Super-DMCA turns us all into criminals

THANKS TO A NEW new law passed in Illinois -- with similar versions under review in several other US states -- anyone running a firewall, using privacy software, running a VPN, or an NAT is now a criminal. This new set of laws is called the "S-DMCA" (Super DMCA) and its incredibly thick-headed relevant passage make the following devices illegal:

[any device that would] conceal or to assist another to conceal from any communication service provider or from any lawful authority the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication.

Anyone arguing for the inherent right to be left alone on the Internet is probably in shock at this point, given that the above passages don't just make it easier for companies or governments to collect data, they make it illegal for anyone to try to "hide" it. One almost wonders if the legislators responsible for this Darwin Award-winning piece of work missed their mark—with a little bit of careful re-wording they could have made the router illegal and destroyed the Internet's infrastructure in one blow rather than blowing a hole in it and leaving it to die.

In the end the one piece of good news is that laws like this probably won't be long for the world. Imagine the reaction of a company badly struck by Nimda or Code Red being told they must dismantle their corporate firewall, their VPN, and cease using a NAT all in the name of fulfilling the requirements of a badly written law. While the high degree of influence big businesses have on governmental affairs is generally not regarded as a good thing, in certain cases it can prove useful. The larger and more far-flung the company the more likely that they are using at least some of the above technology, and the more likely they'll be in a position to raise holy hell in Congress.

While it's hard to imagine this law being used seriously or attaining DMCA-like stature in the long-run, it's a truly ominous sign of just how badly the average legislator is out of touch with modern technology. These are not stupid people — but they are people who are only hearing one side of a debate, from a group of people who have a vested interest in seeing these laws passed. Having listened to these people (and their protestations of neutrality) in good faith, legislators have passed S-DMCA laws (or are considering them in other states). The legal battle to untangle them could stretch on for years, cost millions of dollars, and ultimately reach the United States' Supreme Court.

These S-DMCA laws truly deserve the relation to the parent that spawned them. Like the DMCA they are over-broad, poorly defined, and absolutely without merit. It's as if a government, in its desire to outlaw ATV's (All-Terrain Vehicles) outlawed all vehicles with engines. Making it illegal to hide information from a lawful government investigation is already a crime. We call it perjury.

Does it surprise anyone that the MPAA/RIAA are the two most ardent supports of this legislation?

Didn't think so.