Re: is this true or... ?

["Steven M. Bellovin" <smb () research att com>]

In message <20030328144042.4576C7B4D () berkshire research att com>, "Steven M. Be
llovin" writes:
> In message <A44DA7EDD8262343B02C64AF7E063A077CCC1D () kenya ba tronet sk>, "Tomas
>
> Daniska" writes:
> > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595
>
> freedom-to-tinker.com, which is the source cited by your link, is 
> indeed Ed Felten's.  And I trust Ed.

It's been pointed out to me that the Texas bill, at least (I found it
at 
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/cgi-bin/cqcgi?CQ_SESSION_KEY=NUTHYMWBJWUF&CQ_QUERY_HANDLE=126838&CQ_CUR_DOCUMENT=4&CQ_SAVE[bill_number]=HB02121INT&CQ_TLO_DOC_TEXT=YES
but there may be session state -- it's bill HB 2121) only criminalizes the
conduct if it's done "with intent to harm or defraud a communications
service provider".  Now, given the anti-NAT and anti-VPN tendencies of some
broadband ISPs, I'm not necessarily thrilled, but it's not quite the 
same as was originally suggested.  

                --Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
                http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)