Run a remailer, go to jail?

[Jurgen Botz]

> [Moderator's note: is using a NAT box "intent to defraud" a cable
> modem provider? --Perry]

The cable modem provider and the DSL provider at their consumer
service level in my area both have explicit clauses in their AUP
prohibiting "sharing" of the connection by multiple machines
(I've seen various wordings, some explicitly mentioning NAT,
others explicitly mentioning 802.11).

So in that case, yes, using NAT would seem to be "intent to
defraud."

I'm with Steve Bellovin, I think it's the broadband providers
who are behind this.

But the people saying glibly "good riddance NAT" (it's
tempting, I know) are missing the real point here...
this is a much greater threat to the end-to-end model of
the Internet than NAT ever was.

This proposed law would give the broadband provider
absolute power over the last mile, letting them separate
the edge from the core more than ever before.  Because now
they'll do it with the force of criminal law.  No longer
can you ignore their AUPs by just tunneling through a VPN.
You'll have to use the pipe exactly the way your provider
says you can use it.  If you don't they'll cut you off,
but if you try to trick them and just hide how you're
really using their pipe, by means of NAT, encrypted
tunnels, or other outlawed technologies... then they'll
send you to jail.

   :j

-- 
Jürgen Botz               | While differing widely in the various
jurgen at botz.org           | little bits we know, in our infinite
                           | ignorance we are all equal. -Karl Popper


---------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at wasabisystems.com