In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jack Bates writes: >Steven M. Bellovin wrote: >> 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. >> > >Without looking it up (a little busy), there should be a Definitions >section defining communications service provider. Is the bill aimed at >ISP's or is it aimed at the actual Telco? > >-Jack >*probably just creating noise* > I'm busy, too, and probably shouldn't bother, but see http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/data/docmodel/78r/billtext/pdf/HB02121I.PDF -- and yes, it specifically speaks of "an Internet-based distribution system, network, or facility".
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me) http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)