is this true or... ?

Fri Mar 28 15:45:22 UTC 2003

In message <20030328151600.E0FCD7B4D at berkshire.research.att.com>, "Steven M. Be
llovin" writes:
>
>In message <20030328144042.4576C7B4D at berkshire.research.att.com>, "Steven M. B
>e
>llovin" writes:
>>
>>In message <A44DA7EDD8262343B02C64AF7E063A077CCC1D at 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)