is this true or... ?

Sat Mar 29 00:47:25 UTC 2003

In message <20030329003124.AAA24442 at 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)