In message <20030328151600.E0FCD7B4D@berkshire.research.att.com>, "Steven M. Be llovin" writes:
In message <20030328144042.4576C7B4D@berkshire.research.att.com>, "Steven M. B e llovin" writes:
In message <A44DA7EDD8262343B02C64AF7E063A077CCC1D@kenya.ba.tronet.sk>, "Toma
s
Daniska" writes:
freedom-to-tinker.com, which is the source cited by your link, is indeed Ed Felten's. And I trust Ed.
It's been pointed out to me that the Texas bill, at least (I found it at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=NUTHYMWBJWUF&CQ_QU ERY_HANDLE=126838&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=4&CQ_SAVE[bill_number]=HB02121INT&CQ_TLO_DOC _TEXT=YES but there may be session state -- it's bill HB 2121) only criminalizes the conduct if it's done "with intent to harm or defraud a communications service provider". Now, given the anti-NAT and anti-VPN tendencies of some broadband ISPs, I'm not necessarily thrilled, but it's not quite the same as was originally suggested.
After talking to Ed Felten and reading more of the bill, I'm no longer certain about my clarification. The originally-cited text is in Section 6; the part about "intent to cause harm" is in Section 4. Section 6 also criminalizes concealing origin or destination information from "lawful authority" -- use crypto, go to jail? --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)