I'm no expert on US constitution and law. But on thinking about this, it looks like a case of the legislature vesting a huge amount of power into the executive and judiciary.
Because if the legislation is overly broad and ambiguous, the whole thing will turn into a merry dance of ISPs and govt departments taking action against individuals, leaving it to judges to determine whether the interpretation in question is fair or not. I can imagine thousands of test cases examining countless scenarios, and judges actually making up the law as they go along. Given the Supreme Court's historical legal blunder in ruling against the Eldred v Ashcroft constitutionality challenge (of the Disney Copyright Forever Act), I don't think the judiciary can actually be trusted to rule fairly. The only winners will be those who can afford the best lawyers, and the lawyers themselves. Real 'democracy' - one dollar, one vote! Tell me, is this where the USA is generally headed? Implementing a slow transition to straight-out plutocracy via vague legislation vesting power in the judiciary? Cheers David On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 13:01, Seth Johnson wrote: > It would make caller ID blocking illegal, wouldn't it? I had my phones > installed with all-call blocking (i.e., I don't transmit my phone number to > others be default, and I have to explicitly turn it on to get through to > somebody with who blocks "private" calls). > > They were required to provide this option back when they first started > installing Caller ID and running those hysteria-provoking ads about > stalkers. > > Seth Johnson > > Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > David McNab ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > But a story in today's Slashdot, > > > http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/03/28/1541230.shtml?tid=103&tid=123, > > > talks of several states passing laws which, amongst other things, would > > > make it illegal to 'concel... from any service provider... the existence > > > or place of origin or destination of any communication. > > > > > > Could this be interpreted as making Freenet's stealth routing illegal? > > > > Based on that wording, it would make all of the following unlawful: > > > > * Steganography > > * Network Address Translation (NAT) > > * Freenet > > * Mixmaster networks > > * Regular old snail mail without a return address on the envelope > > > > ... and probably much, much more. > > > > -- > > Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody." > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] | - The Red Hot Chili Peppers > > http://wooledge.org/~greg/ | > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature -- Kind regards David -- leave this line intact so your email gets through my junk mail filter _______________________________________________ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
