Jump to content

Michigan has passed law to ban VPN!


Guest ThunderRiver
 Share

Do you guys agree with the decision?  

12 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Guest Paracelsus

Hi ThunderRiver, Have pity on a poor ol' Analytical Chemist. :D I just found out that VPN is Virtual Private Network. But in order to make an informed vote...Would you mind just (very) briefly outlining why some government officials believe these may have negitive aspects?? (I did go to the links you posted, but they just got me more confused) :D Merci Beaucoup :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:rolleyes: Well, I went to the Michigan Legislature page that the previous link pointed to, and I didn't see anything particularly sinister about this law.I guess the portion under question is the part where it prohibits trying to
( b ) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service.
I read some other articles which claimed that this would outlaw the use of routers, firewalls, NAT, and any number of other devices or technologies, but I don't buy it. Obviously, this is a fairly poorly worded piece of legislation (what else is new), and any attempt to enforce it in the manner insinuated by the first article will be challenged in court, resulting in a more definitive explanation. But it seems clear to me that the intent of the law is to keep people from stealing telecommunications services by using illicit equipment and 'cloaking' techniques.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Paracelsus

Thanks for the clarification, Eric.Personally, I'm all for National Security... but not at the expense of loosing the freedom to keep communications private.I should think there are enough laws to deal with crimes such as Theft of Service, without muddying the waters further.(Or am I completely missing the point here??)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the clarification, Eric.Personally, I'm all for National Security... but not at the expense of loosing the freedom to keep communications private.I should think there as enough laws to deal with crimes such as Theft of Service, without muddying the waters further.(Or am I completely missing the point here??)
I'm with you. Simple private communications shouldn't be considered illegal just because they are private. I've read some of the other legislation and proposed legislation mentioned above, and in every case the intent of the law is to stem the piracy of telecommunications services. Some of the legislation in question is actually pretty clear as to what kind of hardware and software (combined with illicit intent) is considered in violation; other legislation is less clear. But in no case could I construe that the intent (or even a side effect) of the law was making use of VPNs, firewalls, or encryption illegal.I think this is being blown way out of proportion, but we'll see if I'm right when the dust settles.... :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SonicDragon
:unsure: Well, I went to the Michigan Legislature page that the previous link pointed to, and I didn't see anything particularly sinister about this law.I guess the portion under question is the part where it prohibits trying to
( b ) Conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any telecommunications service.
I read some other articles which claimed that this would outlaw the use of routers, firewalls, NAT, and any number of other devices or technologies, but I don't buy it. Obviously, this is a fairly poorly worded piece of legislation (what else is new), and any attempt to enforce it in the manner insinuated by the first article will be challenged in court, resulting in a more definitive explanation. But it seems clear to me that the intent of the law is to keep people from stealing telecommunications services by using illicit equipment and 'cloaking' techniques.
I agree completely. I think it is a 'badly worded piece of legislation' that won't really hold it's ground. To outlaw firewalls, routers, and NATs is sort of absurd. I am for national security, but outlawing firewalls, routers, and NATs, is the opposite of security right?I wonder if EFF has anything on this yet. I will have to go check it out... Nope, they don't, but they do have some new stuff on airline security, if you are wondering.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...