[NTLUG:Discuss] YIKES! Texas bill could render firewalls/routers illegal...

[JOEL SINOR]

However, might not the mere installation of such a router be considered
theft of service under certain circumstances?  Many broadband companies
try to force you to pay for each computer connecting to the internet and
make those computers all visible to the net (eg giving them an internet
address).
Of course the bad thing about this is that even if you only have one
computer, using a router with a firewall and nat is a good idea.  But
some of these companies seem to take exception to that.
I know when the cable guy came to replace my modem he insisted on having
a windows machine directly connected to the net.  I gave him that (by
plopping in a spare drive I had lying around upon which I had previously
put windows 2000 to satisfy them previously), and within minutes there
were all kinds of "net send" messages popping on the box, among other
things.  Who knows what else was being done, but I did not care.  
When the cable guy left I replaced my router and plugged in OpenBSD. 
The fact of the matter is that on broadband *especially cable* it is
especially omportant to pay close attention to security issues, but at
the same time many cable providers seem to regard acceptable security
measures as violation/theft/etc.  
Even though in my case my provider does not seem to say anything against
routers in their TOS, they still seem not to like them.  But if we did
what they want us to do, following blindly, we would suffer all kinds of
horrors.  To me it is entirely possible this bill could be meant to
apply to ordinary users with routers, though it is much more likely it
is meant for those who somehow resell their service or give it away.  
I have mixed feelings about that myself.  I could see someone being
upset if I were to sell dialup to my neighbour (explicitly covered in
pretty much every TOS agreement I have seen) but what about wireless? 
Where does that cross the line ethically, to say nothing of the
legality?  Is it when I advertize the fact my wireless connection is
there for anyone who roams nearby, or if someone comes over and uses the
connection, or if  I let my neighbour connect wirelessly?
I would imagine (and even hope) that the identity hiding is more meant
for email spoofing and would apply to spammers, but the law does not
speak of spam, it speaks of hiding identity.  That in itself is a broad
topic, as there are various anonymous remailers and anonomizers which
people use simply to protect their right to privacy.  So we could get
the al qaeda cell and the spammer, but we get the privacy advocate too.
This is why laws are tricky.  Intent of the law, enforcement of the law,
and the letter of the law are three different things, and it is clear in
the past laws have been used as tools by people with an axe to grind,
and will in the future.  This is why laws and the wording of laws must
be designed essentially in a secure manner, so that loopholes and
misinterpretations and misappropriations of terms are less likely to
occur.  It is also important that lawmakers understand when these things
happen and "fix the bugs" so to speak.

----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Moncello <rmoncello at attbi.com>
Date: Sunday, March 30, 2003 0:56 am
Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss]  YIKES!  Texas bill could render
firewalls/routers illegal...

> On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 22:45, kbrannen at gte.net wrote:
>    Kelledin wrote:
>    > On Friday 28 March 2003 04:57 pm, Rob Apodaca wrote:
>    > 
>    >>"...conceal from a communication service provider, or from any
>    >>lawful authority..."
>    
>    I haven't read the whole bill, but the top part says:
>    
>    AN ACT relating to the criminal and civil consequences of conduct
>    involving the theft of or tampering with certain communication or
>    information services.
> 
> I'm glad someone else besides me seems to have actually read at least
> part of the original bill.
> 
> There is one place in the original posting which used ellipses to
> conceal the fact that the bill was talking about criminal intent.
> 
> Let's take a look at what is really being said, and going on, 
> here. . .
> This bill talks about hiding the source of a communication.  Does it
> really matter to the feds, the ISP, or anyone else, if that email 
> I sent
> came from my Linux firewall/server/router or my iMac which is NAT'd
> behind it???  They still have enough information to determin the 
> sourceof any packet leaving my home is my "computer".  They may 
> not know
> exactly which one of the nine I have running here sent it, but 
> whicheverone it was is still mine.  I have not concealed who sent 
> the email or
> where it was going.
> 
> Now, if I use that NAT to offer dial-up service to friends, relatives,
> neighbors, foreign nationals. . . whatever, then I am attempting to
> defraud the ISP and this bill would apply.
> 
> I think I've rambled on enough
>    
>    This makes it sound like they're trying to do the IT 
> equivalent of people 
>    stealing "cable service".  Though as someone else pointed out, 
> the "letter of 
>    the law" is what gets enforced and may be beyond the original 
> "spirit of the 
>    law". :-/
>    
>    ...
>    > 
>    > Well, the traditional means is to send a letter to your 
> local 
>    > government representative.  On the federal level, this would 
> be 
>    > your Congressman, but that doesn't really apply here.  Not 
> sure 
>    > what the equivalent would be on the state level...
>    
>    The state of Texas has equivalents.  For those of us in the 
> northwest DFW 
>    area, that would be TX Senator Jane Nelson.  But Dallas has 2, 
> and Fort Worth 
>    has its own as well; see 
> http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/legis/members/roster.cfm 
>    (make sure it's set to the 78th legislature).  Your TX 
> Representive will 
>    depend on where you live, and that same URL will list them 
> too, though finding 
>    which one is yours is not overly easy.  There may be an easier 
> way, but I've 
>    yet to find it.
>    
>    Last minute note, see 
> http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/fyi/fyi.htm to find your 
>    representive and sentor.  So now I know my representive is 
> Mary Denny, as well 
>    as both her and Sen. Nelson's address. :-)
>    
>    HTH,
>    Kevin
>    
>    
>    _______________________________________________
> https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>    
>    
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>