> They both require that the use of such technologies be for
> the purpose of committing a crime.
The Massachusetts law defines as a crime:
(b) Offense defined.--Any person commits an offense if he knowingly
(1) possesses, uses, manufactures, develops, assembles, distributes,
transfers, imports into this state, licenses, leases, sells or offers,
promotes or advertises for sale, use or distribution any communication
device:
[ ... ] or;
(ii) to conceal or to assist another to conceal from any communication
service provider, or from any lawful authority, the existence or place of
origin or destination of any communication;
[...]
(5) Assist others in committing any of the acts prohibited by this section.
And it also says under civil actions:
(1) Any person aggrieved by a violation of this section may bring a civil
action in any court of competent jurisdiction. "Any person aggrieved" shall
include any communication service provider
--------------
This does seem broad enough to be used in situations other than outright
fraud against an ISP or communications company. There is language about
"intent to defraud" in Section 1 but the language in Section 2 (b)(1) about
possession, use, manufacture, etc., would seem to have the same kind of
broadness we have seen misused in the DMCA, covering people who sell NAT and
encryption tools that might be used by someone who sends email while
attempting to defraud a communications service provider.
-- sidney markowitz
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
