[57076] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: is this true or... ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Fri Mar 28 10:18:53 2003
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: "Tomas Daniska" <tomas@tronet.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:40:42 EST."
<20030328144042.4576C7B4D@berkshire.research.att.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:16:00 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In message <20030328144042.4576C7B4D@berkshire.research.att.com>, "Steven M. Be
llovin" writes:
>
>In message <A44DA7EDD8262343B02C64AF7E063A077CCC1D@kenya.ba.tronet.sk>, "Tomas
>
>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_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)
