North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: is this true or... ?
In message <[email protected]>, "Steven M. Be llovin" writes: > >In message <[email protected]>, "Steven M. B >e >llovin" writes: >> >>In message <[email protected]>, "Toma >s >> >>Daniska" writes: >>> >>> >>>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595 >>> >> >>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)
|