Slashdot Mirror
Making Encryption A Special Circumstance
heby writes "According to an article at SecurityFocus, the U.S. Justice Department is apparently planning to criminalize encryption when used during the commission of a felony under federal law. If you think you have nothing to worry about, think again. Have you ever filed too many tax deductions? If you use e-file via a web page using SSL for filing your taxes, under this proposal this becomes an additional five-year felony."
Per the article: "This new proposal, unrelated to terrorism, is merely a tool to enhance penalties for ordinary crimes, and should be rejected."
One can only assume this legislative proposal will indeed not be implemented in its current form, given the obvious pitfalls, examples of which can be found in the article. Nevertheless, it seems like a step back to the pre-2000 way of thinking, that considered encryption to be a form of ammunition.
Now, if that was felony-related material, come and get me.... This is getting ridiculous. Granted, more logical minds may prevail and this won't happen....but who knows? Will encrypted lies to your girlfriend or wife become punishable? How about encrypted websites where you give a false email address to avoid the spam?
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
In other news, private conversation has become a crime when used during the commision of a felony. Felonies commited with the aid of private conversations will carry an additional 5 years sentence.
1984 wasn't like 1984 but maybe 2004 will be.
Isn't there something in the constitution about cruel and unusual punishment, and right to a fair trial? What about double jeopardy? This sounds like a federally endorsed manditory minimum sentence for using encryption in the comitting of a felony. Department of Justice indeed, more like department of INJUSTICE. Aren't those assholes supposed to ENFORCE the law, not CREATE IT? What the hell did I learn in school about the three branches of federal government?
What if you're using a digital CELL phone to help with your crime, or a digital cordless phone? The average person probably doesn't even understand that their conversation is being encrypted.
I've half a mind to start encrypting everything I do on principle. Use your rights or lose your rights.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
Another fine example of the proliferation of pointless laws. If something is a crime, why is it any more damaging to use cryptography in the process? If I rob a bank, I am not doing extra extra harm to the bank or the public if I use encryption to plan the robbery. There is no moral, financial or environmental harm done by using encryption - it is te actual crime which does this damage. There are already laws against and punishments set out for the crime Why stop with encryption? Why not make it a crime to use a telephone, letter, car, mobile phone etc to commit a crime?
This is part of Patriot Act II. This specific section was already discussed in the story here. /. then posted a story about the ACLU analysis of the act, which also included mention of this, here.
If you discuss the crime before hand you have commit the extra crime of conspiracy.
Another fine example of the proliferation of pointless laws. If something is a crime, why is it any more damaging to use cryptography in the process?
In most jurisdictions, the penalty for armed robbery [as opposed to plain-old, garden variety, everyday un-armed robbery] is substantially more severe if that arm is a gun [as opposed to, say, a knife, even though a knife is every bit as lethal as a gun].
Encryption as a felony won't be much of a sentencing tool for violent terrorists [they'll receive the death penalty], but it will be enormously useful against their pseudo-civilian supporters and fund-raisers [Google on CAIR terrorist University of Idaho or CAIR terrorist University of South Florida].
This sort of thing has a very old history in statutory law. For instance, in my state, we have nineteenth century laws that forbid a person to wear a mask in public [the nineteenth century equivalent of encrypted communications]. Why? Because during Reconstruction, we had a little problem with this terrorist outfit called the Ku Klux Klan that was running around lynching people under the cover of darkness and the cloak of sheets.
So now we'll be able to change the old saw of "only criminals encrypt" to "only criminals don't encrypt". ;-)
Seriously, would such a law really stop them from encrypting? Duh...no! The fact that the authorities are fighting encryption so hard is advertizing that it must be a good way of not getting caught.
If we were ants living on a Rubik's cube, differential geometry would be a little more confusing.
If you use e-file via a web page using SSL for filing your taxes, under this proposal this becomes an additional five-year felony."
The article states that you must "knowingly and willfully [encrypt] any incriminating communication or information..." to commit a crime under this proposed law.
I believe that you could argue that, if the SSL site does not give you a choice on how to proceed with the transaction, that it is the site which is forcing you to encrypt the transaction.
Likewise, with ATMs, you are not electing to encrypt the transaction; the ATM provider is making you encrypt your transaction.
Yes, I know that in the eyes of the law, machines do not commit crimes, people [operating them] do. But in this case, I believe that it is not the user that is willfully (and if you're stupid, knowingly) encrypting the communication, rather, it is the business or web site that is electing to perform the transaction encrypted.
For that matter if you get them but don't use them before they expire are they still income?
That poster in the current poll is right about the IRS, some vampires do keep their victims alive so that they can feed from them again and again.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.