possession of such devices.
Futher, I think many would disagree that the use of NAT where prohibited
necessarily should be considered an illegal activity.   Note that the
customer is still paying for a service, so the question of "theft"
is debatable.  It is one thing for an ISP to terminate service for
breach of contract by using a NAT device, it is quite something
else to put someone in prison for such a breach.

   I found one large broadband provider in Michigan that prohibits
the use of NAT devices -- Charter Communications.  Comcast, Verizon,
and SBC seem to allow them for personal household use (although they
do have value-add services that charge extra for multiple routable static
IP addresses).

> 
> 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.

  The DMCA refers specifically to copyrighted works and has several
(somewhat weak) safeguards built-in (must be primarily designed to
circumvent, of limited commercial use, allowances for reverse
engineering for interoperability purposes)   These state laws
cover both ISP services and copyrighted content services and have almost
nothing in the way of safeguards.
 
> 
> > Heck, it is possible to real 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. 

   The Michigan law covers only commercial telecommunications service
providers that charge fees.  It most definitely does not cover
anyone running a network.

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Tony Rall]

On Saturday, 2003-03-29 at 23:22 CST, Jack Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> William Allen Simpson wrote:
> > (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.

No, it is not theft of service.  It doesn't cost an ISP more for me to 
have 20 machines than it does if I have just 1.  Nor does it cost them if 
I use NAT.

What might cost them more is if I use more bandwidth or use additional IP 
addresses (for which there may be an associated expense).  But a user with 
one machine can potentially use as much or more bandwidth than a user with 
20.  There simply isn't a decent correlation between number of machines 
and amount of service consumed.  Even so, an ISP doesn't have a legitimate 
complaint against users that are simply consuming the bandwidth that the 
ISP advertised as being part of their service.

Tony Rall

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Kevin Loch]

- Original Message -
From: Jack Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sunday, March 30, 2003 0:22 am
Subject: Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

> > (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.

If you can tell the difference between NAT and non-NAT
traffic you don't need this law.  If you can't,
the law is completely unenforcable.  The same
goes for VPN's.  So what's the point other than 
to discourage good business models?

KL

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[E.B. Dreger]

JB> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:22:11 -0600
JB> From: Jack Bates


[ snip ]


JB> One thing to note, a telecommunications service provider is defined in
JB> such a way that anyone running a network is included. This means that
JB> running a business or home network protects your network. If in the
JB> nature of security, you have encrypted tunnels to other offices, those
JB> tunnels are protected from decryption by this Act. It is also important

I agree with your first points, which I snipped, but could a VPN
not be considered concealing origin?  I think that's a _bad_
classification, but am playing devil's advocate, here...

Although I suppose if the company using the VPN is the comms
provider, then they'd not be concealing the origin from
themselves.

I still wonder about promiscuous mode.

IANAL. *shrug*


Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita

~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT)
From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to
be blocked.

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[Jack Bates]

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

Re: State Super-DMCA Too True

[E.B. Dreger]

WAS> Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2003 15:53:32 -0500
WAS> From: William Allen Simpson

[ snip ]


IANAL, but VPNs look like trouble waiting to happen.  And then
there's promiscuous mode...


Eddy
--
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita

~
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 + (GMT)
From: A Trap <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.
Do NOT send mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, or you are likely to
be blocked.

State Super-DMCA Too True

[William Allen Simpson]

Declan McCullagh sent out an email 7:56 am EST this morning, 
referencing his full report at:
 http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994667.html

I was shocked to see that Michigan has *already* passed such a law! 
(Also Virginia, Delaware, and Illinois.)

I've found the new law(s), and they basically outlaw my living in 
Michigan starting March 31st (this Monday, two days from now):

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/printDocument.asp?objName=mcl-750-219a-amended&version=txt

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/printDocument.asp?objName=mcl-750-540c-amended&version=txt

The Bill analysis basically quotes the MPAA website!

http://michiganlegislature.org/documents/2001-2002/billanalysis/house/htm/2001-HLA-6079-b.htm

It outlaws all encryption, and all remailers.  

It outlaws connecting any device "without the express authority of the 
telecommunications service provider".  No NATs.  No wireless. 

(Some DSL/cable companies try to charge per machine, and record the 
machine address of the devices connected.) 

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.)

It outlaws configuring a wire pair purchased as a burglar alarm circuit, 
and then using it as DSL.

It outlaws using Linux/*BSD for reading DVDs and a host of other things.

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. 

Heck, it is possible to read this Act to prohibit changing your 
operating system from M$ to Linux. 

This was passed in a lame duck session (December 11, 2002) as part of 
a big omnibus crime act that covered everything from "adulteration of 
butter and cream", to "trick or acrobatic flying" to "false weights and 
measures", mostly increasing fines and/or jail for existing offenses.  
Michigan is a leader in overcrowding its prisons.  

There was other lame duck legislation passed, before a new Governor 
took office, almost all of it bad for civil liberties!

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