Run a remailer, go to jail?

[Ben Cox]

On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 17:33, Jurgen Botz wrote:
> > [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).

I seem to remember Verizon running DSL TV ads a while back for an
equipment and installation deal that included a low-end NAT router. At
least in my area (Pittsburgh), they really don't seem to care how many
machines I have behind the router in my house.

Indeed, when Verizon DSL switched me from a static IP to a PPPoE
connection last week (without telling me; gee thanks), and I called
their tech support line to find out why my connection was down, the
first question the tech asked was whether I was using a router.  I said
yes, and he gave me the PPPoE info I needed to configure my router while
he waited on the line.  The only concern he seemed to have about the
router was pure personal curiosity as to what model it was.

-- Ben



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