In message <20030329003124.AAA24442@shell.webmaster.com@whenever>, David Schwar tz writes:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:06:56 -0500, blitz wrote:
If it is, it reveals how utterly clueless our legislators really are....
The text I saw talks about a device's "primary purpose".
I'm not sure what text you saw. The Texas bill (I posted the URL earlier today) does not speak of "primary purpose". The section Felten warned about (Section 6) criminalizes the following things: manufacture, sale, etc., of a "communications device" with an intent to *either* defraud, *or* conceal origin, destination, etc.; manufacture, sale, etc., of an "unauthorized access divce"; or manufacture, sale, etc., of plans or instructions for such devices with the knowledge that the intent of the end user is illegal. The word "primary" does not occur in the text of the bill, according to both my reading and Acrobat's "find" fucntion. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:47:25 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
In message <20030329003124.AAA24442@shell.webmaster.com@whenever>, David Schwartz writes:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:06:56 -0500, blitz wrote:
If it is, it reveals how utterly clueless our legislators really are....
The text I saw talks about a device's "primary purpose".
I'm not sure what text you saw.
*sigh* Now neither am I. I searched over the law links, the articles and my browser history and I can't figure out where I got that "primary purpose" from. I don't know if I was reading the wrong section of the laws or totally hallucinated it. The laws require an "intent to" "conceal" the "origin or destination". NAT would not count, as the intent is to share a scarce resource, not to conceal the origin or destination -- the origin is only concealed to the extent necessary to accomplish the sharing. Firewalls probably would not count either, as there is no intent to conceal the origin or destination, the intent is to provide security. The argument would then hinge on complex legal interpretations of 'intent'. If you intentionally do 'x' knowing that 'x' has 'y' as a side-effect, but you don't want 'y' specifically, does that count as intending to do 'y'. If so, then FedEx intends to distribute child pornography. I still think there's some FUD in Felten's claims. But I think if someone had warned of the exact, specific problems we've had with the DMCA obliterating fair use, it would have looked like FUD at the time. I apologize to Mr. Felten. -- David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
participants (2)
-
David Schwartz -
Steven M. Bellovin