[51593] in Cypherpunks
Re: Lawz to be.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jim bell)
Thu Mar 7 10:13:53 1996
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 1996 07:00:26 -0800
To: "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" <PADGETT@hobbes.orl.mmc.com>,
cypherpunks@toad.com
From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Cc: nwlibertarians@teleport.com, dnowch2@teleport.com, <shabbir@vtw.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
At 07:31 PM 3/6/96 -0500, A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security=
wrote:
>Cut & Paste
>> "=A72804. Unlawful use of encryption to obstruct justice" =20
>> "Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct, =20
>...
>
>>In any case, assuming they either never made the error you noticed, or=
they=20
>>manage to correct it before the bill becomes law, they will have just=20
>>outlawed the used of encrypted remailers, because:
>
>No, what the wording seems to outlaw was the use of encryption to obstruct=
=20
>the commission of the crime, not the investigation. Read it again please.
The wording of the paragraph is stilted and probably poorly written, as you=
=20
noticed and as I've acknowledged. Nevertheless, I think my objections are=
=20
still valid: If they get what they want, it will be possible for the=20
government to _make_ encrypted remailers guilty of a crime, under the=20
hypothetical scenario I mentioned before, with minor modifications depending=
=20
on the law's exact phrasing. The potential problem still exists.
In my opinion, if the underlying act they are describing is really illegal,=
=20
and they can back up their claims with evidence, they should prosecute that=
=20
act, NOT the use of encryption. Yet another problem is that while the use=
=20
of encryption today is comparatively rare and you have to go out of your way=
=20
to use it, presumably we anticipate that both hardware and software=20
developments will make use of encryption routine and ignorable. =20
Imagine a world in which it was as difficult to NOT use good encryption as=
=20
it is now to use it: The government would suddenly be able to tack on=20
another charge to just about every major crime. Is that what you really=
want?
>>> Suspect they meant to say "...obstruct (etc) the investigation of a
>>>felony..."
>
>>Probably. This section is their wish-list to Santa Claus. It's easy to=
=20
>>make mistakes when you're excited about something. They're hoping you=20
>>suckers will support the whole bill despite this booby-trap. =20
>
>Thought the gotcha was down in the part about the Secretary of Commerce.=20
Well, I disagree. There may, indeed, be a "gotcha" THERE, too, but I don't=
=20
think that's the main one.
>My reading is that the secretary will still be required to grant
>approval for commercial export. Is past the part about no regulation
>inside the US (which is true now - still would be nice to see a "Congress
>shall make no law...").
This is yet another reason that I'm opposed to this bill. The "gains" we=20
supposedly get are mostly re-statements of rights we already possess, but=20
which the government has tried and mostly failed to curtail. Why should we=
=20
reward these people for stopping their attempts to steal from us?
> The puzzler is the requirement that a com
perable=20
>foreign product must exist before permission to export will be granted.
>Will this be like "comparable product" price matching in discount houses ?
>Somehow there never is one...
That's another thing to be afraid of. We're dependant on their=20
interpretation of the law, and there's no reason to believe that they'll be=
=20
generous once they have what they want.
>ps did you mean the Thomases and Memphis ? Not aware of similar=20
> prosecution in Oklahoma.=20
My recollection of the details may be in error, but the principle and the=20
problem remains: The government clearly is willing to use a tactic which=20
fabricates a crime, turning the victim into the "criminal." There is no=20
reason to believe that they won't try the same thing the moment a new=20
"crime" is defined of using encryption.=20
>Besides my understanding was that the online
> stuff was dropped, the conviction was for stuff sent through the mails.
> Is that incorrect ?
Is this relevant? I mean, have YOU ever been prosecuted for a crime before?=
=20
Especially one that you didn't intend to commit? Do you know how much it=
=20
costs to defend yourself, even before the trial? Do you know how much a=20
trial will cost you? Did you know that you aren't reimbursed if the verdict=
=20
is "not guilty" or the charges are dropped? =20
This is called "deterrence", dammit!
Encrypted remailers aren't in it for the money. They don't have a "legal=20
budget." They would be severely dissuaded if there was even a possibility=
=20
that the government could decide to start harassing them. Surely you see=
that!
Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com
Klaatu Burada Nikto
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBMT751/qHVDBboB2dAQGZMQP/fJ7SMKwvZEZjg3KGgF1WE7jtYnetMv9+
v/4+0ezJ4GVRt0rkPX1YGjJxpQEk73d+J78zxHi87hQq8WBXRz4pNWGBGRMu0iqG
fk0N2FTXxIFivsqu0vZLW5zVYs0W9v1ZGN4jFQ3vYCMIhzP8ig8gQrATOnag1Vmu
EPUZdCnsAxw=3D
=3D1OLz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
