![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
A political day
Apr. 3rd, 2003 12:45 amThis morning, I woke up too late to make class on time, despite my frantic attempt to do so. However: I'd heard that 4/2/03 was the day that the Massachusetts legislature's Joint Committee on Criminal Justice to hold hearings on House bill 2743. This is a bogus bit of legislation proposed by the MPAA. It purports to be for Internet security, but would do severe damage to the ability to use encryption, NAT, or any sort of privacy filters. (It has apparently already passed in a few states. The Michigan version was passed in a huge bill, Public Act 672 of the 2002 legislative session, that modified a number of crimes. Sections 219a, 540c, 540d, 540f, 540g, and 540h are the interesting ones.)
One MPAA vice president was there, testifying in favor of the bill. She was followed by about 15 assorted people, mostly security geeks, all of whom opposed the bill. I was one of the 15, second-to-last. By the time I got to the table, pretty much every point I'd thought of had been raised, save one: anonymous speech. The particular section I spoke about was the equivalent to Michigan sections 540c(1) and 540c(1)(b), with "unlawful telecommunications access device" defined in 219a(6)(e). So I talked briefly about anonymous speech, and its value in general. After the hearing closed, a few of us talked with the committee members who stayed behind. They thanked us for speaking, and from what they said, it seemed like the bill would not make it out of the committee.
(I'll update this with links to the text of the Massachusetts bill, proposed amendments, and the testimony, if I can find them. As of earlier today, none of them are online at the Massachusetts Legislature's website. Meanwhile, the Michigan version is at least an approximation.)
After school, I went to the Howard Dean meetup. (For those who don't know, Howard Dean is running for president. He's a Democrat, and former governor of Vermont.) The meetup had to change venue, from the Irish Times Restaurant to a larger Irish pub, Coogan's, because the Irish Times was too small to hold us all. The estimate that I heard was that 130 people showed up. For those who are interested, the New Hampshire Democratic Convention is this coming Saturday. A number of people, including me, are going to go up and hold signs outside.
One MPAA vice president was there, testifying in favor of the bill. She was followed by about 15 assorted people, mostly security geeks, all of whom opposed the bill. I was one of the 15, second-to-last. By the time I got to the table, pretty much every point I'd thought of had been raised, save one: anonymous speech. The particular section I spoke about was the equivalent to Michigan sections 540c(1) and 540c(1)(b), with "unlawful telecommunications access device" defined in 219a(6)(e). So I talked briefly about anonymous speech, and its value in general. After the hearing closed, a few of us talked with the committee members who stayed behind. They thanked us for speaking, and from what they said, it seemed like the bill would not make it out of the committee.
(I'll update this with links to the text of the Massachusetts bill, proposed amendments, and the testimony, if I can find them. As of earlier today, none of them are online at the Massachusetts Legislature's website. Meanwhile, the Michigan version is at least an approximation.)
After school, I went to the Howard Dean meetup. (For those who don't know, Howard Dean is running for president. He's a Democrat, and former governor of Vermont.) The meetup had to change venue, from the Irish Times Restaurant to a larger Irish pub, Coogan's, because the Irish Times was too small to hold us all. The estimate that I heard was that 130 people showed up. For those who are interested, the New Hampshire Democratic Convention is this coming Saturday. A number of people, including me, are going to go up and hold signs outside.
