FC: John Gilmore on what RIAA wanted in anti-terrorism bill

---
To: declan_at_well.com
cc: politech_at_politechbot.com, gnu_at_toad.com
Subject: Re: RIAA's we-don't-want-to-hack denial
In-reply-to: <5.0.2.1.0.20011026110903.02970040_at_mail.well.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 15:44:42 -0800
From: John Gilmore <gnu_at_toad.com>
This war of blather about what the RIAA did, or didn't, do in the
anti-terrorism bill is entertaining, but the most salient fact is
still missing from the debate:
	What "previously legal" acts is RIAA doing or anticipating,
	that would have been made illegal under the original proposed anti-
	terrorism bill?
Somehow, it seems that the RIAA doesn't want to tell us.  "No, it
isn't viruses.  It isn't worms.  It isn't hacking.  Stop impugning our
patriotism.  You have seventeen more guesses."
So what keeps RIAA from just straightforwardly telling us what it is
that they want to do to their paying customers that would "impair the
integrity or accessibility of data, a program, a system or information"?
	John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------