is this true or... ?
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595 -- Tomas Daniska systems engineer Tronet Computer Networks Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199 A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first.
In message <A44DA7EDD8262343B02C64AF7E063A077CCC1D@kenya.ba.tronet.sk>, "Tomas Daniska" writes:
freedom-to-tinker.com, which is the source cited by your link, is indeed Ed Felten's. And I trust Ed. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
In message <20030328144042.4576C7B4D@berkshire.research.att.com>, "Steven M. Be llovin" writes:
In message <A44DA7EDD8262343B02C64AF7E063A077CCC1D@kenya.ba.tronet.sk>, "Tomas
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_QUERY_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. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
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.
Without looking it up (a little busy), there should be a Definitions section defining communications service provider. Is the bill aimed at ISP's or is it aimed at the actual Telco? -Jack *probably just creating noise*
In message <3E846BAD.3010500@brightok.net>, Jack Bates writes:
Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
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.
Without looking it up (a little busy), there should be a Definitions section defining communications service provider. Is the bill aimed at ISP's or is it aimed at the actual Telco?
-Jack *probably just creating noise*
I'm busy, too, and probably shouldn't bother, but see http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/data/docmodel/78r/billtext/pdf/HB02121I.PDF -- and yes, it specifically speaks of "an Internet-based distribution system, network, or facility". --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)
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)
How do like this recent rounds of bureaucrats attempting to make laws....h-r-m ? A: IMHO:This should be officially declared, "out of their jurisdiction". of such small municipalities... it is sort of like having a Nurse make the judgment call during a delicate heart surgery. It takes a specialist, really.... There is a reason most laws that -do- exist are at a Federal level...(in the U.S.)... Match the Law with the Scope of the problem. B: Most of these laws make about as much sense as the Old Blue Laws, that we are just now getting around to repealing.. (Can't have sex with the wife on Sunday) Why create more idiotic laws ? After our region voted "all out" (7-0) to pass laws outlawing Spam..... and created a bill that would incarcerate about half of the daily usenet posters, and network operators, for routine operations... and outlaw anonymity on the net... Someone showed them how to use Spam Assassin. It made Front Page News. * dohh! * The real solution lie in the IEEE, IETF, and/or the IESG, and possibly will be included in IPV6.... The interim solution lie in software packages, and Firewalls.... And, fundamentally, if the USA Patriot Act didn't teach us at least one thing, it should have taught us to NOT attempt to -=legislate=- the value of "Pi" to "4.0". It simply should be out of their jurisdiction, since the physical reality is beyond their ability to change, and/or comprehend. Besides, JMHO, don't make a -law-, per se... make it actionable. ;) Why send idiots to jail, and ruin their future.... When you can simply make them reimburse you for your trouble ? They remain productive members of society, and you are recompensed for your troubles.. ..Giving you that warm fuzzy glow of Retribution, you so deserve. :D Its not like we don't have -=Entire States=- going into bankruptcy because the attempted application of the "Police State" that is the wet-dream of the current administration, -=didn't=- overburden the system.... You See, you can only incarcerate up to a certain percentage of the community, until the burden to support the incarcerated over-whelms the remaining free members of that society. Not to mention, certain types of laws will result in young people being exposed, and converted, to the wrong element, early in life. We would be better off -=not=- exposing them to such treatment in the first place.. ( Most "hacking" law breakers are juveniles, when it comes to the internet....curiosity and the Cat, eh ?) Adding -more- un-enforceable laws, that not only over-burden the system further, but permanently modify the behavior of countless numbers of people for the worse, over relatively trivial issue's... will eventually end up as "Blue Law", a waste of our time, and money. Fundamentally Detrimental to the Very System, itself. "Steven M. Bellovin" wrote:
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)
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Steven M. Bellovin wrote: :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. Selling bandwidth is like selling water in that it isn't terribly profitable unless you can get the user to lease the pipes, pay per use, and make sure they aren't recycling it in any way. It's a loser as a disposable commodity, but the ultimate service if you can control it. I suspect the bill may also leverage the security angle from an anti-anonymity stance. Bizzare things are justified in the name of security these days, and enshrining a cable providers right to ensure it's customers aren't sharing bandwidth may seem irrelevant, until that bandwidth is shared with "terrorists". Using proxies for the purposes of surfing anonymously, setting up VPN's or P2P networks which specifically dilute an individual users custodianship of data, and otherwise undermining the stateful transaction model of communication that telcos, law enforcement and the economy exploits, are all threatened by the intent of this bill. The intent is to legally enshrine distribution channels as a relationship between consumer and supllier, and to squelch the fuzzy Red notions of community and network that have become so prevalent lately. Statelessness is an anathema to control, and we can expect more pressure on the IETF and the IEEE to ensure that some peoples political notions of economy are respected in protocol designs, despite their lack of technical merit. This bill will probably die on the operating table, but it won't be the last we'll see of this broader trend. Cheers, -- batz
If it is, it reveals how utterly clueless our legislators really are.... At 15:09 3/28/03 +0100, you wrote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595
--
Tomas Daniska systems engineer Tronet Computer Networks Plynarenska 5, 829 75 Bratislava, Slovakia tel: +421 2 58224111, fax: +421 2 58224199
A transistor protected by a fast-acting fuse will protect the fuse by blowing first.
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, blitz wrote:
If it is, it reveals how utterly clueless our legislators really are....
At 15:09 3/28/03 +0100, you wrote:
Uhm, I don't think you can blame the legislators for this one. Almost identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation.
Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, blitz wrote:
If it is, it reveals how utterly clueless our legislators really are.... At 15:09 3/28/03 +0100, you wrote:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595 Uhm, I don't think you can blame the legislators for this one. Almost identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation.
Now, -that's- using your noodle. With just a little investigative work, we should be able to find out which of the "Righteous Vigilante Right" was running around championing this concept.... Usually, you find someone who is a member of a politically active group, perhaps a church group, or lobbying group, who has a child, and walked in upon him/her opening up a pornographic spam.... And then, with tears streaming from their eyes, knowing their "innocent darling Pat" has been corrupted, and -damned- for all eternity... They become determined to lead us all to the "One True Path" of righteousness... The Universal WorldWide Creation of "Pat's Law". (Pause for Hysterical Sobbing for the Now Damned soul) (Que: Triumphant Angelic Music) With Such bogus Rhetoric as their foundation, as: "You want our children to be -=safe=-, don't you ?" (Scratch Record, stop music abruptly!) Most people are dumbfounded when encountering such Rhetoric... for some reason, they can't seperate the answer to the logical trap posed in the wording that they have stepped into, from the -=real=- answer to the problem.... Most people internally cognate the answer "Yes" to the above question, and then can't understand why they find themselves agreeing with the RVR's proselytizer.... * dohh * I.E: "Do you beat your wife, often ?!" :* The real way to combat such morally reprehensible manipulation of logic of the verbal exchange is to identify the underlying fallacy. So, instead of "Yes", answer: "Of course we do, Schmuck, that is why we oppose such a negligent abuse of power and the subsequent creation of ludicrous laws... by emotionally blinded idiots, such as yourself... and seek a -real- solution, instead of attempting to "legislate" something you simply don't understand, ineffectively." Yup. Find the Fallacy, and soon one understands why the RVR's really should seek -=therapy=-, not political office. So, in conclusion: "You want to be Safe -and- Free, don't you ?" :P .Richard. Historical Quote: "Any resemblance between this post, and current political practices, are purely intentional." =====> So, has Babylon Fallen, Yet ? ;)
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:59:02 EST, Richard Irving said:
Sean Donelan wrote:
identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation.
Now, -that's- using your noodle.
With just a little investigative work, we should be able to find out which of the "Righteous Vigilante Right" was running around championing this concept....
Usually, you find someone who is a member of a politically active group, perhaps a church group, or lobbying group, who has a child, and walked in upon him/her opening up a pornographic spam....
Actually, it's the copyright people, it appears. http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/doc/2003/mpaa_27mar.pdf Follow the money. *SIGH*
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:07:24PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:59:02 EST, Richard Irving said:
Sean Donelan wrote:
identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation.
Now, -that's- using your noodle.
With just a little investigative work, we should be able to find out which of the "Righteous Vigilante Right" was running around championing this concept....
Usually, you find someone who is a member of a politically active group, perhaps a church group, or lobbying group, who has a child, and walked in upon him/her opening up a pornographic spam....
Actually, it's the copyright people, it appears.
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/doc/2003/mpaa_27mar.pdf
Follow the money. *SIGH*
You mean Richard Irving was _wrong_ ??? Wow. -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:nnorman@incanus.net GUIs normally make it simple to accomplish simple actions and impossible to accomplish complex actions. -- Doug Gwyn
Nathan E Norman wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 02:07:24PM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:59:02 EST, Richard Irving said:
Sean Donelan wrote:
identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation.
Now, -that's- using your noodle.
With just a little investigative work, we should be able to find out which of the "Righteous Vigilante Right" was running around championing this concept....
Usually, you find someone who is a member of a politically active group, perhaps a church group, or lobbying group, who has a child, and walked in upon him/her opening up a pornographic spam....
Actually, it's the copyright people, it appears.
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/doc/2003/mpaa_27mar.pdf
Follow the money. *SIGH* You mean Richard Irving was _wrong_ ??? Wow.
It would be a miracle, eh ? Agreed. But, Alas, you confuse a hypothesis, with a conclusion. Better luck next time. :P
-- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:nnorman@incanus.net GUIs normally make it simple to accomplish simple actions and impossible to accomplish complex actions. -- Doug Gwyn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:59:02 EST, Richard Irving said:
Sean Donelan wrote:
identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation. Now, -that's- using your noodle. With just a little investigative work, we should be able to find out which of the "Righteous Vigilante Right" was running around championing this concept....
Usually, you find someone who is a member of a politically active group, perhaps a church group, or lobbying group, who has a child, and walked in upon him/her opening up a pornographic spam.... Actually, it's the copyright people, it appears.
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/doc/2003/mpaa_27mar.pdf
Follow the money. *SIGH*
Ah, yes. The -=one=- motive more powerful than even self preservation of the species... * Greed * Did you know that in Africa, there is a humane monkey trap that has been used for countless ages... Sun Flower seeds in an empty coconut shell, securely mounted. With a narrow opening in the top of the shell, the monkey reaches in, and grabs a handful of seeds...... But, with its hand -full- of seeds, it cannot withdraw it from the Narrow Opening in the top of the coconut.... You have to check these traps often, though... The Monkey will starve to death, rather than release the hand full of seeds..... Did you know that man's genomes are roughly 98% Simian ? :D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature
: self preservation of the species... : : * Greed * : : Did you know that in Africa, there is a humane monkey trap : that has been used for countless ages... : : Sun Flower seeds in an empty coconut shell, securely mounted. : : With a narrow opening in the top of the shell, the monkey reaches in, : and grabs a handful of seeds...... : : But, with its hand -full- of seeds, it cannot withdraw it : from the Narrow Opening in the top of the coconut.... : : You have to check these traps often, though... : : The Monkey will starve to death, rather than release the : hand full of seeds..... : : Did you know that man's genomes are roughly 98% Simian ? : : :D : : : : > : > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature :
My apologies, I accidentally hit ^X instead of ^K when editing an eamil. I was going to make a smartass comment, included below, just not to the whole NANOG community. Apologies, scott : : Did you know that man's genomes are roughly 98% Simian ? So, randy was correct the other week about network monkeys? ;-) scott On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Scott Weeks wrote: : : : : self preservation of the species... : : : : * Greed * : : : : Did you know that in Africa, there is a humane monkey trap : : that has been used for countless ages... : : : : Sun Flower seeds in an empty coconut shell, securely mounted. : : : : With a narrow opening in the top of the shell, the monkey reaches in, : : and grabs a handful of seeds...... : : : : But, with its hand -full- of seeds, it cannot withdraw it : : from the Narrow Opening in the top of the coconut.... : : : : You have to check these traps often, though... : : : : The Monkey will starve to death, rather than release the : : hand full of seeds..... : : : : Did you know that man's genomes are roughly 98% Simian ? : : : : :D : : : : : : : : > : : > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ : : > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature : : : :
Speaking on Deep Background, the Press Secretary whispered:
Uhm, I don't think you can blame the legislators for this one. Almost identical legislation being introduced in six different states? I suspect an outside influence was involved in drafting the proposed legislation.
It is amazing how many in the public think their legislators actually draft those laws that get voted upon. In realty, many bills are presented to the Hill Critter by the lobbyist; be it one from an ILEC, the FBI [excuse me, we call those "Legislative Affairs Branch employees"], drug company, Perdue, Ashcroft, etc. Sure the words might get massaged a little, later on, but.... And in all cases, remember the lesson of Watergate: Follow The Money to figure out where the bill came from initially. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
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". The primary purpose of NAT is not to hide anything, it's to allow multiple connections to share a scarce resource. If you download your email over an encrypted link, your primary purpose is to conceal the *content* of communications, not their source or destination. Similarly, the primary purpose of a firewall is to enforce policies about security, not to hide the origin of a communication. So the issue is really more narrow. The issue is whether it's ever legitimate to do something primarily for the purpose of hiding the origin or destination of a communication from an ISP. I would argue that most people don't care if their ISPs know where there communications originate or terminate; however, the law is bad because there certainly are legitimate cases where my ISP has no business knowing who is talking to me or who I'm talking to. However, Felten's claim that "anything that concealed the origin" would be illegal is FUD. In fact, his spin no it is pure FUD, IMO. That said, if it takes a bit of FUD to get attention to a bad law, that's maybe not such a terribly bad thing. The risk is that lawmakers will refute the FUD and then feel comfortable going ahead with a bad law. -- David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
participants (13)
-
batz -
blitz -
David Lesher -
David Schwartz -
Jack Bates -
Nathan E Norman -
Richard Irving -
Scott W Brim -
Scott Weeks -
Sean Donelan -
Steven M. Bellovin -
Tomas Daniska -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu