Comment does this really rule out NAT and VPN? (Score 1) 554
It would seem that the law is so confusingly vague that it doesn't apply to things like VPN and NAT. In a NAT process, packets are wrapped with a new origination address, so that a response can be properly routed and received. One valid argument is that there is no concealment -- the packet is coming from the routed/NAT device, and it says it is!. The fact that the content of the packet is from somewhere else doesn't really seem to matter, under this view.
Whether that is an argument that the Michagan AG would accept, is another question. But, without valid source and destination addresses, the packets are just not going to be useful on the network.
This law seems to apply much better to spam with forged and/or altered headers, in which the actual source address is not easily recoverable from the message.
