Re: is this true or... ?

[Lars Erik Gullerud <lerik () nolink net>]

On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 02:24, David Schwartz wrote:

>       The laws require an "intent to" "conceal" the "origin or 
> destination". NAT would not count, as the intent is to share a scarce 
> resource, not to conceal the origin or destination -- the origin is 
> only concealed to the extent necessary to accomplish the sharing. 

I disagree - I could point you to a bunch of companies who are running
NAT _precisely_ to "conceal origin or destination". Not because they are
short of address space (since a lot of them even do 1:1 NAT), but
because they feel it adds to their security measures to obscure and
conceal their internal addressing and topology. Don't forget all the
self-appointed "security experts" out there with very varying degrees of
clue. I would imagine that type of setup would be very hard to argue
falls outside the text of this bill.

/leg