[57123] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: is this true or... ?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Fri Mar 28 19:49:28 2003
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
Cc: blitz@macronet.net, Tomas Daniska <tomas@tronet.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 16:31:44 PST."
<20030329003124.AAA24442@shell.webmaster.com@whenever>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 19:47:25 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
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)
