is this true or... ?

Fri Mar 28 17:24:08 UTC 2003

 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 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)