Subject: new dmca laws and rfc 3041

From: Renee Danson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 14:49:38 -0700

I've started hearing some concerns about the "Super-DMCA"
legislation that various states in the US are considering or have
already passed.  It seems like these laws could have all kinds of
bad consequences; among other things, they have provisions that
could be interpreted as making RFC 3041 illegal.  An article on
the EFF's web site[1] mentions provisions that ban devices that
"conceal...the existence or place of origin or destination of any
communication."

This raises concern for all kinds of things that are currently in
more widespread use than RFC 3041, such as VPNs and NAT.  But an
implementation of RFC 3041 could be viewed as a tool which helps
users to conceal their IP address, and thus the "place of origin"
of communication.  

So, what do folks think about this?  Should implementors make any
changes to their RFC 3041 implementations in light of these laws?

-renee

[1] http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/states/200304_sdmca_eff_analysis.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Tony Hain" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:37:54 -0700

Renee Danson wrote:
> legislation that various states in the US are considering or 
> have already passed.  It seems like these laws could have all 
> kinds of bad consequences; among other things, they have 
> provisions that could be interpreted as making RFC 3041 
> illegal.  An article on the EFF's web site[1] mentions 
> provisions that ban devices that "conceal...the existence or 
> place of origin or destination of any communication."
> 
> This raises concern for all kinds of things that are 
> currently in more widespread use than RFC 3041, such as VPNs 
> and NAT.  But an implementation of RFC 3041 could be viewed 
> as a tool which helps users to conceal their IP address, and 
> thus the "place of origin" of communication.  
> 
> So, what do folks think about this?  Should implementors make 
> any changes to their RFC 3041 implementations in light of these laws?

RFC 3041 does not conceal the IP address, or place of origin. All it
does is limit the valid timeframe for that pairing. There is nothing
illegal about showing up at a Starbucks, acquiring an IPv4 address using
DHCP, then requesting a different one after a short period of time. Use
of 3041 addresses has exactly the same technical effect. 

Besides being unnecessary, it is probably not wise to guess where
decisions on legal issues will end up. That is a sure way to rebuilding
the code many times.

Tony

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 08:17:50 +0200

Quite apart from what Tony says, which is completely true,
possible marginal interpretations of bizarre laws in a few 
odd corners of the world such as Michigan mustn't be allowed 
to distort international standards. Such battles have to be
fought locally.

   Brian

---

From: Scott Bradner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 09:06:38 -0400 (EDT)

not good stuff

see: http://www.nwfusion.com/columnists/2003/0407bradner.html

but the copyright people have backed off in many states and changed
the suggested wording to be somewhat more limited (though some
states passed the outlaw-vpn version.

Scott

----

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 17:01:20 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

   not good stuff

   
=> in a nearly funny way, here in Europe our laws are more and more
towards the opposite side: IP addresses are considered as personal
data and should be hidden... RFC 3041 is not yet mandatory just
because it takes (a lot of) time.

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: cf the WP58 document (I have a PDF version, ask me).