Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law
From: mr.e (anjin@rogers.com)
Date: 04/01/03
- Next message: Whoever: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Previous message: Dave Thornburgh: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- In reply to: Bill Unruh: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Next in thread: bob: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Reply: bob: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: "mr.e" <anjin@rogers.com> Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 23:07:48 GMT
Bill Unruh wrote:
> This law will probably also outlaw all annonymous remailers,
good
> all use of web sites
> which allow you to annonymize your surfing,
bad
> all relaying, all use of
> proxys, or of masquarading mailers, ...
mostly good
> I am not sure what "the existence" means in there, but could also be
> argued to outlaw all encrypted email and communication (since that could be
> said to hide the existence of a communication).
and here we get to one of the nubs of the points behind this law. The
Bushstapo through his Buro des Heimat Sicherheit is attempting to create
a net to catch more evil-doers. There could be terrorists of all kinds
plotting nefarious deeds and hiding behind those nasty NAT boxen. This
will of course stop all of this and return peace, freedom and liberty to
all oppressed peoples of the world.
> The question with laws is not what you would like them to mean, but what
> they could be construed to mean by a hostile court or even a hostile
> prosecutor. For example I suspect that the Lexmark suit and its attempt
> to overturn centuries of reverse engineering law was never
> envisioned by the the framers of the DCMA.
>
> And I have no idea how this will stop spam.
spam? it's those weapons of mass destruction!
- Next message: Whoever: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Previous message: Dave Thornburgh: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- In reply to: Bill Unruh: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Next in thread: bob: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Reply: bob: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|