Firewalls set to become Illegal

@mpucoder aggreed. I found it a funny read all the same. I mean, how could it possibly be enforced. Edge

I see what you mean, mpucoder. However it's a very perverse legal system where laws are constructed in full knowledge that a lot of people are already breaking them, with the intent not to prosecute them for it, but install them all the same in order to inflict a heavier punishment on somebody breaking *another* law. How twisted can you get?

I just thought of another application of this law, one that will have pro's and con's - the blocking of Caller ID. I'd love to get the number of those pesky telemarketers. I agree that diligence is needed when it comes to the legislators. Seems to me in 227 years they should have run out of things to make illegal, but they feel it's their job to write laws (in the job description somewhere, I think). This law in particular is in the draft stage, and obviously needs additional wording. Although I can see the intent, it needs to be more robustly defined, or the law could be abused.

...and in no time, the land of the free becomes a restrictive police state like China, where you're not allowed to use encryption programs. Congrats Mr. Bush!

"The existence or place of origin or destination of any communication." If the definition of this requirement becomes: origin or destination of any communication "device" then I don't see this happening for two reasons (I'm not a TCP/IP expert. If my reasoning is flawed I'm sure someone will correct me.): 1. Cost; all routers to the connected to the Internet would have to be replaced with some different, possibly not yet invented technology. Routers or whatever they become would only act as a gateway with little or no security features. Internet security would fall back to the workstation level. More man hours spent at the workstation level. More IT jobs (yes!) 2. Actual TCP/IP addresses. If this is to come about every individual workstation, server or other device connected to the internet would need a registered IP address. How many hundreds of networks currently use the reserved IP addresses of: 10.0.0.0 to 10.255.255.255 or 172.16.0.0 or 172.31.255.255 or 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255, internally? I guess we will need a more robust version of TCP/IP with more addresses than version 6. To do that equipment and drivers need to be replaced to support the next version of TCP/IP after version 6. If it is left as "origin or destination of any communication" (in a broad sense) than it could protentially refer to a companies' street address or something to that affect. It wouldn't be as bad, but they would still have to do something about home users.

If this did apply to something besides IP based traffic, *67 would become illegal! :rolleyes: