North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: is this true or... ?
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)