Interesting little tibbit on using NAT in Illinois....

[jmwills]

Did you know you were breaking the law?? Specifically the "Super DCMA" imposed by that state, what a bunch of morons.

[ecross]

That is interesting. I found a similar link but is that law still in effect today?

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/27714?nav=5

[jmwills]

Yes and other states such as Mass, Texas, Florida, and South Carolina are considering the same legislation.

[ecross]

I think this law is ridiculous. When it comes to protecting a SOHO network a NAT router will keep you protected on all of the computers on the local area network. Most of the SOHO routers today have NAT. I don't know how far they are going with it but they may just say Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) is illegal too.

[jmwills]

Ridiculous, yes, but it is the law. It will be interesting to see if they enforce it. If it is not enforeced, then I know some people who are going to sue to force the issue of removing it from the books.

ICS, would be considering masking your IP Address.

[NoBoB]

How is NAT considered "masking" the IP? The public IP, the one provided by my ISP, isn't concealed, and that's how you're identified.

Now spoofing an IP, or using a proxy server, things like that, I could see.

[jmwills]

If you are behind a router, your IP address of your machine is not your IP address your ISP hands out. Believ me, I think this is the most STUPID thing I have ever heard of and look for this law to come "tumbling down".
The individual I know has set up a honey pot machine behind a router and has dared the Attorney General of Illinois to sue him. He will win, no questions asked.

[NoBoB]

But the private address, the 192.168... one issued by the router, isn't supposed to be seen by the world, and there's no "big brother" advantage whatsoever to removing NAT. The ISP addy is the one that they use to trace you back to your connection.

This is a classic example of what I call "selective interpretation". This is what the Inquirer quoted in their article that started this whole brouhaha. It escapes me how they were somehow able to determine this means NAT is illegal:

(any device that would) conceal or to assist another to conceal from any communication service provider or from any lawful authority the existence or place of origin or destination of any communication.

.

NAT doesn't conceal the existance of my house, and my communications provider knows where it is (it's at the other end of the wire where they've attached the DSL).

This is much ado about nothing. The RIAA/MPAA has probably been thwarted in their lawsuit efforts by a spoofed IP or a remote proxy server, and this is how they think they can correct that loophole.

[Micro_Pirate]

If you are behind a router, your IP address of your machine is not your IP address your ISP hands out.

Yes it is...it's the one seen by other computers on the internet.

[jmwills]

Oh really, do an ipconfig and post back and see if it matches your true IP address.

And Bob, you just answered your own response, you are hiding (masking, etc) your true IP address. Hyey, it's a stupid frigging law and will be brought down.

[Micro_Pirate]

ipconfig gives you your internal network address and the address used on the internet is the one given to you by your isp. That is the ip address which is seen by other machines on the internet.

[jmwills]

No joke, thanks for proving the point. You NAT address is not your IP address and is therefore hidden. Not need to go back and forth, the person bringing the suit has more Certs from Microsoft and CompTia than you and I have dollar bills, plus a Law Degree on top of that.