On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 01:10:56PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
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
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
dave [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Will FedEx now require an ID before sending packages?
At least in Washington, DC, Fedex already requires an ID before
sending packages.
--
Shields.
-
The
So there are no FedEx drop boxes in D.C.?? no pickups at hotels etc??
It is not possible to use the drop boxes anonymously, because you must
give an account number or credit card number as payment.
--
Shields.
-
The
Derek, etal
If you (or anyone) goes, I'm sure we'd all appreciate some
notes on what transpired. I understand 17 different bills are
being considered at this hearing, so don't blink or
you may miss it.
Peter Trei
--
From: Derek Atkins[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dave Emery
Peter,
I'll see if I can get there. I'm not sure I can. But I know a
number of other MIT-types who are considering going. If I can
go I'll try to keep notes. If I can't go, then hopefully someone
else can take some notes.
-derek
Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Derek, etal
If you
At 4:35 PM -0500 on 4/1/03, Trei, Peter wrote:
If you (or anyone) goes, I'm sure we'd all appreciate some
notes on what transpired. I understand 17 different bills are
being considered at this hearing, so don't blink or
you may miss it.
Cool. What a great day that would be.
I could see
At 06:06 PM 03/28/2003 -0500, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
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.
It looked to me like it was the cable TV industry trying to ban
It would also outlaw pre-paid cell phones, that are anonymous
if you pay in cash and can be untraceable after a call. Not to
mention proxy servers. On the upside, it would ban spam ;-)
Cheers,
Ed Gerck
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/archives/000336.html
Quoting:
Sidney Markowitz writes:
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,
I've just read Declan's politech article sent out this morning,
referencing his full report at:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994667.html
I was shocked to see that Michigan has *already* passed such a law!
I've found the new law(s), and they basically outlaw my living in
Michigan starting
On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 17:33, Jurgen Botz wrote:
[Moderator's note: is using a NAT box intent to defraud a cable
modem provider? --Perry]
The cable modem provider and the DSL provider at their consumer
service level in my area both have explicit clauses in their AUP
prohibiting sharing of
To: 'Sidney Markowitz '; '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
Subject: RE: Run a remailer, go to jail?
Sidney Markowitz writes:
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
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 01:10:56PM -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
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
At 6:09 PM -0800 3/31/03, dave wrote:
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.
However, this provision shouldn't interfere with NAT on a home network.
All
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
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
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
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]
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
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
