[lug] Colorado "Super-DMCA" bill impacts on Internet, privacy, security

[Neal McBurnett]

Thanks, Jeff.  The amendments, like that cited below, did help, but
not enough in my opinion.  Note, e.g., this completely new text to
define something that was just not defined at all in the previous
version.  Seems awfully similar to the bad DMCA language:

  "(p) "UNLAWFUL ACCESS DEVICE" MEANS ANY ACCESS DEVICE OR OTHER
  INSTRUMENT, DEVICE, MACHINE, EQUIPMENT, TECHNOLOGY, OR SOFTWARE THAT
  IS PRIMARILY DESIGNED, DEVELOPED, ASSEMBLED,MANUFACTURED, SOLD,
  DISTRIBUTED, POSSESSED, USED, PROMOTED ADVERTISED, OR OFFERED FOR
  SALE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFEATING OR CIRCUMVENTING ANY EFFECTIVE
  TECHNOLOGY, DEVICE, OR SOFTWARE, OR ANY COMPONENT OR PART THEREOF,
  USED BY THE PROVIDER, OWNER, OR LICENSEE OF ANY COMMUNICATION
  SERVICE OR OF ANY DATA, AUDIO OR VIDEO SERVICE, PROGRAMS, OR
  TRANSMISSIONS, TO PROTECT ANY SUCH COMMUNICATION, DATA, AUDIO OR
  VIDEO SERVICE, PROGRAMS, OR TRANSMISSIONS FROM UNAUTHORIZED RECEIPT,
  ACQUISITION, INTERCEPTION, ACCESS, DECRYPTION, DISCLOSURE,
  COMMUNICATION, TRANSMISSION, OR RE-TRANSMISSION.";

Ron Tupa of Boulder was one of 3 senators to vote against it.  Thanks,
Ron!

It looks like it is scheduled for a vote at the end of the day on
Friday the 11th.  Hopefully they won't get to it and we have the
weekend to lobby.

-Neal

On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 11:27:45PM -0600, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> Neal wrote:
> 
> > the
> > model legislation would have the possibly unintended effect of
> > outlawing critical and popular Internet technologies like NAT
> > (Network Address Translation).  Many say that it clearly would outlaw
> > Vitual Private Networks (VPN), private email (TLS-SMTP), etc.
> 
> Actually, in reading the bill (the PDF linked in your post) it appears 
> that changes have been made to the section in question.  See lines 1-6 
> on page 10 [Section 2 (p) (2) (a) (IV)] where it makes it a criminal 
> act to:
> 
> "Conceal or assist another to conceal from any communications service 
> provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of 
> origin or destination of any communication that utilizes a 
> communication device IF SUCH CONCEALMENT IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF 
> COMMITTING A VIOLATION OF SUBPARAGRAPH (I), (II), OR (III) OF THIS 
> PARAGRAPH (a)."
> 
> The emphasis at the end is the amended text.  Formerly, that single 
> paragraph would have made it criminal to use NAT, VPN, encrypted 
> e-mail, and so on.  But with the addition it seems honest citizens and 
> businesses will be in the clear.
> 
> That being said, I'll second your concerns that this legislation, the 
> DCMA, and others like it are all part of a frightening trend to strip 
> our freedoms and benefit no one but the special-interest groups (RIAA, 
> MPAA, etc.) who are frantically trying to squelch any technological 
> advances that endanger their monopolies.
> 
> Knowing the BLUG isn't really a political discussion forum, I won't say 
> more.  But it's important for all of us-- as a community of informed, 
> intelligent developers, consultants, and users-- to be aware of the 
> legal environment in which we work and play.  Hopefully this bill and 
> its cousins will be defeated.
> 
> $0.02,
> Jeff