Re: [freenet-chat] New Law may make Freenet illegal
Seth Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > It would make caller ID blocking illegal, wouldn't it? Possibly. The text says that the information cannot be hidden from a service provider. Presumably, the phone company still knows that you made the call. The text doesn't say you have to disclose your identity to the other party of the communication -- just to Big Brother (by way of the service provider; you can bet the service provider will be required to keep the logs for several years and offer them up to Big Brother on demand). -- Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody." [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- The Red Hot Chili Peppers http://wooledge.org/~greg/ | pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [lists] Re: [freenet-chat] New Law may make Freenet illegal
I'm no expert on US constitution and law. But on thinking about this, it looks like a case of the legislature vesting a huge amount of power into the executive and judiciary. Because if the legislation is overly broad and ambiguous, the whole thing will turn into a merry dance of ISPs and govt departments taking action against individuals, leaving it to judges to determine whether the interpretation in question is fair or not. I can imagine thousands of test cases examining countless scenarios, and judges actually making up the law as they go along. Given the Supreme Court's historical legal blunder in ruling against the Eldred v Ashcroft constitutionality challenge (of the Disney Copyright Forever Act), I don't think the judiciary can actually be trusted to rule fairly. The only winners will be those who can afford the best lawyers, and the lawyers themselves. Real 'democracy' - one dollar, one vote! Tell me, is this where the USA is generally headed? Implementing a slow transition to straight-out plutocracy via vague legislation vesting power in the judiciary? Cheers David On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 13:01, Seth Johnson wrote: > It would make caller ID blocking illegal, wouldn't it? I had my phones > installed with all-call blocking (i.e., I don't transmit my phone number to > others be default, and I have to explicitly turn it on to get through to > somebody with who blocks "private" calls). > > They were required to provide this option back when they first started > installing Caller ID and running those hysteria-provoking ads about > stalkers. > > Seth Johnson > > Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > David McNab ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > But a story in today's Slashdot, > > > http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/03/28/1541230.shtml?tid=103&tid=123, > > > talks of several states passing laws which, amongst other things, would > > > make it illegal to 'concel... from any service provider... the existence > > > or place of origin or destination of any communication. > > > > > > Could this be interpreted as making Freenet's stealth routing illegal? > > > > Based on that wording, it would make all of the following unlawful: > > > > * Steganography > > * Network Address Translation (NAT) > > * Freenet > > * Mixmaster networks > > * Regular old snail mail without a return address on the envelope > > > > ... and probably much, much more. > > > > -- > > Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody." > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- The Red Hot Chili Peppers > > http://wooledge.org/~greg/ | > > > > > >Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature -- Kind regards David -- leave this line intact so your email gets through my junk mail filter ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] New Law may make Freenet illegal
It would make caller ID blocking illegal, wouldn't it? I had my phones installed with all-call blocking (i.e., I don't transmit my phone number to others be default, and I have to explicitly turn it on to get through to somebody with who blocks "private" calls). They were required to provide this option back when they first started installing Caller ID and running those hysteria-provoking ads about stalkers. Seth Johnson Greg Wooledge wrote: > > David McNab ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > But a story in today's Slashdot, > > http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/03/28/1541230.shtml?tid=103&tid=123, > > talks of several states passing laws which, amongst other things, would > > make it illegal to 'concel... from any service provider... the existence > > or place of origin or destination of any communication. > > > > Could this be interpreted as making Freenet's stealth routing illegal? > > Based on that wording, it would make all of the following unlawful: > > * Steganography > * Network Address Translation (NAT) > * Freenet > * Mixmaster networks > * Regular old snail mail without a return address on the envelope > > ... and probably much, much more. > > -- > Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody." > [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- The Red Hot Chili Peppers > http://wooledge.org/~greg/ | > > >Part 1.2Type: application/pgp-signature -- DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights. ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Re: [freenet-chat] New Law may make Freenet illegal
David McNab ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > But a story in today's Slashdot, > http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/03/28/1541230.shtml?tid=103&tid=123, > talks of several states passing laws which, amongst other things, would > make it illegal to 'concel... from any service provider... the existence > or place of origin or destination of any communication. > > Could this be interpreted as making Freenet's stealth routing illegal? Based on that wording, it would make all of the following unlawful: * Steganography * Network Address Translation (NAT) * Freenet * Mixmaster networks * Regular old snail mail without a return address on the envelope ... and probably much, much more. -- Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody." [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- The Red Hot Chili Peppers http://wooledge.org/~greg/ | pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [freenet-chat] New Law may make Freenet illegal
On 29 Mar 2003, David McNab wrote: > Pray that this doesn't happen. > > But a story in today's Slashdot, > http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/03/28/1541230.shtml?tid=103&tid=123, > talks of several states passing laws which, amongst other things, would > make it illegal to 'concel... from any service provider... the existence > or place of origin or destination of any communication. > > Could this be interpreted as making Freenet's stealth routing illegal? Yes, of course. > Cheers > David > > > ___ > chat mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat > ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
[freenet-chat] New Law may make Freenet illegal
Pray that this doesn't happen. But a story in today's Slashdot, http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/03/28/1541230.shtml?tid=103&tid=123, talks of several states passing laws which, amongst other things, would make it illegal to 'concel... from any service provider... the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication. Could this be interpreted as making Freenet's stealth routing illegal? Cheers David ___ chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
