Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law
From: bob (jwx1.deleteThis@bellsouthnet)
Date: 04/07/03
- Next message: Kasper Dupont: "Re: Hidden Processes"
- Previous message: Rick: "iptables"
- In reply to: mr.e: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Next in thread: mr.e: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Reply: mr.e: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: bob <jwx1.deleteThis@bellsouthnet> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003 19:32:44 GMT
"mr.e" <anjin@rogers.com> wrote in
news:VDLia.14668$7Im.10091@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com:
> bob wrote:
>> "mr.e" <anjin@rogers.com> wrote
>>>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
>
>
> then Bob wrote
>
>> Did you actually read the proposed legislation?
>
> yes, the link was posted here
Your propaganda does not reflect it.
>> It is about *theft* of service. It's about devices that let you
>> acquire services without paying for them.
>
> yes, that's one of the stated aims of the legislation
And in fact, the overwhelming majority (maybe 100%?) of the content.
>
>> The bulk of the law is already on the books,
>
> therefore it must be a good thing?
Everyone seems to be attacking this bill as if it were some sort of
completely new attack on freedom. It takes a pretty radical stretch to see
how it in any way could be construed to actually limit any legitimate
freedom, besides the freedom to steal cable and telephone service. The fact
that the existing law, which has been on the books a long time, has never
been construed to impact freedom should tell you something.
>> the proposed bill just updates
>> it to be more inclusive, to protect providers of forms of
>> communication other than the cable TV and telephone providers who
>> were previously protected.
>
> yes it certainly does, among other things
Do please provide a specific example. Include the context (i.e., the
relavent section and paragraph titles, along with any specific definitions
that are necessary for understanding.
>
>> It doesn't have much to do with the internet at all.
>
> !!?! Are you from the Ministry of Truth by any chance?
I'm a graphic artist. I make maps. In my spare time I feed our network.
>> How are you
>> going to steal internet service, besides writing bad checks?
>
> you're not a lawyer are you
Not even close. Are you? I don't think I need to be a lawyer to understand
what theft is. What's your point?
>
>> Is it perfect?
>> probably not, but it's just a bill, not a law.
>
> ah...a lobbyist perhaps
No, but I know enough about how the system works to understand that part of
the process involves revisions, ammendments, and *most importantly* a
conference committee.
>> NAT, firewalls, whatever, aren't impacted by this proposed law in any
>> hypothetical way, because the ISP knows where you are! Duh! If you
>> hid your location from them they couldn't get the packets to you, now
>> could they?
>>
>> Bob
>>
>
> well that's one opinion
Right, well then, maybe you can explain how I can dial into an arbitrary
ISP and make an anonymous connection? I know enough about internet packets
to know that you don't get anything without someone *being able to* figgure
out where you are.
Bob
- Next message: Kasper Dupont: "Re: Hidden Processes"
- Previous message: Rick: "iptables"
- In reply to: mr.e: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Next in thread: mr.e: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Reply: mr.e: "Re: Anti-spoofing filters may be required by law"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
