Run a remailer, go to jail?
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000336.html Quoting: Here is one example of the far-reaching harmful effects of these bills. Both bills would flatly ban the possession, sale, or use of technologies that conceal from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication. -- Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED] - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Run a remailer, go to jail?
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000336.html Quoting: Here is one example of the far-reaching harmful effects of these bills. Both bills would flatly ban the possession, sale, or use of technologies that conceal from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication. Let's not be hasty. On the upside, it would outlaw NAT! - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Run a remailer, go to jail?
While taking a look at the proposed Texas law, it appears that it only applies if you are trying to actually cause harm: QUOTE: SECTION 2. Sections 31.12(a), (b), and (e), Penal Code, are amended to read as follows: (a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to harm or defraud a communication service It doesn't look as bad as it was made out to be, but it all depends on how they determine intent. [Moderator's note: is using a NAT box intent to defraud a cable modem provider? --Perry] Mike - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Run a remailer, go to jail?
No way. The phrase flatly ban is overstating the words in the actual bills. They both require that the use of such technologies be for the purpose of committing a crime. Law enforcement would still have to show intent, which is as it should be. If take the point of view in the essay to its logical conclusion then mailing lists and in some configurations the use of PGP, S/MIME, or VPNs would be illegal also. Maybe states are colluding to outlaw encryption? Now that would be creative on the part of whoever started this bill process. Jim On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Perry E. Metzger wrote: Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:10:56 -0500 From: Perry E. Metzger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Run a remailer, go to jail? http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000336.html Quoting: Here is one example of the far-reaching harmful effects of these bills. Both bills would flatly ban the possession, sale, or use of technologies that conceal from a communication service provider ... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication. -- Perry E. Metzger[EMAIL PROTECTED] - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Run a remailer, go to jail?
out of business by outlawing NAT. I'll drink to that (and the the universal deployment of IPv6)! /ji - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Run a remailer, go to jail?
They both require that the use of such technologies be for the purpose of committing a crime. The Massachusetts law defines as a crime: (b) Offense defined.--Any person commits an offense if he knowingly (1) possesses, uses, manufactures, develops, assembles, distributes, transfers, imports into this state, licenses, leases, sells or offers, promotes or advertises for sale, use or distribution any communication device: [ ... ] or; (ii) to conceal or to assist another to conceal from any communication service provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication; [...] (5) Assist others in committing any of the acts prohibited by this section. And it also says under civil actions: (1) Any person aggrieved by a violation of this section may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction. Any person aggrieved shall include any communication service provider -- This does seem broad enough to be used in situations other than outright fraud against an ISP or communications company. There is language about intent to defraud in Section 1 but the language in Section 2 (b)(1) about possession, use, manufacture, etc., would seem to have the same kind of broadness we have seen misused in the DMCA, covering people who sell NAT and encryption tools that might be used by someone who sends email while attempting to defraud a communications service provider. -- sidney markowitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Run a remailer, go to jail?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], James M Galvin writes: No way. The phrase flatly ban is overstating the words in the actual bills. They both require that the use of such technologies be for the purpose of committing a crime. Law enforcement would still have to show intent, which is as it should be. ... Maybe states are colluding to outlaw encryption? Now that would be creative on the part of whoever started this bill process. The question is more complicated than that. The full text of the Texas bill is at http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/data/docmodel/78r/billtext/pdf/HB02121I.PDF (I haven't found the Mass. version). It is far from clear to me that intent to commit a crime is needed. Section 2 of the billl, which does contain the phrase with the intent to harm or defraud a communication service, bars theft of service. (I'm speaking loosely here; read it for yourself.) Section 3 and 4 also contain that phrase; they bar possession of devices for defrauding providers. (The language is rather broad, and seems to bar possession even a computer or modem if you have evil intent.) The ban on concealing origin or destination is in Sections 5 and 6. That section does *not* have the intent to harm phrase. Given that the bill is amending three consecutive sections of the state penal code (31.12, 31.13, and 31.14), and given that the first two sections have that language but the third doesn't, it's hard for me to see that evil intent is required by the proposed statute. But it's worse than that: the bill bars concealment of existence or place of origin or destination of any communication from any lawful authority. In other words, it would appear to outlaw many forms of cryptography or steganography. What's unclear to me is who is behind this. Felten thinks it's content providers trying for state-level DMCA; I think it's broadband ISPs who are afraid of 802.11 hotspots. --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of Firewalls book) - The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending unsubscribe cryptography to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
