[CLUE-Talk] Colorado Law might prohibit firewalls and VPN?

[Jed S. Baer]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:47:12 -0700
Sean LeBlanc <seanleblanc at americanisp.net> wrote:

> On 03-28 16:30, Jed S. Baer wrote:
> > Hi Folks.
> > 
> > I think Ed Felton's gone a little overboard in his analysis here, but
> > it's worth looking into.
> > 
> > http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000336.html
> > 
> > The Colorado bill:
> > 
> > http://www.leg.state.co.us/2003a/inetcbill.nsf/fsbillcont/A2F0DA113DF2BFC087256CC2006BFB94?Open&file=1303_ren.pdf
> > 
> > According to Ed, the bills are about "hiding" data from your ISP. Fer
> > example, by sending e-mail over an encrypted tunnel, such as VPN, I
> > guess, or using NAT. I have the CO bill downloading as I type.
> 
> A related story showed up on Slashdot later, interestingly enough.
> 
> I wonder what this will do to projects like freenet? Don't they hide
> data from anyone, including ISPs? Does it have any impact on SSH or SSL?

Not to mention anonymizing proxy servers, and remailers. Oh, BTW, I also
recommend looking at the buzz going on about Digital Identity. A Google
search will turn up lots of stuff. Or, head to sourceid.com (org?), or Doc
Searls' weblog, or Eric Norlin's weblog (it's all over the web).

> All this legislation is hard to keep up with - I only finally discovered
> that the "Know Your Customer" delight was pushed through on the Patriot
> Act. I think the theory about pending legislation never really dying
> (even when it's shot down) is true; they resurrected that one really
> fast after 9/11. 

The "Know Your Customer" stuff was around long before that. The feds took
advantage of 9/11 to put increased scrutiny on it. They had attempted that
previously (maybe 1999?), but it got shot down -- I don't remember if it
was the banking industry complaining about increased costs, or public
outcry, or both.

I don't know of any "watchdog" groups who are covering these types of
issues at the state level, in Colorado. I'd be willing to work with anyone
who wants to set up a "scrape and mirror" site -- the Colorado legislative
website is crap, IMHO.

> I understand people are paranoid in these times, but do banks really
> have to be spying on customers? I remember re-reading some of the
> cypherpunk stuff(post 9/11) about untraceable digital money and
> thinking, "that will NEVER happen now, at least not in this country."
> Well, unless something radical happens like the Free State Project:
> http://www.freestateproject.org/. Not that it ever had a chance under
> the War on Drugs, but under the War on Terrorism, I think we can kiss
> that idea goodbye.

/me is reminded of Cryptonomicon ;-). Seriously, the surveillance society
is well underway. Has been, actually, for quite a while. The private
sector might be collecting more data about people than the govt. actually.
There aren't as many constraints on the private sector. Only I think the
govt. is working hard at playing catch up.

> And don't get me started on the Ashcroft and crew fighting terrorism
> by...wait for it....cracking down on the sellers of "smoking
> accessories". Please. 
> 
> You have to love the nanny state. 

You better go read Fred Reed --
http://www.fredoneverything.net/ColMenu.html

BTW, I called my state Senator's office this morning (Norma Anderson, who
is also Senate Majority Leader), and got a return call within about a half
hour. Wasn't the Sen., but an aide of some sort, who took time to listen.
Beats the snot outa what I've gotten from Ben Campbell (nothing). At least
at the state level, you have a better chance of being heard.

I have no idea whether my effort pushed this or not, but the "third
reading" has been postponed to 04/07. Time for everyone to contact their
State Senators. Woohoo!

Does anyone know if we have any "privacy friendly" legislators? Isn't
there one libertarian there? I don't usually read Westword -- did this
bill show up there?

jed
-- 
I wouldn't even think about bribing a rottweiler with a steak that
didn't weigh more than I do. -- Jason Earl