Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Michigan First With A Law That Could Outlaw VPNs

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the ban-dihydrogen-monoxide-before-it's-too-late dept.

Privacy 554

zaren writes "Holy frell, Taco, we're gonna be criminals! I was checking out Freedom to Tinker after reading the posting about that multi-state anti-VPN-style legislation, and I saw a new posting that says that Michigan has ALREADY passed such legislation, and it goes into effect on MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2003 . Guess I better tighten down the base station and batten down the hatches..."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625374)


Did you know that the day after March 31st... (-1, Offtopic)

TheMidget (512188) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625375)

... is, well you know.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, it may no longer be a joke. Hopefully Bush won't decide to invade Europe, once he's done with Iraq.

Re:Did you know that the day after March 31st... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625380)

Europe is a little further down the list. No worries.

Re:Did you know that the day after March 31st... (0, Offtopic)

caferace (442) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625389)

Unfortunately, in this day and age, it may no longer be a joke. Hopefully Bush won't decide to invade Europe, once he's done with Iraq.

Something tells me he likely won't be done by April 1st, so I think the EU is safe for a month or two, at least.

Re:Did you know that the day after March 31st... (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625403)

Hopefully Bush won't decide to invade Europe, once he's done with Iraq.

Fuck hoping,
You Europeans need to pool both your guns and all three of your tanks together for the common defense, otherwise Bush is going to pwnz0r you all.

Re:Did you know that the day after March 31st... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625448)

> Hopefully Bush won't decide to invade Europe,
> once he's done with Iraq.

After we finally have rebuilt Dresden...

I hate April Fool's Day (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625527)

I *hate* April Fool's Day. For that one day, it's *impossible* to get any information, because *everyone* has an April Fool's edition of their website.

I wish people that did AF special editions would also provide a link to the "real" April 1 edition.

Re:Did you know that the day after March 31st... (1)

hurtta (659055) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625554)

Unfortunately, in this day and age, it may no longer be a joke. Hopefully Bush won't decide to invade Europe, once he's done with Iraq.

Well, perhaps Bush is going to start World War.

First Kathleen Fent is a tranny Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625379)

'Kathleen' was actually Carl. 'She' has a penis and a set of large, hairy balls.

serious (1)

drizuid (444751) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625382)

Why would they want this law. I don't see the point

Re:serious (1)

yem (170316) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625392)

Because the providers see it as a loophole. If I put three people behind a NAT'd firewall, the provider sees it as one paying customer and two thieves.

No I have not read the f**king article.

Haha, This could be the end of NAT! (4, Informative)

Subcarrier (262294) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625428)

If I put three people behind a NAT'd firewall, the provider sees it as one paying customer and two thieves.

This doesn't only concern end users. This concerns any organisation that obtains an address range for a fee and use NAT to connect their network, including many ISPs.

This might be the end of NAT. Good riddance and welcome IPv6!

Re:Haha, This could be the end of NAT! (5, Interesting)

pyrote (151588) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625466)

Can't wait to pay another 5 bucks a month so my handicapped little brother can surf pokemon.

All this does is make the isp aware of how many machines I have.

A while back the ma-bells tried to charge for every phone you had in your house, and they succeded for several years.

This is another in a long line of atrocities commited by our elected representatives.

The Ma Bell similarity (5, Interesting)

BadDoggie (145310) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625587)

It was "Ma Bell", not "ma bells" or "Baby Bells" (which were the resulting smaller phone service providers after the 1984 break-up) and the similarities are many.

Back in the bad old days (prior to Jan. 1, 1984), you could only get a phone from AT&T. They owned Western Electric, which was the only manufacturer of telephone equipment. They owned the lines (there were some exceptions where GTE had a local market). If you wanted a phone, you had to accept the whole package.

You had to lease your phones from them -- you couldn't buy them. You had to pay extra for DTMF (Touch-Tone [TM]). Your monthly bill was based on the base rate times the number of phones plus the base local call charge plus the incredibly overpriced long distance calls, which themselves worked on a minimum of three minutes and charges were rounded up to the next whole minute.

They stifled technology much more so than IBM, even when it hurt them. It became cheaper and easier for them to have customers using DTMF, but because people wanted it rather than the damned dialing wheels, they kept on charging premiums, which meant they had to keep those old number nine crossbars in the COs rather than (or in addition to) the electronic switches.

The whole idea of ringer equivalence existed so they could shoot a charge down your line and know how many phones you had. If it didn't match, they'd come over for a "technical visit". If they saw signs that you had more than the paid/claimed number of phones, they'd either hardwire the phone in the jack or remove other jacks. You had to let them; it was their equipment.

People used to huddle around a phone to listen and talk at the same time because Ma Bell wanted you to pay twice as much to have two people at home talk to a caller at the same time.

ISPs are trying this game, requiring you to use their hardware, accept their version of "normal use", and pay per computer rather than for the amount of data transfer so they can claim "unlimited" or "flat-rate service. It may be illegal based on the same decision which finally allowed people to buy their own phones, have as many as they wanted and use them as they saw fit.

This needs to be stopped quickly. Lawyers need to compare these laws to the Orders from Judge Harold Greene which stopped AT&T doing this, and have this bad legislation removed. You people in Michigan need to get started!


Oh well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625383) much for my enormous NAT-based pr0n enterprise! :(

Old Ike (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625387)

When I think of dirty old men, I think of Ike Thomas and when I think about Ike I get a hard-on that won't quit.

Sixty years ago, I worked in what was once my Grandfather's Greenhouses. Gramps had died a year earlier and Grandma, now in her seventies had been forced to sell to the competition. I got a job with the new owners and mostly worked the range by myself. That summer, they hired a man to help me get the benches ready for the fall planting.

Ike always looked like he was three days from a shave and his whiskers were dirty white, shaded by the brim of his battered felt fedora.

He did not chew tobacco but the corners of his mouth turned down in a way that, at any moment, I expected a trickle of thin, brown juice to creep down his chin. His bushy, brown eyebrows shaded pale, gray eyes.

The old-timer extended his hand, lifted his leg like a dog about to mark a bush and let go the loudest fart I ever heard. The old fellow then winked at me, "Ike Thomas is the name and playing pecker's my game."

I thought he said, "Checkers." I was nineteen, green as grass. I said, "I was never much good at that game."

"Now me," said Ike, "I just love jumping men . . ."

"I'll bet you do."

". . . and grabbing on to their peckers," said Ike.

"I though we were talking about . . ."

"You like jumping old men's peckers?"

I shook my head.

"I reckon we'll have to remedy that." Ike lifted his right leg and let go another tremendous fart. "He said, "We best be getting to work."

That summer of 1941 was a more innocent time. I learned most of the sex I knew from those little eight pager cartoon booklets of comic-page characters going at it. Young men read them in the privacy of an outside john, played with themselves, by themselves and didn't brag about it. Sometimes, we got off with a trusted friend and helped each other out.

Under the greenhouse glass, the temperature some times climbed over the hundred degree mark. I had worked stripped to the waist since April and was as brown as a berry. On only his second day on the job and in the middle of August, Ike wore old fashioned overalls. Those and socks in his high-top work shoes was every stitch he wore. When he bent forward, the bib front billowed out and I could see the white curly hairs on his chest and belly.

"Me? I just love to eat pussy!" Ike licked his lips from corner to corner then sticking his tongue out far enough that the tip could touch the end of his nose. He said, A man's not a man till he knows first hand, the flavor of a lady's pussy."

"People do that?"

He winked. "Of course the taste of a hard cock ain't to be sneezed at neither. Now you answer me, yes or no. Does a man's cock taste salty or not?"

"I never . . ."

"Well, old Ike's willing to let you find out."

"No way."

"Just teasing," said Ike. "But don't give me no sass or I'll show you my ass." He winked. "Might show it to you anyway, if you was to ask."

"Why would I do that?"

"Curiosity, maybe. I'm guessing you never had a good piece of man ass."

"I'm no queer."

"Now don't be getting judgmental. Enjoying what's at hand ain't being queer. It's taking pleasure where you find it with anybody willing." Ike slipped a hand into the side slit of his overalls and I could tell he was fondling and straightening out his cock. "Now I admit I got me a hole that satisfied a few guys."

I swallowed, hard.

Ike winked. "Care to be asshole buddies?"


We worked steadily until noon. Ike drew a worn pocket watch from the bib pocket of his loose overalls and croaked, "Bean time. But first its time to reel out our limber hoses and make with the golden arches before lunch."

I followed Ike to the end of the greenhouse where he stopped at the outside wall of the potting shed. He opened his fly, fished inside, and finger-hooked a soft white penis with a pouting foreskin puckered half an inch past the hidden head.

"Yes sir," breathed Ike, "this old peter needs some draining." He exhaled a sigh as a strong, yellow stream splattered against the boards and ran down to soak into the earthen floor.

He caught me looking down at him. He winked. "Like what you're viewing, Boy?"

I looked away.

"You taking a serious interest in old Ike's pecker?"

I shook my head.

"Well you just haul out yourn and let old Ike return the compliment."

Feeling trapped and really having to go, I fumbled at my fly, turned away slightly, withdrew my penis and strained to start.

"Take your time boy. Let it all hang out. Old Ike's the first to admit that he likes looking at another man's pecker." He flicked away the last drop of urine and shook his limp penis vigorously.

I tried not to look interested.

"Yes sir, this old peepee feels so good out, I just might leave it out." He turned to give me a better view.

"What if somebody walks in?"

Ike shrugged. He looked at my strong yellow stream beating against the boards and moved a step closer. "You got a nice one,boy."

I glanced over at him. His cock was definitely larger and beginning to stick straight out. I nodded toward his crotch. "Don't you think you should put that away?"

"I got me strictly a parlor prick," said Ike. "Barely measures six inches." He grinned. "Of course it's big enough around to make a mouthful." He ran a thumb and forefinger along its length and drawing his foreskin back enough to expose the tip of the pink head. "Yersiree." He grinned, revealing nicotine stained teeth. "It sure feels good, letting the old boy breathe."

I knew I should button up and move away. I watched his fingers moving up and down the thickening column.

"You like checking out this old man's cock?"

I nodded. In spite of myself, my cock began to swell.

"Maybe we should have ourselves a little pecker pulling party." Ike slid his fingers back and forth on his expanding shaft and winked. "I may be old but I'm not against doing some little pud pulling with a friend."

I shook my head.

"Maybe I'll give my balls some air. Would you like a viewing of old Ike's hairy balls?"

I swallowed hard and moistened my dry lips.

He opened another button on his fly and pulled out his scrotum. "Good God, It feels good to set 'em free. Now let's see yours."


"Just to show you're neighborly," said Ike.

"I don't think so." I buttoned up and moved into the potting shed.

Ike followed, his cock and balls protruding from the front of his overalls. "Overlook my informality." Ike grinned. "As you can see I ain't bashful."

I nodded and took my sandwich from the brown paper bag.

"Yessir," said Ike. "I just might have to have myself an old fashioned peter pulling all by my lonesome. He unhooked a shoulder strap and let his overalls drop around his ankles.

I took a bite of my sandwich but my eyes remained on Ike.

"Yessiree," said Ike, "I got a good one if I do say so myself. Gets nearly as hard as when I was eighteen. You know why?"

I shook my head.

"Cause I keep exercising him. When I was younger I was pulling on it three time a day. Still like to do him every day I can."

"Some say you'll go blind if you do that too much."

"Bull-loney!" Don't you believe that shit. I been pulling my pud for close to fifty years and I didn't start till I was fifteen."

I laughed.

"You laughing at my little peter, boy?"

"Your hat." I pointed to the soiled, brown fedora cocked on his head. That and his overalls draped about his ankles were his only items of apparel. In between was a chest full of gray curly hair, two hairy legs. Smack between them stood an erect, pale white cock with a tip of foreskin still hiding the head.

"I am one hairy S.O.B.," said Ike.

"I laughed at you wearing nothing but a hat."

"Covers up my bald spot," said Ike. "I got more hair on my ass than I got on my head. Want to see?"

"Your head?"

"No, Boy, my hairy ass and around my tight, brown asshole." He turned, reached back with both hands and parted his ass cheeks to reveal the small, puckered opening. "There it is, Boy, the entrance lots of good feelings. Tell me, Boy, how would you like to put it up old Ike's ass?"

"I don't think so."

"That'd be the best damned piece you ever got."

"We shouldn't be talking like this."

"C'mon now, confess, don't this make your cock perk up a little bit?"

"I reckon," I confessed.

"You ever seen an old man's hard cock before," asked Ike.

"My grandpa's when I was twelve or thirteen."

"How'd that come about?"

He was out in the barn and didn't know I was around. He dropped his pants. It was real big he did things to it. He saw me and he turned around real fast but I saw it."

"What did your grandpa do?"

"He said I shouldn't be watching him doing that. He said something like grandma wouldn't give him some,' that morning and that I should get out of there and leave a poor man in peace to do what he had to do."

"Did you want to join him."

"I might have if he'd asked. He didn't."

"I like showing off my cock," said Ike. "A hard-on is something I always been proud of. A hard-on proves a man's a man. Makes me feel like a man that can do things." He looked up at me and winked. "You getting a hard-on from all this talk, son?"

I nodded and looked away.

"Then maybe you should pull it out and show old Ike what you got."

"We shouldn't."

"Hey. A man's not a man till he jacked off with a buddy."

I wanted to but I was as nervous as hell.

Ike grinned and fingered his pecker. "C'mon, Boy, between friends, a little cock showing is perfectly fine. Lets see what you got in the cock and balls department."

In spite of my reluctance, I felt the stirring in my crotch. I had curiosity that needed satisfying. It had been a long, long time since I had walked in on my grandfather .

"C'mon let's see it all."

I shook my head.

"You can join the party anytime, said Ike. "Just drop your pants and pump away."

I had the urge. There was a tingling in my crotch. My cock was definitely willing and I had a terrible need to adjust myself down there. But my timidity and the strangeness of it all held me back.

Hope you don't mind if I play out this hand." Ike grinned. "It feels like I got a winner."

I stared at his gnarled hand sliding up and down that pale, white column and I could not look away. I wet my lips and shook my head.

Old Ike's about to spout a geyser." Ike breathed harder as he winked. "Now if I just had a long finger up my ass. You interested, boy?"

I shook my head.

The first, translucent, white glob crested the top of his cock and and arced to the dirt floor. Ike held his cock at the base with thumb and forefinger and tightened noticeably with each throb of ejaculation until he was finished.

I could not believe any man could do what he had done in front of another human being.

Ike sighed with pleasure and licked his fingers. "A man ain't a man till he's tasted his own juices."

He squatted, turned on the faucet and picked up the connected hose. He directed the water between his legs and on to his still dripping prick and milked the few remaining drops of white, sticky stuff into the puddle forming at his feet. "Cool water sure feels good on a cock that just shot its wad," said Ike.


"Cock-tale telling time," said Old Ike. It was the next day and he rubbed the front of his dirty,worn overalls where his bulge made the fly expand as his fingers smoothed the denim around the outline of his expanding cock.

I wasn't sure what he had in mind but I knew it wasn't something my straight-laced Grandma would approve of.

"Don't you like taking your cock out and jacking it?" Ike licked his lips.

I shook my head in denial.

"Sure you do. A young man in his prime has got to be pulling his pud."

I stared at his calloused hand moving over the growing bulge at his crotch.

"Like I said," continued Ike, "I got me barely six inches when he's standing up." He winked at me. "How much you got, son?"

"Almost seven inches . . ." I stuttered. "Last time I measured."

"And I'm betting it feels real good with your fist wrapped around it."

"I don't do . . ."

"Everybody does it." He scratched his balls and said,"I'll show you mine if you show me yours." Then, looking me in the eye, he lifted his leg like a dog at a tree and let out a long, noisy fart.

Denying that I jacked off, I said, "I saw yours yesterday."

"A man has got to take out his pecker every once in a while." He winked and his fingers played with a button on his fly. Care to join me today?"

"I don't think so."

"What's the matter, boy? You ashamed of what's hanging 'tween your skinny legs?"

"It's not for showing off."

"That would be so with a crowd of strangers but with a friend, in a friendly showdown, where's the harm?

"It shouldn't be shown to other people. My Grandma said that a long time ago when I went to the bathroom against a tree when I was seven.

"There's nothing like a joint pulling among friends to seal a friendship," said Ike.

I don't think so." I felt very much, ill at ease.

"Then what the fuck is it for," demanded the old man. "A good man shares his cock with his friends. How old are you boy?"

"Nineteen almost twenty."

You ever fucked a woman?"


"Ever fucked a man?"

"Of course not.

"Son, you ain't never lived till you've fired your load up a man's tight ass."

"I didn't know men did that to each other."

"Men shove it up men's asses men all the time. They just don't talk about it like they do pussy."

"You've done that?"

"I admit this old pecker's been up a few manholes. More than a few hard cocks have shagged this old ass over the years." He shook his head, wistfully, "I still have a hankering for a hard one up the old dirt chute."

"I think that would hurt."

"First time, it usually does," agreed Ike. He took a bite from his sandwich.

I looked at my watch. Ten minutes of our lunch hour had already passed.

"We got time for a quickie," said Ike. "There's no one around to say, stop, if were enjoying ourselves."

He unhooked the slide off the button of one shoulder-strap, pushed the bib of his overalls down to let them fall to his feet.

"Showtime," said Ike. Between his legs, white and hairy, his semi-hard cock emerged from a tangled mass of brown and gray pubic hair. The foreskin, still puckered beyond the head of the cock, extended downward forty-five degrees from the horizontal but was definitely on the rise.

I could only stare at the man. Until the day before, I had never seen an older man with an erection besides my grandpa.

Ike moved his fingers along the stalk of his manhood until the head partially emerged, purplish and broad. He removed his hand for a moment and it bobbled obscenely in the subdued light of the potting shed. Ike leaned back against a bin of clay pots like a model on display. "Like I said, boy, it gets the job done."

I found it difficult not to watch. "You shouldn't . . ."

"C'mon, boy. Show Ike your pecker. I'm betting it's nice and hard."

I grasped my belt and tugged on the open end. I slipped the waistband button and two more before pushing down my blue jeans and shorts down in one move. My cock bounced and slapped my belly as I straightened."

"That's a beaut." Ike stroked his pale, white cock with the purplish-pink head shining. "I'm betting it'll grow some more if you stroke it."

"We really shouldn't . . ."

"Now don't tell me you never stroked your hard peter with a buddy."

"I've done that," I finally admitted,. "But he was the same age as me and it was a long time ago." I though back to the last time Chuck and me jerked each other off in the loft of our old barn. Chuck wanted more as a going away present and we had sucked each other's dicks a little bit.

"Jackin's always better when you do it with somebody," said Ike. "Then you can lend each other a helping hand."

"I don't know about that," I said.

Ike's hand continued moving on his old cock as he leaned over to inspect mine. "God Damn! Boy. That cock looks good enough to eat." Ike licked his lips. "You ever had that baby sucked?"

I shook my head as I watched the old man stroke his hard, pale cock.

"Well boy, I'd say you're packing a real mouthful for some lucky gal or guy." He grinned. "Well c'mon. Let's see you get down to some serious jacking. Old Ike's way ahead of you."

I wrapped my fist around my stiff cock and moved the foreskin up and over the head on the up stroke. On the down stroke the expanded corona of the angry, purple head stared obscenely at the naked old man.

Ike toyed with his modest six inches. "What do you think of this old man's cock?" His fist rode down to his balls and a cockhead smaller than the barrel stared back at mine.

"I guess I'm thinking this is like doing it with my grandpa."

"You ever wish you could a done this with your grandpa?"

"I thought about it a lot."

"Ever see him with a hard-on."

"I told you about that!"

"Ever think about him doing your grandma?"

"I can't imagine her ever doing anything with a man.

"Take my word for it, sonny, we know she did it or you wouldn't be here." Begrudgingly I nodded in agreement.

"Everybody fucks," said old Ike. "They fuck or they jack off."

"If you say so."

"Say sonny, your cocks getting real juicy with slickum. Want old Ike to lick some of it away?"

"You wouldn't."

Ike licked his lips as he kept his hand pistoning up and down his hard cock. "You might be surprised what old Ike might do if he was in the mood for a taste of what comes out of a hard cock."

And that is what he proceeded to do. He sucked me dry.

Then he erupted in half-a-dozen spurts shooting out and onto the dirt floor of the potting shed. He gave his cock a flip and shucked t back into his overalls. He unwrapped a sandwich from its wax paper and proceed to eat without washing his hands. He took a bite and chewed. "Nothing like it boy, a good jacking clears the cobwebs from your crotch and gives a man an appetite."


The following day, We skipped the preliminaries. We dropped our pants. Ike got down on his knees and sucked me until I was hard and good and wet before he stood and turned.

"C'mon boy, Shove that pretty cock up old Ike's tight, brown hole and massage old Ike's prostate.

Ike bent forward and gripped the edge of the potting bench. The lean, white cheeked buttocks parted slightly and exposed the dark brown, crinkly, puckered star of his asshole "Now you go slow and ease it along until you've got it all the way in," he cautioned. "This old ass craves your young cock but it don't want too much too soon. You've got to let this old hole stretch to accommodate you."

"Are you sure you want to do this?"

"Easy boy, easy," he cautioned. "You feel a lot bigger than you look. Put a little more spit in your cock."

"It's awfully tight. I don't know if it's going to go or not."

"It'll go," said Ike. "There's been bigger boys than you up the old shit chute."

I slipped in the the last few inches.. "It's all in."

"I can tell," said Ike. "Your cock hairs are tickling my ass."

"Are you ready," I asked.

"How are you liking old Ike's hairy asshole so far?"

"It's real tight."

"Tighter than your fist?"

"Might be."

"Ready to throw a fuck into a man that reminds you of your grandpa."

"I reckon."

"I want you should do old Ike one more favor."


While you're pumpin' my ass, would you reach around and play with my dick like you would your own? Would you do that for an old man?"

I reached around and took hold of his hard cock sticking out straight in front of him. I pilled the skin back and then pulled it up and over the expanded glans. I felt my own cock expand inside him as I manipulated his staff in my fingers. I imagined that my cock extended through him and I was playing with what came out the other side of him.

"C'mon, boy, ram that big cock up the old shitter and make me know it. God Damn! tickle that old prostate and make old Ike come!"

I came. And I came. Ike's tightened up on my cock and I throbbed Roman Candle bursts into that brown hole as I pressed into him. His hairy, scrawny ass flattened against my crotch and we were joined as tightly as two humans can be.

"A man's not a man till he's cum in another man." said old Ike. "You made it, boy. But still, a man's not a man till he's had a hard cock poked up his ass at least once."

Every time I think of that scene, I get another hard-on. Then I remember the next day when old Ike returned the favor.

I never have managed to come that hard again. If only Ike were here.

This is pathetic (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625393)

As a Muslim my brothers are being slaugtered in Iraq but all I can read about on slashdot is yankee babies crying because they cannot copy some CDs/download some warez. Grow up people! Cant you see that Muslims are dying at the hands of fat KFC munching marines as you write this BS!!!

Re:This is pathetic (1)

m1chael (636773) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625397)

no offense but not everything is dropped because a war is on. if all we talked about was war then there would be more wars to satisfy our conversing.

Re:This is pathetic (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625414)

And how, exactly, is not posting 'yankee babies crying' going to save anyone? Thats right, it won't matter. I don't like people getting killed any more than you do, but refusing to post anything that doesn't have to do with the war is not going to change anything.

Canadians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625429)

That's why it rawks to be Canadian. We haven't outlawed VPNs yet. And we're not dropping bombs on Iraq. Yup, it's a good day to live in the Great White North. If we weren't so damned apathetic, we'd help you change your laws and stop you from killing people overseas. But we are, first and foremost, Canadians.

Re:Canadians (1)

Associate (317603) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625512)

we'd help you change your laws and stop you from killing people overseas.
Not a chance in hell of that happening, you fur trapper. Go drink some beer you hoser.

Re:Canadians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625537)


Re:This is pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625469)

Maybe I'm insensitive but I don't really see how it matters to me? People die every day and for the most part I envy them. If your alive and want to stay alive then learn to kick ass and learn not to piss people off. Sure Bush is probably almost as much a psycho as Saddam but if it makes you feel better feel free to shoot some missles at him for all I care.

Re:This is pathetic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625517)

Fuck off you Ba'ath wannabe cunt. You obviously don't give a rat's dick about your Shi'ite 'brothers.' KFC munching marines? What is so scary? Democracy? Capitalism? Freedom?

Again, Fuck You.



Re:This is pathetic (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625536)

You're just a stinkin' sand nigger. Go to Basra and protect your people.

Irony (5, Funny)

JanusFury (452699) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625398)

Michigan residents being arrested on april fools' day because of a law that's a joke.

What were they thinking??? (5, Insightful)

Tuxinatorium (463682) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625400)

(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service. What were legislators smoking when they wrote that clause? That's so ridiculously overbroad that it could even be interpreted to make it illegal to call someone from a payphone without telling them where you are.

Re:What were they thinking??? (3, Funny)

rela (531062) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625408)

What were legislators smoking when they wrote that clause?

I don't know, but whatever it is, I want some! It must be a REALLY good trip.

Re:What were they thinking??? (1)

m1chael (636773) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625413)

if you called some person living in Michigan would that be a federal offense? :)

My number is ID blocked (1)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625426)

so technically I am hiding the source, or Pac-Bell is doing it for me, I wonder if there is an extradition clause in the law ?

What a strange world (4, Insightful)

Subcarrier (262294) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625477)

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

Apparently it is legal to have a concealed weapon, but having a concealed cell phone or disabling caller ID violates the law.

Punctuation in your article title (4, Funny)

billstewart (78916) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625518)

You left out the comma:

What, were they thinking???

The answer, of course, is "no!"

holy shit is this real?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625404)

I'm going to kill myself!!!!

Could someone explain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625409)

What a VPN is and why is this a bad thing? I mean, come on if the general population has heard of VPNs, don't use them, and would never use them anyway, what's the harm in this outlaw?!

Re:Could someone explain (1)

m1chael (636773) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625420)

its that kind of thinking lawmakers rely on ... and the reason there are lawyers.

Re:Could someone explain (1)

Nerull (586485) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625478)

I can think if a few things that would be illegal, after skimming over the law. You wouldn't, by any chance, have multiple computers sharing the same connection with a router/firewall, would you? Thats illegal. I'd venture to say that a very high percentage of businesses do something similar, with one or two high speed lines hooked up to a router, and the rest of their computers on a network, sharing them. To the outside world, all traffic going through the routher appears to be coming from a single IP, and, according to the law, you can't do that.

Re:Could someone explain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625533)

Yes normal people do use VPNs . . . every outside, and laptop user in our company uses a VPN every day. Even if they do not know what they are using, they are using it.

Re:Could someone explain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625538)

You are an idiot. +1 Insightful.

Re:Could someone explain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625540)

Because stupid fuckers like you would be impacted in the same way a chicken is negatively impacted by the sudden application of a gas-powered chainsaw, despite the inability of a chicken to comprehend how such a device works.

Re:Could someone explain (4, Informative)

anubi (640541) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625577)

VPN - Virtual Private Network.

Say, you had a family. Wife, four kids, and a couple of mutts.. etc. You have a computer you do a lot of serious work on, a computer you tinker around with, your kids each have one. There may be another in the den you use to play games on and maybe use in conjunction with the TV and stereo.

But you have one internet connection.

By use of Network Address Translation (NAT), you can set your system up so that all the computers can access the internet through a router/switch. You can dedicate a clunker machine for this, or just use a router/switch designed for this.

The ISP gives you so much bandwidth for so much money. If only one machine is using the connection, it gets all the bandwidth. If more machines start using it, the switch shares the available bandwidth amongst the machines requesting it.

Using NAT, your machines can be configured so they can talk to each other privately without involving the internet - even though they are communicating through the network card - because the switch can be configured to keep local chatter off the net. Certain IP numbers do not route, such as the subnet. So you have an entire class A subnet to play around with for your home or business. Everybody has it. All yours. It won't route. But if you want the internet, the switch will recognize a routable number and gate you onto your internet connection, and provide the necessary address translation so the connection is routed between the appropriate machines.

Personally, I can not determine any difference between whether or not multiple *machines* are using the bandwidth, or multiple instances of browser windows on one machine is using it, as far a paying for bandwidth delivered goes. What puzzles me is how anyone could consider a NAT box illegal, as every packet going through still has completely valid source and destination fields - it won't route through your ISP without them. At the ISP level, its completely traceable as to who's getting what.

So I am puzzled.. I am completely failing to see the logic of this legislation. It makes just about as much sense to me as some sort of legislation mandating each child gets his own mailbox in front of the house.

I just wish.. (2)

Derg (557233) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625410)

someone would get a nice little pile of evidence against these lawmakers and policy setters to prove that they are doing exactly the opposite of what they preach. For these anti-vpn people as well as the **AA's... Wouldnt it be marvelous just to get the specs on the no-vpn guy's "special connection" from his house in the hills to the office. oh crap, its a vpn connection... oooops... Imagine Hillary Rosen with an armload of bootleg cd's. I wonder if she has a burner in her pc. or 4, because its a 40x, and we know thats worth atleast 4 drives because its fast....

sorry... this is just another in the long line of wtf laws and policies that I see being proliferated...

[ot.. well, more ot]I hope there isnt another troll storm.. I see the beginings of one[/ot]

Lets just outlaw the goverment (1)

ExEleven (601282) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625416)

If they dont like it, they can get the fuck out.

Re:Lets just outlaw the goverment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625441)

Yeah right you moron. Then I'll just kill you, sound good eh.

Re:Lets just outlaw the goverment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625481)

Yeah, and then I'll just kill you stupid fuck, and so on and so forth.

Its time for a new world order anyway, follow me my children, and I will give you a world that you can embrace. I will also exterminate the muslims and we shall use the middle-ease as our playground.

Take my hand, for I shall only offer it once.

Re:Lets just outlaw the goverment (1)

Associate (317603) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625545)

Middle-east as our playground
Sand box, AC, sand box.

Phone extenders (1)

pdan (624244) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625419)

There is a simple technology letting employees make long distance or international calls from home. They call the company (local call) and after entering a code, get a dialtone and make another call.
Would it be also illegal?

I wonder if people who voted for this bill had a clue what it really means.

Re:Phone extenders (4, Insightful)

pyrote (151588) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625425)

this would also make calling cards illegal, since every time I get a call from one it comes from texas, not nevada where the call originates.

Re:Phone extenders (1)

freaq (466117) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625465)

Fooled you! I'm actually in Cali. But if you forward your phone to Michigan without telling me, does that make you or me a criminal?

Re:Phone extenders (1)

pyrote (151588) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625575)

It would make me an accessory to your crime.

First the RIAA and now this all in one day? (5, Interesting)

ChaoticChaos (603248) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625422)

WTF?! I can't rip CDs to MP3s anymore and now it's illegal to use a VPN?

Honestly, I'm starting to feel guilty as soon as I start using a PC. I must be breaking some law as soon as I sit down.

It's about time for the otherwise useless ACLU to start some legal action. Finally, they'll have something to pursue that's worthy of their time.

Re:First the RIAA and now this all in one day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625580)

VPNs are illegal in Michigan and NOW you see a need for the ACLU... you almost deserve having your rights taken away.

Also with effect 31 March... (5, Interesting)

canthusus (463707) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625423)

See getObject&objName=mcl-750-335-amended []
***** 750.335.amended THIS AMENDED SECTION IS EFFECTIVE MARCH 31, 2003 *****

750.335.amended Lewd and lascivious cohabitation and gross lewdness.
Sec. 335.

Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together, and any man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00. No prosecution shall be commenced under this section after 1 year from the time of committing the offense.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;--CL 1948, 750.335 ;--Am. 1952, Act 73, Eff. Sept. 18, 1952 ;--Am. 2002, Act 672, Eff. Mar. 31, 2003 .

This is the amended version, newly revised, not some ancient statute they've never gotten round to changing. What did they change from last time? They doubled the fine.

Michigan doesn't seem to have made it to the 21st century yet.

Re:Also with effect 31 March... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625458)

In other words, if any couple does much more than kiss in public, or any individual does.. gross things.. they are guilty of a misdimeanor. I don't see a problem with that. I'm sure there are similar laws against such things in public elsewhere.

Re:Also with effect 31 March... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625474)

Errr no, not just in public. In private.

"Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together". I think that means living with your girlfriend & fucking her in private.

Re:Also with effect 31 March... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625492)

So what exactly do you find wrong about this law?
(Apart from your lack of morals, self-control, etc,...)

If you're so bent on cohabitating, performing lewd/lascivious acts, etc,... marry them... ;)

Re:Also with effect 31 March... (2, Insightful)

October_30th (531777) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625565)

Why marry?

I see no benefits but only complications in the institution of marriage. Legally, it makes it harder to break up and discourages people to do so even when kids and their own mental health would actually benefit from it. Psychologically it is even more offensive: a sort of proof of ownership.

Originally marriage meant that the wife became husband's property (instead of her father's, that is), but I guess these days it stipulates that the husband is wife's property too.

I find this really offensive. I don't want my significant one to stick around just because there is a band of metal around one of her fingers. She's not my property and I'm not hers. She's free to do whatever she wants. If she decides to walk out on me, I have nothing to say about it and vice versa.

Re:Also with effect 31 March... (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625567)

You missed the bit where it said "married or unmarried".

I guess the people in Michigan decided that screwing in the open was worth the $500 fine.

Re:Also with effect 31 March... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625503)

go see "bowling for columbine." you'll see that michigan is in the dark ages about a lot of things.

Re:Also with effect 31 March... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625506)

Yeah, you'd think we'd have sprouted a decent filmmaker by now. Its truely a sad state of affairs.

Oh wait, Sam Raimi...

Re:Also with effect 31 March... (1)

Associate (317603) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625557)

I thought Columbine was in Colorado?

Re:Also with effect 31 March... (1)

Tailhook (98486) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625510)

Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together

I cohabited with a woman from 1990 to 1994 in Michigan. Didn't get arrested. The police even visited once after one of our cars had been broken into. It didn't occur to them to slap us in cuffs while they stood around in our apartment writing up the report.

I have no idea what lewd or lascivious means in terms of cohabitation. Nether do the police or the courts. What they do know is that prosecution attempts using laws like this are laughable. I doubt such a thing has been attempted during my lifetime. If it has it failed on appeal at some point.

FINALLY! (5, Interesting)

pyrote (151588) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625434)

Finally Microsoft windows is illegal!!!!

Any web browser can be used to access a proxy server making All web browsers illegal in Michigan. Since IE is so integrated into the software (that it can't possibly be removed), it makes all windows OS's illegal!

Of course this applies to all linux browsers, but we can remove those.

Ahh yes, the crap is piling up, and it aint the dairy cows.

spammers (2)

manseman (582150) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625435)

Taking it to the extreme, this means that spammers could sue you now.

Hey, we didn't know Blob Slob had that e-mail address, and we sure as hell didn't mean to make him that penis enlargement offer!

Another step in the right direction.(not)

Not concealing anything. (5, Interesting)

Boss, Pointy Haired (537010) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625437)

Every IP packet I pass through my ISP contains a source and destination IP address.

What else do they need to know?

"Your honour, at what layer of the OSI Network Layer model is this bill to be enforced?"

"Er, case dismissed."

Re:Not concealing anything. (5, Informative)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625460)

Every IP packet I pass through my ISP contains a source and destination IP address.
What else do they need to know?

Sec. 540c.
(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) Obtain or attempt to obtain a telecommunications service with the intent to avoid or aid or abet or cause another person to avoid any lawful charge for the telecommunications service in violation of section 219a.
(b) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service.
(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.

The rest of the bill appears to provide support and procedural infrastructure for the section above.


Re:Not concealing anything. (4, Interesting)

Tailhook (98486) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625550)

In response to the posters point you quote the law, specifically that section labeled (c). What does that have to do with his point? His ISP provides IP service. He sends and receives packets via that service. Every damn one has a source and a destination. At what point is he in violation of the section you highlighted?

He violates no law, including this one, operating VPN tunnels via his ISP. He has the right to send and receive IP traffic. The law mentions nothing about the content of the traffic he sends or receives. Presumably he has permission from whoever is at the other end of the VPN to use it.

You, and the rest of you hypersensitive zealots, need to do better than highlighting some piece of legislation to make your point. It is plainly obvious to me that NAT, VPN, SSL, SSH, HTTP proxies or any of the other mechanisms you folks claim will be made illegal by this law are simply not.

But have your fun. It's what you're all about...

What will *really* happen... (5, Funny)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625560)

"Hi, this is Mike. You remember me from yesterday? Yeah, well, I was wondering if I could "facilitate the recipt" of another couple of packets today. I was kinda thinking about maybe checking the weather."

"Kid, I'm giving you express authority to send you all the packets you want. Get the hell off the support line." ...

"Hi, this is Bob. I was wondering if I could decrypt something...I was thinking about buying a CD for my sister using https. Also, I..."

"Blanket approval. Go for it."

reminder (1)

t0ny (590331) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625442)

this story reminds me of last year, when Greece had a country-wide ban on Video Games. funny stuff.

Not one but two !!! (5, Informative)

mritunjai (518932) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625445)

(Yes I did RTFA)

This law has not one but two offensive clauses-

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

1 (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.

While 1(b) is probably the most obnoxious clause, 1(c) is not far behind... it makes it a "felony" to eg. hook two televisions on single cable connection and even make it a felony offense to put NAT boxen !! At our dorm, for World cup we put a computer with TV tuner card connected to cable connection and then used it to stream the transmission for people to watch in their rooms... HELL now we'll be criminals (and that too 'felony'!!) for that...


Who said "America- land of free" must now be turning in graves.

Re:Not one but two !!! (0)

Clandestine Fourberi (628819) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625468)

Who said "America- land of free" must now be turning in graves.

Not yet... they haven't killed you yet.

Re:Not one but two !!! (1)

futuresheep (531366) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625491)

In my eyes, this part also makes the use of TV Tuner and capture cards not provided to you by the cable company illegal.

1 (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.

Re:Even these could be illegal. (1)

futuresheep (531366) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625509)

Answering Machines.

Re:Not one but two !!! (4, Interesting)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625499)

I still think all the geeks should collect in one state and make their own laws. I like Florida because it has nice beaches, warm weather, nude women, and the majority of it is uninhabited. Any state with few enough current citizens would do though. The only way to stop stupid laws like this is to have a political voice.. and being that we're outnumbered by morons we need to collect in a large enough group in a small enough region of morons so that we can be heard. Having our country controlled by corporate interests and religious fanatics isn't exactly good for our future.

Re:Not one but two !!! (2, Funny)

October_30th (531777) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625526)

Uh... I don't see the connection between geeks and nude women?

Re:Not one but two !!! (1)

Ryan Amos (16972) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625579)

It also has lots of old people. And they like passing dumb conservative laws. :)

Re:Not one but two !!! (3, Funny)

nadaou (535365) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625541)

Who said "America- land of free" must now be turning in graves.

"Soon we will be able to harness the rotational energy from Orwell's grave to solve all world energy problems"
- GigsVT (#208848 [there is no #1, #6])

This might work on Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson's graves as well.

But don't worry, the oil companies and their puppet government won't stand for this nonsense for very long. They'll buy & bury the technology soon enough.

Defeating Stupidity? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625450)

This post about legislation in various states to illegalize using multiple computers on a a 'Net connection without express permission from a service provider sounds like a combination of the mindless anti-piracy drivel we've been reading, and a bit of "legislation-for-sale" by various legislators not so scrupulous about campaign contributions... This really gets my ire, because not only is this technically misguided, it's so obviously legislation to, at a minimum, protect a business model!

It strikes me that the reason why this legislation appears in the states that it does is perhaps a particular ISP has something to gain by it. Close that loop, and you'll probably find who lobbied for it.

To defeat this kind of legislation sounds like it'll need some kind of federal-level class action movement against it. Perhaps something along the lines of a significant breach-of-contract in bad faith with your ISP, or the fact that the legislation attempts to explicitly modify a contract(s) in-force presently, which may be a no-no for states.

One thing that might wake up ISP's to this, is if people started requesting copies of their contracts in writing to be snail mailed to them as proof of that contract-in-place before the law comes into effect. I would think in most states you have a legal right to a printed copy of a contract?

This gets to the fundamental question of who owns the customer-end of the IP pipe into your home, and corporate America wants as much control over that as they can. To us geeks, it is readily apparent to us that once the wire gets to us, we ought to be able to hook up the coffee machine or the computer to it. This makes me wonder of how this set of legislation violates any anonimity statues, or guarantees of privacy businesses have offered on the web. If you can't VPN, or go through a proxy or firewall, and your IP address is your machine in some way, shape, or form, those sites cannot in any way state the information they collect is anonymous.

SlashCode is motherfucking fucked up (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625452)

Anyone else notice how the Slashcode is fucked up. The motherfucking REPLY button keeps fucking disappearing on me god its fucking annoying. Shit, how in the bloody hell can I make my motherfucking trolls with this shit going on. Someone betta reply soon and tell me what the fuck is going on. Did the Taco fellow just upgrade Slashcode or some shit. Inform this mofo please.

Internet Made Illegal (5, Insightful)

Highwayman (68808) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625456)

This is ridiculous. In a broad sense, this would outlaw an PPP connection that assigns an ISP customer a different IP address with every session. Not only that but the nature of such legislation would outlaw virtual domains using Apache and could be applied to the way the Internet has come to work in a limited IP space. I mean, in order to find out who is who on a shared IP web server, you would have to have access to the configuration files.

With so many domains sharing IP addresses or having IP addresses provided by big companies such as HE there is an amount of obfuscation built in to the DNS system to allow flexibility on the host side. Can't they get busy with spam legislation instead?

Re:Internet Made Illegal (1)

pyrote (151588) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625486)

a brief history: 20 minutes in the future:

so they(the lawmakers) scream that we should use something like IPV6 which allows enough ips for everyone to have a unique IP. then it becomes law. noone is prepared for this and the internet becomes illegal except for those who can afford to pay for Internet2.

wow, max headroom was right. we will have to pay heavily for all our knowlege. Damn, and I was getting used to know-w-w-wing things.

It is even worse than VPNs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625470)

Such things like Nat, Firwalling even simple
home routers are outlawed :-)

Good luck fellows on tightening your companies network you will need it.

I propose.. (1, Funny)

mcbridematt (544099) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625472)

To make this a worldwide law:

Section 1.
(a) No darn goverment in the world will legislate any telcommunications laws.
(b) IPv4 Sucks. Everyone will be assigned a unique IPv6 address.
(c) There will be no DMCA-style legislation anywhere. Everything will be licensed under a GNU GPL-compatible license
Section 2.
(a) Any Operating system NOT implementing the POSIX standard, with exception of embedded devices is banned.
Section 3.
(a) A person shall not use a Fifty-Six Kilobaud analog modem device.
(b) A person must have access to an T3 line within 200 meters of residence.
Section 4.
(a) Every person over the age of 6 that is capable of operating a computing device will recieve free copies of the latest stable release of either FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Minix or Linux.
(b) Every person who is able to operate a SQL92/99 Server will recieve a stable copy of PostgreSQL every time a stable release of that 'computer application' is released

Re:I propose.. (1)

Associate (317603) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625584)

Can we change some of those to 'Provide access to...' instead of 'will receive...'? Not everyone will need or want the latest and greatest *whatever*. Besides, it could get expensive.

Telemarketers? (5, Interesting)

Associate (317603) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625480)

Would this apply to telemarketers who conceal their CID information, or 'fake it' with one of those new PBX's?

MA public hearing on this (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625484)

There's a public hearing on this on Wednesday at 10am for the Massachusetts law. If you're a Massachusetts resident, come down and tell lawmakers what you think. Please remember that lawmakers are impressed by articulate, original, direct arguments, so come prepared. Shrillness, repetitiveness, and rudeness will only hurt us. Also, dress like a conformist if at all possible, because old people are impressed by suits and dresses, and unmipressed by anything less fancy.

Chill out a bit! (1, Interesting)

technos (73414) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625488)

The section y'all are seeing apply to NATs, could very well apply to NATs. However, it applies to more than that, and seems to be subserviant to the whole, IE, detecting people cheating the cable company/telcos.

This seems to be a roll up to give the cable, telephone, and broadband companies a bit of legal tooth for threatening people stealing cable modem access, DSL access, reprogrammming their cable modems, etc.

I highly doubt the legislature would push a bill so obviously inspired by the broadband people while being totally oblivious to the fact that many of these same providers offer things like broadband firewalls/NATs as parts of value-added-service packages. I know six months ago, AT&T in some areas would gladly sell you a router/firewall, as would Comcast and a couple DSL providers. There are even next-gen modems on the market that plug into a network uplink and do the NAT themselves. So suddenly Linksys, Motorola, 3Com, Cisco, etc, are all criminals, as well as every store that sells consumer broadband firewalls?

I can't wait to see CompUSA try to get out of it. "Well, we didn't know they could be used to cheat Verizon!" "Lessee. It offers NAT, the box reads in big blue letters that it's 'Designed for DSL!', and you sold how many of these? Fifty last month? That's 2000 times 50."

I'm secure in the fact my provider doesn't even offer multiple IP addresses in any cost range out here.. I can't cheat them of money they were unable to earn in the first place for lack of offering the service.

Re:Chill out a bit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625511)

So why is the Motion Picture Association of America backing this?

How long do you think it will take before the Recording Industry Association of America supports this as well?

It's nice to know that you got your facts straight. I must have blinked when the MPAA & RIAA became telecoms/ISPs.

you are a fucking naive little bitch.

AHHHHH!!! (1)

nocomment (239368) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625489)

Lawyer speak!!!

Someone translate please. I have a tough, difficult, obscenely rough, insanely nasty time and or but not limited to facilitating my tough, difficult, obscenely rough, insanely nasty time, with and hereof my tough, difficult, obscenely rough, insanely nasty time understanding this document which shall henceforth be reffered to as "schlemandering" or "good". Anyone not understanding this document should refer to article 234A sub article 2B, chapter 423 of the referendum of the alliance to ban interpretive representation of comprehensible documentation revision 9.

That's all I see.

Any Michigan State Troopers? (1)

silentbozo (542534) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625496)

So, which Michigan State Trooper wants to tromp on to the state capital and confiscate all the computers in the state assembly for violation of the law? Not to mention any telephones with caller ID blocking, and any VOIP equipment that takes calls routed through any area that you don't live in...

Can't get rid of bad laws unless you start enforcing them rigidly, to the exact letter of the law. Otherwise they just lie there, beneath the surface, ready to waylay the unwary.

Is it just me, or is posession of a computing device going to be just as legally dangerous to the user as posessing a firearm?

Hapless user: But your Honor, I was only passing through Michigan! I didn't intend to use my laptop here, I swear!

Judge: I'm sorry, I'd like to give you a break, but under mandatory sentencing guidelines for felonies, you're going to the state peniteniary for a term of no less than one year.

Hapless user: Noooooooooooo!

Re:Any Michigan State Troopers? (1)

euxneks (516538) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625530)

Is it just me, or is posession of a computing device going to be just as legally dangerous to the user as posessing a firearm?

I can just see it now...

Police officer 1: Watch out men! He's got an iBOOK!
Police officer 2: My god! The humanity!
Police officer 3: Shoot him!!! SHOOOOOT HIM!!!

Re:Any Michigan State Troopers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625539)

And where are you going to thru the state of Michigan [] ???

Liability (i.e., Cisco as pimp) (2, Insightful)

Epesh (2854) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625501)

So the companies that make firewalls, routers and switches are going to be indicted in MI? I mean, hey - they're the primary enablers here. If they didn't sell routers, people would have a much greater barrier to creating VPNs, thus those companies are really the guilty ones, exploiting the businesses that provide carrier service. Besides, they've much deeper pockets. We're talking Cisco here, after all. Down with them! They're the criminals here, with the role of pimp; the poor people using VPNs are simply the buyers.

oh great (1)

mwm158 (526284) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625505)

and to think i was about to send in my acceptance of the university of michigan's offer of admission into the PhD program. to hell with them. oh wait...this doesn't matter.

section 3 is a killer... (1)

darewreck (630681) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625513)

I like in section (3) how it stifles freedom of speech and the sale or availability of hardware or software. I guess now when you go to Radio Shack you have to sign a waiver to purchase a cable splitter and patch cord.

well, the ONLY good news is... (2, Interesting)

alizard (107678) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625516)

I don't think that any of us who have the misfortune to live in MI will have to volunteer our own asses to test this law.

An analysis of what comes out of state government and local MI city and township governments via Internet should be adequate to provide conclusive evidence of massive violation of this law.

I mean, looking at their E-mail, websites, anyone know about VPNs or crypto use by the legislature? While the law only forbids decrypt, encryption isn't a hell of a lot of use without decryption at the other end.

The problem is forcing action on the complaints. Taxpayer suits? Don't know, I think it's time for input from EFF and/or any telecommunications lawyers reading this thread.

Add to that DSL and Firewalls (4, Informative)

HealYourChurchWebSit (615198) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625534)

Here is an interesting article in The Register [] which describes pending legislation in both Massachusetts and Texas are that would extend the DCMA to make devices such as DLS routers and firewalls illegal.

VPN against my ntl: T&Cs already (4, Informative)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625546)

18. Use of Virtual Private Network (VPN)

As stated above, the ntl Internet and/or Interactive Services are for residential use only and we do not support the use of VPN. If we find you are using VPN via the ntl IP network we may instruct you to stop using it and you must comply with this request. This is in order to prevent problems to ntl (eg network performance) and other Internet u FO.

s/u FO/users (1)

DrSkwid (118965) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625552)

who are these mysterious users impared by my VPN?

make the dog vomit up its tail (5, Interesting)

kubla2000 (218039) | more than 11 years ago | (#5625562)

This is easy for me to write, I'm in Europe so can't participate; however, there have been calls for geeks to politicise, to make their voices heard...

If every university and college student turned him/her self into the police on Monday morning for being in violation of this new law, the system would choke. It'd get a hell of a lot of media attention too. Something has to be done... these laws, largely unenforceable, continue to be passed... each one errodes the rights of ordinary people...

I simply can't fathom how a law this monomentally stupid has been passed... but it's got to be challenged. A mass protest would certainly expedite it and might prevent similar laws from being passed in other states where they're being considered.

The network is the computer (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5625583)

Here I sit using at least two computers simultaneously for the simple reason that they both do different jobs. In my house there are four devices capable of being connected to my network hub and that in turn connects to the cable modem I have. Given that it is just me using all these at the same time why would it make sense to charge me for each computer? There's just me. Now, if I set up a dial up so that other users can run off my cable then yes that is bad and a law that said I could not resell the service I have bought would be perfectly reasonable, but this is my house, my connection and they are my machines. I pay for a fat(ish) pipe to the outside world. Does the water company charge me more because I have more sinks than my next door neighbour? They may charge me more if I use more water but having more sinks doesn't matter, it is the flow that matters. Same should be true with a network. I am happy to have a capped bandwidth (500Kbs) because I am paying a flat rate for that. However, the four computers I have can't get more data through than one on its own could so what is the problem? What happens if I want to play around with a beowulf cluster? Are they going to outlaw clusters unless you can get some special exemption? You certainly wouldn't want to have to get an IP address for every machine in a big cluster. Oh, and what about the company providing the connection, are they going to ensure that if I have to pay for individual connections for each machine they will still protect me from all the twits who probe my system on a daily basis and do a better job than I can myself with my gateway? This bill is only going to benefit the money grabbing service providers and those idiots who love to try to root machines.

IMHO of course :-)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?