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