On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 07:50:05PM -0400, Andy Dills wrote:
Can you show damages in the situation of email? Yes. With packets? No. And before you come back at me with some crazy convoluted contrived scenario, let's just realize how far off the beaten path we are at this point. If your ISP is going to force you to use NAT, "against your will", get a new fricking provider. For that matter, what ISP NATs you against your will?
You're thinking civil law I think not criminal law. Criminal law does not require you to show damages, and generally doesn't care if you were breaking the law "to help someone" or to hurt them. I do realize this is a bit absurd, but here's the real lift situation that concerns me. Imagine if you will that your ISP asks you to sign a disclosure (or contract with disclosure) allowing them to "read and modify packets in the course of providing service". You ask them, dilligently about this and they tell you that they are using NAT, and you're ok with that. It all sounds well and good, but to me you also just gave them carte blanche to read your e-mail or other traffic, the way I read it. A loophole perhaps, but one large enough to drive a mac truck through, in legal speak. I would not be surprised if a skilled lawyer could get a 'wiretapper' off the hook, by showing them that someone consented to this sort of monitoring / modification, particuarly with so many non-technical judges. None of this has anything to do with the technical merits of NAT though, where I still maintain that 'plain nat' (no payload modification) is a useful tool, provided you know it breaks some things, and that 'nat' as currently marketed with all of its mucking around in the data layer is dangerous on a number of technical, political, and legal grounds. -- Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org Systems Engineer - Internetworking Engineer - CCIE 3440 Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request@tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org