Using Net Proxies Will Lead To Harsher Sentences

Afforess writes "'Proxy servers are an everyday part of Internet surfing. But using one in a crime could soon lead to more time in the clink,' reports the Associated Press. The new federal rules would make the use of proxy servers count as 'sophistication' in a crime, leading to 25% longer jail sentences. Privacy advocates complain this will disincentivize privacy and anonymity online. '[The government is telling people] ... if you take normal steps to protect your privacy, we're going to view you as a more sophisticated criminal,' writes the Center for Democracy and Technology. Others fear this may lead to 'cruel and unusual punishments' as Internet and cell phone providers often use proxies without users' knowledge to reroute Internet traffic. This may also ultimately harm corporations when employees abuse VPN's, as they too are counted as a 'proxy' in the new legislation. TOR, a common Internet anonymizer, is also targeted in the new legislation. Some analysts believe this legislation is an effort to stop leaked US Government information from reaching outside sources, such as Wikileaks. The legislation (PDF, the proposed amendment is on pages 5-15) will be voted on by the United States Sentencing Commission on April 15, and is set to take effect on November 1st. The EFF has already urged the Commission to reject the amendment."

Comments

Frorst

[Hognoxious]

They'll have to catch me firs&^&*(no carrier

Re:Frorst

[cellurl]

I think the AP is fishing for our next move.

E.g. what technology we will use next.

Why TF don't they just encrypt CD's, DVD's.

IMHO, this is just an excuse to fuck with every aspect of the internet!

Re:Frorst

[cbiltcliffe]

Tor, blimey, mate!

They're a right bunch of wankers!

Re:Frorst

[supernova_hq]

Isn't that basically what they did with Blue-ray?

Re:Frorst

[EdIII]

Why TF don't they just encrypt CD's, DVD's.

Well, music really does not have anything to do with this. I understand you may think it does, but it really does not. Media is just far too large to go across most proxies and CERTAINLY WAY TO FUCKING LARGE to go across TOR.

Consider this: 10,000 people trying to suck down the same amount of gigs off a bunch of proxy/TOR nodes when they are already sucking it down from 100+ times the amount of open, and non-anonymous "pipes".

That would be like you building a little archway over your street and having everyone pass under it, *FROM THE NEAREST FREEWAY* before they could back to the freeway and go to their original destinations. Sounds crazy doesn't it? The bandwidth just not exist on those networks yet to support media piracy.

One of the only networks in the world that I am aware of that truly has the capacity to do this is Perfect Dark in Japan. That's because most of the regular citizens over there have 100 mb/s pipes (some even have 1 gb/s) to layer an anonymous network over. That's why it works. Each person is contributing a serious amount of bandwidth to the "cause".

Americans in the U.S could never even hope to achieve anything remotely like that even if they dedicated 90% of their upstream. Not when it's a mere fraction of what is on other countries.

Now as for the encryption, DVD's are *already* encrypted. It's called CSS. Your DVD players, and the software on your computer all have the ability to decrypt CSS and show you the content. If you tried to load those files up without doing so, it looks garbage on the screen.

Both Blu-Ray and HDDVD came out with considerably more sophisticated methods to lock down the content with encryption. However, one thing DID NOT CHANGE. They needed to somehow, in some way, deliver those decryption keys to you so that you could watch the content you paid for. That means the players came with the codes.

Guess what? They have been cracked. Even HDCP, which is what is trying to protect the information going across HDMI cables has been cracked.

You have heard of the bullshit where when you buy a Spiderman 3 Blu-Ray it was not playing on the players right? Well that was because they changed the codes to thwart the "pirates" and a large number of players required firmware updates to play it.

Kind of like the iPhone with its ever changing firmware designed to thwart the jailbreakers.

It's all just stupidity, and pointless at accomplishing its goals.

Don't think for one minute that this about ANYTHING to do with media. It has everything to do with preventing people from acting anonymously, since that is a threat to people who don't like being challenged by a small person who they cannot find to squash them like a bug with their considerable power and leverage afforded to them by their positions in soceity, government, etc.

But

[EkriirkE]

What about forced proxy usage? Like using opera mini. Even in sockets mode, it seems to pipe through the Swedish proxy.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

OT, but I twigged on the Opera Mini comment.

Warning: Opera Mini fakes out the SSL connections - resulting in the Swedish proxy seeing all of the supposedly encrypted traffic.

Re:But

[Warhawke]

I think /. is missing the point. They are claiming that using a proxy implies sophistication. There's truth to that, as sophistication is a neutral term in a neutral environment. But 25% more of 0 time spent in jail is still 0. Don't do illegal sh** on your proxy and you'll be fine. If you do illegal sh** on your proxy, don't get caught, and you'll also be fine. But if you're using a proxy to prevent detection of your illegal activity, that is rationally a sign of sophistication and justifiably warrants increased jail-time.

Re:But

[EkriirkE]

Wow, good to know. I'll rethink what I do on my phone now. After reading about that, seems like it's Norway, not Sweden. Whatever.

Re:But

[Architect_sasyr]

How is following what every single goddamned script kiddie hax0r guide tells you to do considered sophistication?? And is there a decent reference for each state and country on what is illegal and what is not? Is Port Scanning a crime?

If anything we should be prosecuting the proxy owners for not keeping decent logs. And considering how the Sarah Palin email thing went most of the sane ones do, so we shouldn't even be doing that.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the issue: More and more stuff is being criminalized. Seen the ACTA treaty, the parts that were leaked? It allows private parties to initiate criminal (as in don't drop the soap) action against individuals in the US. In the UK, this is already done, but here in the US, private goons can't have someone arrested, then figure out how to prosecute a case later... yet.

Add the fact that ISPs are ordered to keep logs indefinitely (and a number will happily hand them over to anyone), it creates an aura of surveillance. Thoughtcrime anyone? Right now, the solution is proxies. For example, the proxy I use does keep logs, but ditches them after a couple days if there isn't an obvious intrusion or case of abuse, which is reasonable. There have been claims that proxies that "don't keep logs" actually do, so I'd rather know the disposing time of an honest service.

This attack on anonymity isn't going to catch the criminals (they are in countries with less Draconian laws, or are hijacking a legit connection), it is mainly a tool to go after dissidents and help keep more in depth profiles of Internet users.

Re:But

[Jumperalex]

Why is that? What does "sophistication" have to do with the underlying crime? You either did something illegal, with an actual victim or you did not. How good you are at doing it should have nothing to do with your punishment. Consider it from the other perspective: just because someone is too stupid to use a proxy to cover their illegal activity means they should get a LOWER sentence? WTF? And what exactly is the purpose? It won't be a deterrent to the real crime. The future criminal is just as likely to attempt ID theft, hack a system, attempt to launder money, extort, etc etc regardless if they know using a proxy to do it is also illegal?

So what is the real intent ... to inflate sentences with false logic because they know increasing the penalty on the actual crime committed (you know the one that actually had the victim) would stretch the limits of legitimacy and seem in and of itself excessive. Well too bad. Either make the case that the current penalty isn't enough or move on; but stop inventing crimes.

and of course none of this addressing the chilling effect such a law would have on 100% legal and legitimate uses ... but uses for which the government might not like and so now they can charge you with 1) the dubious charge for the act they didn't like but isn't REALLY illegal, and 2) the sophistication charge (or modifier, whatever the more legal term would be). So now you are in a deeper pickle and are more likely to plead out since the "lesser charge" of using a proxy just might stick vice the bogus charge of [insert tin foil hat worthy activity here].

Re:But

[Hurricane78]

Well, port scanning is a crime, when you do it on my servers. ^^
Because then I will activate out my little packet and exploit artillery, and it's goodbye to you. ^^

Re:But

[AvitarX]

To be fair, they are very open about it.

It should come as no surprise.

Re:But

[Jafafa Hots]

And what exactly is the purpose?
So what is the real intent ... ...the chilling effect such a law would have on 100% legal and legitimate uses ... but uses for which the government might not like

you answered you own question.

Re:But

[Thinboy00]

[snip]
Because then I will activate out my little packet and exploit artillery, and it's goodbye to you. ^^

Your comment reads too much similar to the game call we "Zero Wing" ("All your base ..."). Remedy please this immediately.

Re:But

[Thinboy00]

Sorry, didn't read your sig.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Not having used the browser, I can't really verify your comment. However, if it is anything less than a bold warning attached to any SSL connection, they aren't open about it.

Particularly if it's tacked onto the license agreement, or buried in the FAQ.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Jackass.

Re:But

[bane2571]

IANAL but I assumed straight away that Sophisticating the way you're committing the crime is tantamount to an admission of deliberate intent to break the law.

What I mean is that if I use bit torrent and break copyright, I can presumably argue I didn't know I was breaking the law but if I use TOR to cover it up then it is clear I know I am doing something I shouldn't be.

Re:But

[Mr. Slippery]

What does "sophistication" have to do with the underlying crime?

If one considers that the purpose of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate (where possible) people who have shown that they are a threat to the rights of others, then certainly the question of whether their actions are casual "crimes of passion", momentary lapses, or if they are part of a planned and long-prepared pattern, would be relevant.

Of course, our criminal justice system as constituted has fsck-all to do with rehabilitation, so that argument is irrelevant; and of course using a proxy is no more a "sophisticated" method of committing a crime than is, say, declining to leave your phone number scrawled over the scene.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

double jackass

Re:But

[Mal-2]

I think the theory is that using a proxy reduces the likelihood of getting caught. Thus, when they DO catch someone, they must sentence more harshly for all the other people (and other offenses by the same person) that went undetected. Not that 25% is likely to be much of a deterrent, but that is probably the rationalization of the idea.

Mal-2

Re:But

[AvitarX]

As a former regular user of it (it was the only partly usable browser on my old phone), I think that is a perfect description.

It was across the bottom of the very small screen and stated essentially:
the connection between Opera's proxy and your phone is un-encrypted [and can be snooped].

The part in square brackets may be my filling it in as I know what that would mean.

I test now in version 4.3 for Android and see nothing. This would imply to me that either:
1) it is fixed
-or-
2) it is as earlier stated, and the proxy can read it (but perhaps encrypted phone to proxy, and proxy to site).

2 is not so bad for most traffic, but should be at the very least a pop-up the first time you use SSL, with a checkbox that defaults to unchecked to disable the warning. I would think the proxy can be trusted with financial/personal info (as much as any site I use anyway), but perhaps not with deeply damaging private communications directly to a personal computer.

Re:But

[p1r4t3]

perhaps the situation is that you use the TOR to maintain your privacy or you are connecting over a dialup or through a public wifi that proxies all connections as a way to preform accounting on all connected accounts. What then?

Re:But

[godless dave]

We Americans frown on sophistication, and would like to encourage criminals to be simple.

Re:But

[FSWKU]

Don't do illegal sh** on your proxy and you'll be fine. If you do illegal sh** on your proxy, don't get caught, and you'll also be fine. But if you're using a proxy to prevent detection of your illegal activity, that is rationally a sign of sophistication and justifiably warrants increased jail-time.

That line of thinking is all fine and good in a perfect world. Sadly, none of us live there. With the increases in domestic spying, dragnets to catch "pirates" and whatnot, this is a VERY bad thing. Sure, you're doing nothing illegal NOW. But whatabout when they change the definition of what is legal and what is not?

Get caught using a proxy to write about why you hate Obama? Well, you just got five years instead of four, you dirty, hacking, unpatriotic racist! Post in a livejournal about your personal stance on abortion, AND do it while logged in through TOR? You must be planning to bomb a Planned Parenthood clinic. Go to Jail, do not pass Go.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be punished for doing something that's blatantly wrong. The problem lies in the fact that those in power can change the legality of certain things to pander to their target demographic. How long before unpopular political ideas are illegal in this country? Then, not only will sharing your ideas get you a prison sentence, attempting to mask your identity/location will get you MORE time behind bars. Think about that...

Re:But

[mapkinase]

If somebody breaks the law and get harsher sentence for that, I do not care.

If I do something right and I am prosecuted for that, then I am aware of the risk, and if I still do it, I do not do it for material reasons, so I do not care either if I will be jailed for 20 or 25 years.

Re:But

[shoemilk]

I think /. is missing the point. They are claiming that using a ski mask implies sophistication. There's truth to that, as sophistication is a neutral term in a neutral environment. But 25% more of 0 time spent in jail is still 0. Don't do illegal sh** with your ski mask and you'll be fine. If you do illegal sh** with your ski mask, don't get caught, and you'll also be fine. But if you're using a ski mask to prevent detection of your illegal activity by hiding your face, that is rationally a sign of sophistication and justifiably warrants increased jail-time.

Where are the bills claiming this? Where are the ski mask bills? Everyone knows there's no other reason for ski masks but armed robbery!

Re:But

[gandhi_2]

..in which case you aren't haven't committed a crime, so the difference is zero.

Re:But

[SilverJets]

You're reading conspiracy where there isn't any. It is not making the use of a proxy for your normal, every day, non-criminal activities illegal. It is when you actively use a proxy to attempt to hide your identity when committing a crime. If you are not committing a crime, you have nothing to get upset about and can happily continue to use your proxy. The article reads like it is attempting to spread FUD.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

A central idea of criminal law in the US is that an intentional/planned crime is punished more greatly than an unintentional or opportunistic crime. The most well known example are the different levels of murder and manslaughter charges. More severe charges are used when there is evidence of planning, meaning that the person charged had a considerable amount of time to consider their actions. Manslaughter charges are used for cases where there is no evidence of an intent to kill.

Evidence that you took measures to avoid detection is evidence that you were aware that there would be consequences to being detected. If you can successfully argue that the proxy use was not related to the crime then the judge should take that into consideration. Also, you aren't going to be convicted of a crime if the only evidence against you is that you used a proxy.

Re:But

[complete loony]

45 5f E1...? That's so last month ;)

Re:But

[SpazmodeusG]

Theoretically someone at my ISP could do exactly what Opera is doing. If Paypal can be re-encrypted and forwarded without any noticable difference to what the end user sees then it isn't Operas fault.
Anyone that's between you and the end-point can do the same re-encryption/re-encoding to give you a view of an end-page that is actually coming from a different server than what you expected. Meaning your passwords are going through someone else before going to the real site and the responses are going through someone else before coming back to you.

At least Opera is open about it. If you're frightened by what Opera can do here you shouldn't be on the Internet.

Re:But

[Opie812]

We Americans frown on sophistication, and would like to encourage criminals to be simple.

If it's good enough for your politicians then it should be good enough for your criminals.

Re:But

[nabsltd]

Theoretically someone at my ISP could do exactly what Opera is doing.

Not if you are making a direct SSL connection to the server and paying attention to any warnings your browser gives you about the cert subject not matching the hostname in the URL.

Yes, it's possible that Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner, etc., have all managed to get SSL certs for every "interesting" site issued to them with nobody noticing, but it's not likely.

Re:But

[nabsltd]

It is not making the use of a proxy for your normal, every day, non-criminal activities illegal. It is when you actively use a proxy to attempt to hide your identity when committing a crime.

By definition, a proxy helps to "attempt to hide your identity", whether or not that hiding is truly effective or intentional is a matter for debate.

But, take things like libel, which in the US used to have truth as an iron-clad defense. That is no more (at least in one jurisdiction), so if you use a proxy to do something libelous, you are now on the hook for more than before.

The point the GP was making (and that you missed completely) is that so many actions are illegal that sometimes even knowing is hard, and as things like copyright infringement become criminal in all cases (if the **AA has their way), then the act of posting a video to YouTube via a proxy isn't just a DMCA takedown issue, but becomes a crime with 25% more jail time than not using a proxy, regardless of any reason you might be using the proxy.

Re:But

[shutdown -p now]

Well, Opera Mini reformats HTML pages for handheld devices on server side - it's basically what it's all about, really. It would be pretty interesting if it could do that to HTML in SSL-secured HTTP responses without decrypting and then re-encrypting the stream.

Their FAQ even has some nice pictures...

Re:But

[Nihixul]

they must sentence more harshly for all the other people (and other offenses by the same person) that went undetected.

Mal-2

If *this* is the reasoning, then that is truly horrible reasoning. (I'm not judging parent's reasoning, by the way.) If 100 people loot a store and one poor sap gets caught, I honestly can't imagine why the cops' (or feds' or whatever) inability to catch the other 99 should have anything to do with what sentence to give the one.

Re:But

[Anzya]

Big difference actually since Sweden got the so called FRA-law that allows the Swedish government to read our mail and internet traffic.
Of course, I do believe that most of Norway's internet traffic goes through Sweden anyway so either way you're spied upon.

Re:But

[SilverJets]

so many actions are illegal that sometimes even knowing is hard

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. In other words it is better to err on the side of caution and not post videos to YouTube which you don't have the copyright holder's permission to post, via proxy or not.

Re:But

[nospam007]

They are claiming that using a proxy implies sophistication.

Like using a public phone instead of doing the ransom call from home.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, so the browser itself doesn't care where the certificate came from when running through Operas proxies. Now i see the problem.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you think e-tjenesten is doing the same thing?

Re:But

[Opportunist]

Care to inform me how clicking "Tor activated" in the lower right corner of my Firefox is a sign of sophistication? Monkeys can be trained to push buttons.

Then again, judging by this law, they can also be trained to raise their hands in votes.

Re:But

[Opportunist]

This is basically what the content industry wants to achive with the amount of FUD spewed about content. That you think you may not do anything with it but buy it.

Erring on the side of caution is sensible if there is a side of caution. With copyright, we're already at "to hell with it, no matter what I do it's probably in some way illegal. So why bother trying to stay legal?"

Re:But

[Opportunist]

Now imagine using onion routing becoming the standard for some torrent client, and the average user having not the foggiest idea about it.

Re:But

[Opportunist]

Increasing the sentence now has an impact on the likelyhood of a crime happening? The punishment for murder is death in some places, often even in ways that are anything but 'humane and quick', yet people still kill each other. They get caught, they get killed for it, the game continues. Where's the deterrent?

Re:But

[EdIII]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. In other words it is better to err on the side of caution and not post videos to YouTube which you don't have the copyright holder's permission to post, via proxy or not.

Actually it is. When the laws themselves become so irrelevant, convoluted, and counter intuitive to how society acts and behaves it is perfectly reasonable to say that an average person could not have reasonably expected that to be a law in the first place.

According to your logic, a town could pass a law saying that dress pants must be worn on Sunday with a ironed dress shirt and a tie. While passing through, I stop to get gas and I am promptly arrested.

Is my ignorance *really* not a defense in that case? I would argue that it is.

Of course, I know, you can say my arguments are not relevant to your discussion. However.... they really ARE.

Copyrights are so corrupted, perverted, convoluted, confusing, contradictory, ..... and basically insane at this point. Is a father who posts a YouTube video of his son on a Harley-Davidson with Smoke on the Water playing in the background really expected to have analyzed his video for all trademarks, copyrighted images/music before posting?

I don't think so. Such a position is just not reasonable. The fact is, that ignorance of copyrights in both the understanding of what they are, and how they apply to the media in their position is the normal condition for most people. The vast majority of DMCA takedowns on YouTube are not about 1:1 copyright infringement. It's about confusing situations where fair use and derivative works are being attacked by Big Media.

To say that the average YouTube poster would need to possess the sophistication to understand and verify the copyrights for all of their postings, is insane and unreasonable.

Your, "err on the side of caution" philosophy would just create a world in which people would be afraid to express themselves simply because that form of expression and its content may be not be theirs. Ignorance, which would always be the default condition, would be punishable by harsh sentences. The risks to their livelihood and families would just be too great. Only media giants could afford the "condition" of copyright sophistication and the resources necessary to defend themselves against attack.

Those that would armor themselves with anonymity just to express themselves would be facing jail time?

Be reasonable. You are proposing that there is no conspiracy to control the flow of information and who owns them *at all*. Clearly, at some level, there is. The article is not FUD. With such legislation there is plenty for me to 1) Fear for the consequences of even being accused of a crime (especially when copyrights are supposed to be CIVIL), 2) be Uncertain about the future of anonymity and privacy, and 3) to have plenty of Doubts about how I will legally create the condition of anonymity and privacy in my dealings with other people.

Skepticism is healthy under normal conditions. However I have heard it my whole life in regards to our rights. The problem with your skepticism is, "No. We are not moving faster. No. That is not a rocky beach we are approaching at high speed. No. I don't think we need to change direction. No. The captain knows what is doing and has our best interests at heart. No. The fact the Captain is acting irrationally and accusing the crew and passengers of sabotage, disloyalty, and terrorism, does not concern me at all. No. I am not going to die in the next 60 seco..... Hey, Why are you jumping off the ship?! Everything is fine! Geez, your just paranoid".

Re:But

[Jedi Alec]

If *this* is the reasoning, then that is truly horrible reasoning. (I'm not judging parent's reasoning, by the way.) If 100 people loot a store and one poor sap gets caught, I honestly can't imagine why the cops' (or feds' or whatever) inability to catch the other 99 should have anything to do with what sentence to give the one.

If the guy that got caught spent 2 months covering his tracks by acquiring fake/stolen license plates, creating gloves with fake fingerprints and other stuff that one sees in the movies, then yes, there is a difference.

Re:But

[EdIII]

Where are the bills claiming this? Where are the ski mask bills? Everyone knows there's no other reason for ski masks but armed robbery!

Not to argue with the point you are trying to make, but I have always wondered exactly just that. Is there any other use for a stereotypical ski mask other than armed robbery?

I understand it is a Ski Mask. Ski is right there in the name. Yet, truly, I have never actually witnessed the use of a ski mask for anything BUT robbery. I have been skiing plenty of times in my life in lots of different resorts. Not a ski mask in sight. Not one. Over four decades on this planet, and not a *single* use of one by a regular person doing something legal.

TV? Magazines? Movies? Not to my recollection either.

A robber with a "ski mask" plying his trade? Oh, yeah. Plenty of times I have seen that.

So I understand the point you are trying to make with it, 100% agree with it even. Just your use of the ski mask as an example is a rather entertaining one since it is one of the great unanswered questions in my life :)

Re:But

[Jaysyn]

"Get caught using a proxy to write about why you hate Obama?"

I'm pretty sure half of the internet would be shut down by now if this was actually illegal. I wish this *was* made illegal since such a flagrant violation of our Constitutional rights would get a lot of people off the couch & in their politician's face.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

The real intent is simply to associate the concept of anonymity with crime. This sets a precedent for the eventual criminalization of anonymity -- an important milestone in the continuous expansion of power and revenue which all governments undertake. As long as anonymity remains legal, government can only reach a certain level of power and revenue. With anonymity gone -- and better yet automatically viewed as "criminal" by the average individual -- the door opens wide for the people at the top of the power pyramid.

Look at how the average individual today considers it "self-evident" that (for example) recreational drug use equates to criminal activity. Before government stepped in, this mindset did not exist. But the people of today can't imagine it any other way, because they've spent their entire lives knowing nothing but drug prohibition. Government created this mindset through continuous indoctrination and displays of aggression against drug users.

THIS is what government wants to do with anonymity.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

There are more uses for a proxy then being anonymous or concealing ones identity. As has been pointed out in other comments proxies are used by corporations and content providers to distribute load, BUT, they are also used by regular users, on their own networks. Privoxy for example does nothing to hide or conceal your IP, it does everything to protect your PRIVACY however which I suspect is the primary use of proxies. Hell by the sounds of it even AdBlock could be used against us.

This law and the monsoon of like laws, do nothing to protect us.

Re:But

[jonaskoelker]

things like copyright infringement become criminal in all cases (if the **AA has their way)

Would the RIAA really want that?

I mean, then you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that all the alleged acts of copyright infringement took place and were performed by the accused person.

Also, it'll be the police's job to do the investigation, and almost no matter how much funding they get, they'll have more important cases to investigate: murders, drugs, terrorism.

(IANAL)

Re:But

[sticky.pirate]

Why is that? What does "sophistication" have to do with the underlying crime? You either did something illegal, with an actual victim or you did not. How good you are at doing it should have nothing to do with your punishment.

I don't think this is about punishment; this is about being "tough on crime", which is always good for getting votes.

Re:But

[Rogerborg]

Obviously if you're "sophisticated" you need to get extra time for the crimes that you were smart enough to get away with.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Your point of view in my opinion is not so "insightful".

"Non-criminal" these days seems to equate to "Keep your mouth shut and you would go to jail". In some countries if you criticize/whistleblow the government on a blog, that's not "Non-criminal".
Freedom of expression is important. Freedom to share information and ideas is important. When countries censor/block web sites/pages and throttle bandwidth, I call that criminal.

Re:But

[Jumperalex]

The problem with your answer is that everything you just said is, in and of itself, a crime as well. Fake (fraud)/stolen(theft) licence plates, creating gloves with fake fingerprints (ok questionable but I suppose fraud or ID theft might apply) ... so again charge, convict and sentance for THAT crime. Don't use the logic that sophistication / non-criminal actions to evade capture is an additional / aggrevating crime itself. It is not.

Again, if the action is truly a crime on its own then fine, deal with this on their own (though at the same trial of course) but it is IMO, BS to call wearing a mask during a robbery worse than not wearing a mask just as using a TOR router should not be either.

Re:But

[poot_rootbeer]

But, take things like libel, which in the US used to have truth as an iron-clad defense.

Never.

Libel is a defamatory act, and defamation is characterized by intent to harm. In many jurisdictions, a written statement which is factually true may still be considered libelous if it is misleading and/or proven to have been published with malicious intent.

Re:But

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't do illegal sh** on your proxy and you'll be fine. If you do illegal sh** on your proxy, don't get caught, and you'll also be fine

Except next they will attack encryption, and make that illegal, so using a proxy for anything encrypted becomes a crime. If you don't see the connection, then think really hard about it.

I'm sick of this "if you have nothing to hide mentality". Everyone has something to hide, why else do you wear clothes?

Re:But

[Jumperalex]

So we are in agreement then? ;-)

Re:But

[j.sanchez1]

Not to argue with the point you are trying to make, but I have always wondered exactly just that. Is there any other use for a stereotypical ski mask other than armed robbery?

I know this is antecdotal and your question may have been rhetorical, but I live in Wisconsin and wear a ski mask when I am clearing my driveway and sidewalks with my snowblower. It is too damn cold to be outside (most likely with blowing wind) for 35-40 minutes without a mask.

Just my 2 cents.

Re:But

[quantic_oscillation7]

i don't think it's a conspiracy. i believe it's a warning, 'if you don't think and act like we want, you'll be in trouble' like Bruce so eloquently puts it: Cardinal Richelieu understood the value of surveillance when he famously said, "If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged." Watch someone long enough, and you'll find something to arrest -- or just blackmail -- with.

Re:But

[davolfman]

Ignorance of the law would be no excuse if the code of law was rational, knowable, and sane. Like it was for the Romans who probably coined the phrase. We left that behind long ago.

Re:But

[CodeBuster]

That's the issue: More and more stuff is being criminalized.

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

-Ayn Rand, 'Atlas Shrugged' 1957

Re:But

[tomthegeek]

"Ignorance of the law is not an excuse" made sense when all the laws were able to fit on a few tablets in the town square. However at the current level of complexity I don't think anyone understands the law completely. Everything is open to interpretation not to mention the laws themselves are vague and contradictory. It's like web developers bitching about browsers not following the standards. Even WebKit, one of the best rendering engines available doesn't follow the standards 100% because the standards are incomplete and inconsistent. Considering web standards are considerably simpler than the law, I can't understand why ignorance of the law isn't a valid excuse.

Re:But

[noidentity]

Why is that? What does "sophistication" have to do with the underlying crime? You either did something illegal, with an actual victim or you did not. How good you are at doing it should have nothing to do with your punishment. Consider it from the other perspective: just because someone is too stupid to use a proxy to cover their illegal activity means they should get a LOWER sentence? WTF? And what exactly is the purpose?

It actually makes some sense. As a deterrent, a punishment must make even risking the crime not worth it. If the risk is higher (like when doing nothing to hide the act), then the punishment can be lesser because there is more of a chance of being caught.

Re:But

[mdielmann]

How good you are at doing it should have nothing to do with your punishment. Consider it from the other perspective: just because someone is too stupid to use a proxy to cover their illegal activity means they should get a LOWER sentence?

For a few years there, being rich or intelligent was something to be looked up to. But we are once again in an era where being something better than mediocre is penalized. It's like the story of Kurt Vonnegut Jr., which I can't bother linking to. In our striving for equality (homogeneity, in actuality), we throw everything we can at the few who are below average, and either penalize or leave to stagnate those few who are superior.
This law is in a similar vein. You are punished for breaking the law (whatever law you actually broke), and for doing it with anything other than typical ability. I suspect this is also done for the simple fact that democracy promotes mediocrity, and this law stigmatizes superiority, which creates a nice little feedback loop for who is elected.

Re:But

[Haeleth]

If 100 people loot a store and one poor sap gets caught, I honestly can't imagine why the cops' (or feds' or whatever) inability to catch the other 99 should have anything to do with what sentence to give the one.

Indeed not. But if that one poor sap turned himself in and confessed, then he could well expect a lighter sentence, and it could be made even lighter if he also helped the police track some of the others down.

So we do already have it well established that sentences can be reduced where a criminal takes certain actions that reduce the burden on the legal system. Conversely, certain actions that make the work of the police more difficult, such as resisting arrest, will often quite reasonably lead to a tougher sentence.

I think therefore that it isn't entirely illogical to extend the principle to cover other behaviours that force the state to use more resources in identifying and prosecuting criminals. Though I fear this measure will, in practice, just become another tool used to rack up sentences to even more draconian extremes, probably against people who didn't even know they were going through a proxy.

Re:But

[Haeleth]

That line of thinking is all fine and good in a perfect world. Sadly, none of us live there. With the increases in domestic spying, dragnets to catch "pirates" and whatnot, this is a VERY bad thing.

You've been reading the more sensationalist corners of the net again, haven't you? Let's not get things blown out of proportion.

Domestic spying is (so far as anyone has managed to prove) not significantly more common or intrusive than it ever has been; the Feds have always been able to tap your phone, and the only people claiming that things are regularly going beyond that are the usual conspiracy theorists and a couple of disgruntled ex-NSA employees, who have plenty of reasons they might feel like stretching the truth.

And of all the millions of people involved in non-commercial online copyright infringement, only a tiny proportion have even been threatened with legal action. Not one has faced criminal charges in the USA.

Sure, you're doing nothing illegal NOW. But whatabout when they change the definition of what is legal and what is not?

Classic slippery-slope fallacy. Come back when you actually have a compelling argument to support the view that the US government is likely to tear up their constitution, and that if that happens then all those military folks who have sworn to give their lives to defend it are just going to sit back and watch it be destroyed.

How long before unpopular political ideas are illegal in this country?

Going by current trends, I expect this to happen shortly after the heat death of the universe.

Re:But

[Hurricane78]

Isa meee... Typoooo! ^^

Re:But

[Jumperalex]

Perhaps, as a logic problem, but I still contend that that level of rationalization is not going on. Even your most thoughtful, "professional" criminals are not going to make the choice to not attempt covering their tracks because the punishment is greater.

Take it to the extreme: hacking a banking system w/o using a proxy is 5-10 years in jail; and that might not even be realistic but it has to be close enough. Hacking a banking system through a proxy to hide your identity is **death by hanging**. Well yeah ok chances are no one will use a proxy, despite its ability to prevent being caught at all. In reality I hope we can agree that that level of added punishment would never fly. So now what are you left with? 25% Well I ask you ... 5-10 or 6.25 - 12.5 ... does anyone really believe that is going to be the tipping point for using a proxy or not? I mean after all we're already working under the premise that 5-10 isn't enough to deter the criminal or we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.

Re:But

[FSWKU]

...sensationalist...classic slippery-slope...

Funny, if Bush were in charge, there would be people coming out of the woodwork screaming EXACTLY the same thing as I posted...from every website with a submit button. You would be hard pressed to find anyone calling them sensationalist. But I guess now that "Obama Christ" is in charge, there's nothing to worry about. Ever. Which makes me a right-wing nutjob, doesn't it?

Re:But

[enrgeeman]

I wear clothes for the pockets. Otherwise I'd need a men's carry-all, and I'm certainly not European.

Re:But

[Tuoqui]

According to your logic, a town could pass a law saying that dress pants must be worn on Sunday with a ironed dress shirt and a tie. While passing through, I stop to get gas and I am promptly arrested.

I'd say the law is retarded and violates your right to free speech/freedom of expression and issue a constitutional challenge. Also the fact that it is on Sunday only could be construed as being a law respecting the establishment of a religion (Christian).

Is my ignorance *really* not a defense in that case? I would argue that it is.

I'd say it is. I'd also say the fact that you are not a resident of the town is a bigger defense since you are not a member of the town's community which passed the law.

If the shit hits the fan then request a trial by jury and represent yourself. Tell the jury two words 'Jury Nullification' and explain that if they think the law is unjust then they are duty bound to find you innocent regardless of what the 'law' says.

pet peave

[DoofusOfDeath]

s/disincentivize/disincent/g

Re:pet peave

[TheoMurpse]

Either you don't understand that s/x/a searches for "x" and replaces it with "a," or you aren't aware that "disincentivize" is a word, while "disincent" isn't.

Re:pet peave

[Petrushka]

s/disincentivize/disincent/g

As someone who's moderately nit-picky over my own language, I sympathise with your wanting to use a more natural word to replace a stupid made-up long word that sounds fancy but is merely lazy; but then, why not replace it with a word that's actually real? -- rather than making up yet another one? I'd suggest "discourage" or "deter".

Re:pet peave

[DoofusOfDeath]

Holy crap. I had no idea that "incent" wasn't in the dictionary (at least, in dictionary.com). How could it not be?

"disincent" is a completely reasonable combination of the "dis-" prefix with an action verb. I realize that English doesn't consistently follow a rigid set of rules, but the absence of "disincent" from the dictionary is a little baffling.

In fact, screw it. Having "disincentivize" in our lexicon is so intellectually offensive that I'm not going to recognize it. I'm going to use the word "disincent", and let #$#^% dictionary.com try to catch up with me ;)

I use a proxy to browse Slashdot.org

[CrazyJim1]

I have to use a proxy since sometimes I can't get through directly connecting to Slashdot.org.

I don't see how it is sophistication as it is just a bookmark to get to Slashdot.org.

Silly law. I think most laws on the Internet are silly though.

Like if someone is breaking into military computers, they're typically doing it via another government so our laws don't apply to them.

Privacy is used for tax avoidance and piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

It is too important to collect taxes and IP profits to have privacy.

It is already accepted to have all our financial records under surveillance and file that we are innocent each year.

What makes you think the internet will be more private?

Time for a new name...

[certain death]

We will rename Proxies to Application Firewalls once they get all the wording in their laws right and passed! :o)

Re:Time for a new name...

[EkriirkE]

Or "tunnel"

Re:Time for a new name...

[CarpetShark]

Pretty sure they'll define proxy somewhere in the law by its features, rather than relying on the commonly accepted (and fluid) meaning. In other words, it won't matter what YOU call it, if it fits their definition.

Either use a properly secure (i.e., end-to-end encrypted, proxied, indirect, padded, anonymous, etc.) p2p network, or better, do it in the open, and stand up for yourself in court, so others can do the same and add their voices to yours.

Re:Time for a new name...

[Anonymous Coward]

or tube..

Re:Time for a new name...

[EkriirkE]

Silly AC, teh internets ARE tubes!

Re:Time for a new name...

[trentblase]

First, it's not a law, merely a guideline (they are amending a comment). Second, the comment does not say "proxy". It says: "In a scheme involving computers, using any technology or software to conceal the identity or geographic location of the perpetrator ordinarily indicates sophisticated means". Note the word "ordinarily." I am a privacy advocate, but this is not a particularly scary turn of events. It's basically saying that if you commit a crime and use technology to hide who you are, judges are encouraged to increase sentencing because you are likely to be a more sophisticated criminal than one who did not have the forethought to hide his identity. It sounds downright plausible to me.

Re:Time for a new name...

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I see someone say to stand up in court, it reminds me of the Aesop's fable of the mice wanting to attach a bell to the cat. However, finding a mouse to run out and get eaten in the attempt became impossible.

Nobody wants to bell the cat, and have their life ruined either in financially with civil action, or wind up in a PMITA prison due to criminal action. It takes money, and lots of money to fight court cases. Most people don't have 100 grand a month to get a competent legal team to deal with well-heeled teams of lawyers on the opposing side.

Re:Time for a new name...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, it's a good thing this isn't tied to the U.S. Judicial system. Or as I like to think of it, the land where plausibly good ideas go to die.

Re:Time for a new name...

[russotto]

or better, do it in the open, and stand up for yourself in court, so others can do the same and add their voices to yours.

Standing up for yourself in court leads to nothing but an anonymous jail cell.

Re:Time for a new name...

[kirillian]

Good Plan...then, in two years, we'll be considered 'sophisticated' for having 'firewalls' in our home routers...

Re:Time for a new name...

[Thinboy00]

Silly AC, teh internets ARE t00bz!

If you're going to do B1FF, at least do him right.

Re:Time for a new name...

[Thinboy00]

Will you be scared if/when ACTA gets signed and combines (catastrophically) with this (thereby outlawing much of freenet/darknet (not sure about darknet)(IANAL))?

Re:Time for a new name...

[sudotron]

It will be called, the Resisty!

Re:Time for a new name...

[b4dc0d3r]

Yopu did not defend yourself thoroughly, I discovered as I prepared a counter-argument.

But, I have an issue with the EFF complaint. Most people don't know how to use a proxy, or what one is, even if it is extremely simple. Just like putting on shoes is simple, but you have to have the money to buy some, or the material to make them - there are precursors. If you know enough about the internet to know that you should keep yourself private, you know a lot more about the internet and how it works than the average person.

Now the kicker is, only the punishment is greater - not the likelihood of conviction. In other words, they didn't lower the barrier to be found guilty. If you are found guilty of something, then factually you did it (regardless of whether you actually did, but that's another story). At that point, you used the internet to do something illegal and knew more about the internet than most people, so it is highly unlikely that you accidentally did something malicious. So yes you are more "sophisticated".

Like an ex-army sharpshooter saying he accidentally shot his neighbor who slept with his wife - he knows more about guns, and has more experience shooting them, than the average person. So it is more unlikely that he made a mistake handling a gun. It might be reasonable to give someone a longer sentence if they knew exactly what they were doing and did it anyway.

The guy who downloads a virus and DOS's the FBI should be in jail for operating the internet with out a license, but the guy who hides behind a proxy DOS-ing the FBI might really be doing it on purpose.

The EFF is saying that normal people who protect their privacy are being judged more harshly. These aren't normal people, they are guilty and being sentenced. Now think about that - guilty people who try to get away with crimes are being sentenced longer than guilty people who don't try to hide. Same as the difference between cooperating with the police and not in my book.

If I try to enforce my constitutional right to be private in my dealings with people, which the government has shown great interest in violating even with the FISA court's availability, I should not be singled out and persecuted. I get that. I was going to make another point but went blank.

The only "crime" where this addendum is a real problem is when your "crime" is speaking out against the government. But I can't come up with one scenario where I would be truly worried about 25% more sentence in that case. You're not getting out any earlier than the next regime change at that point, if you even get out.

Let the counterarguments about people having gun training getting longer sentencing in a gun murder, or race car drivers in a car accident, or ignorance being no excuse and shouldn't result in lower sentences begin.

Re:Time for a new name...

[Pichu0102]

Either use a properly secure (i.e., end-to-end encrypted, proxied, indirect, padded, anonymous, etc.) p2p network, or better, do it in the open, so you can either disappear silently or quickly be held up as an example and destroyed quickly to discourage others from doing the same thing you did, which may eventually end up being speaking out against the government.

Fixed that for you. If the government is going to crack down on you for using proxies, you'd better bet they'd make as much as an example of you to show what happens to those who toe the government's line.

It's not the government's fault if on the way to court you end up tripping onto a spike through your shoulder, an officer's gun accidentally discharges through your foot, or some guy accidentally spills lighter fluid all over your clothes while lighting a cigarette, you know...

Re:Time for a new name...

[TheLink]

As long as they ultimately leave the decision on harsher sentences to the Courts it's not a problem (at least not an additional problem on top of convincing the Court you were innocent or not that evil).

If the harsher sentence is mandatory in law then it becomes a problem.

Re:Time for a new name...

[Anonymous Coward]

So that means everyone who's behind a firewall doing NAT qualifies.

Isn't there a maximum penalty already? This should give judges the choice already to apply the maximum penalty in a particularly 'heinous' crime or reduce the sentence if it's a 'lesser' crime.

Instead of complicating matters by adding these texts, the maximum penalty should just be increased (if that's the general opinion) and let the judges do what they're hired to do; judge.

This just feels like some kind of work therapy for bored lawyers who like to add an additional layer of complexity of the existing legislation (and getting paid well to do so while doing that probably).

Re:Time for a new name...

[stonewallred]

Can't give those judges any leeway. The whole mandatory minimum thingee and the War of Drugs took care of the independence of the judicial branch of the US government, at least in the realm of sentencing. Most of time in federal courts the length of your sentence in more dependent on what the DOJ thinks it should be than what the judge thinks.

Re:Time for a new name...

[mdielmann]

I agree. Now, where is the recommendation for those who rob banks while wearing masks?

Re:Time for a new name...

[CarpetShark]

Nobody wants to bell the cat, and have their life ruined either in financially with civil action, or wind up in a PMITA prison due to criminal action.

Of course not. I'm sure Mandela and Gandhi and many others didn't want to face the regime either, but it has to start somewhere.

Re:Don't break da lew and you don't worry then

[its_schwim]

So we should allow the continued manipulation of the laws to suit big brother as long as we don't personally use the technology in question to commit a crime?

Someone should come up with a witty saying that we can put on shirts concerning the loss of privacy being ok if we don't do anything wrong. The previous sentence needs some streamlining and sexing up.

My Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm working on a single drop-in ASPX/C# page that contains a web proxy, so that any newbie web hacker can have an anonymising web proxy in their own web site. I'll leave the PHP version to somebody else :-) The idea being that if thousands of (overwise legitimate) web sites in dozens of countries have proxy pages in then the national firewalls will have a lot of trouble blocking them out. The basic rule i'm going with is that it remains text only - so that it's below the MAFIAA and think-o-the-children lobbiests' radars. Watch this space.

Re:My Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would any website owner purposefully implement this idea? They'd be fingered for whatever nefarious actions originate on the box.

Re:My Solution

[Thinboy00]

I'm working on a single drop-in ASPX/C# page that contains a web proxy, so that any newbie web hacker can have an anonymising web proxy in their own web site. I'll leave the PHP version to somebody else :-) The idea being that if thousands of (overwise legitimate) web sites in dozens of countries have proxy pages in then the national firewalls will have a lot of trouble blocking them out. The basic rule i'm going with is that it remains text only - so that it's below the MAFIAA and think-o-the-children lobbiests' radars. Watch this space.

Am I missing something, or am I about to be "whoosh!"ed?

Re:My Solution

[TheOtherChimeraTwin]

Whoosh!!

(I didn't get it either, but you seemed to be requesting it.)

Re:My Solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Lobbyist - n., one who lobbies.
"The lobbyist successfully lobbied for reduced consumer rights."

Lobbiest - sup. adj., most lobby.
"My grenade launcher is so lobby, it is the lobbiest grenade launcher in the state."

Only one of these is an actual word.

(Score:-1, See me after class)

Great idea

[77Punker]

Just what the country with the world's highest incarceration rates needs, longer sentences!

Let's get tough on crime!

Re:Great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Just what the country with the world's highest incarceration rates needs, longer sentences!

Let's get tough on crime!

Convicting a large non-random sample of the population disenfranchises those who disagree with the establishment. I think that's pretty smart planning. No good for the country, of course, but that hardly matters.

Re:Great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

let's start making prisons make money with all the labor they have to pay for themselves!

Re:Great idea

[PPH]

We'll have to free up some prison space for the coming wave of sophisticated criminals. Lets release some of the stupid thugs early.

Re:Great idea

[xX5h1ll3l46hXx]

Felons can't vote, so if they make things they don't support criminal they can remove the opposition's right to use the ballot box against them.

Re:Great idea

[Renraku]

Let's get tough on (non-violent) crime!

We don't have enough pot-smokers or copyright breakers in federal prison, stored with the rapists, murderers, and kidnappers.

Let's crowd them in there with some proxy-users, too.

Note you'll never see a scamming CEO or embezzling CFO in jail with murderers, rapists, and kidnappers. They have a separate prison for them.

Re:Great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right on the money here. The whole point of enhancing penalties for crime is so the politicians involved can go back and brag about being tough on crime when it's time for re-election.

Re:Great idea

[stonewallred]

Felons can vote, some even while incarcerated in the US. L2Google. I am drinking already before I head off to work, so do it yourself for verification.

Re:Great idea

[xX5h1ll3l46hXx]

Sure they can, just have to jump through all the hoops designed to keep them from doing it.

Re:Great idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Convicting a large non-random sample of the population disenfranchises those who disagree with the establishment.

So it's better to convict at random, right? It still amazes me how thoughtless so many of these comments are, especially the ones that get modded up. Of course, it's so hard to learn the nuances of the issues and so easy to turn this into another paranoid "evil government" rant.

Re:Great idea

[red_blue_yellow]

Note you'll never see a scamming CEO or embezzling CFO in jail with murderers, rapists, and kidnappers. They have a separate prison for them.

That's not what I read...

You can't surf without using a proxy.

[Jason Pollock]

Every telco that I know of uses a transparent proxy to improve performance.

There are proxies on the receiving end too.

Heck, proxies usually make things _easier_ for law enforcement, they tend to keep logs that they can get at without letting the target know.

Oh, I get it, they're against private ownership of proxies.

That's fine, ban the proxy!

Re:You can't surf without using a proxy.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, for a pollock, you certainly make a lot of sense.

Re:You can't surf without using a proxy.

[Firethorn]

Oh, I get it, they're against private ownership of proxies.

I think that it's legislation written by/for legislatures who don't really know how the internet works.

The law would be fine if it targeted specifically 'anonymizing' proxies, that the user deliberately sets up, as opposed to a transparent proxy you don't even know about, or the corporate proxy that you have to use because the firewall blocks 80 and 443 from anywhere else.

Re:You can't surf without using a proxy.

[trentblase]

To be clear, this is not legislation.

Re:You can't surf without using a proxy.

[ScrewMaster]

The law would be fine if it targeted specifically 'anonymizing' proxies, that the user deliberately sets up,

Um ... why would that be fine? That's even worse, from a privacy perspective, than banning ISP or corporate proxies. The government has a habit of assuming that a. they have an intrinsic right to know everything about a citizen (they don't) and b. that any citizen trying to hide anything is, by definition, a criminal (he isn't.)

I understand that this is not being written into law just yet, but eventually it will be (out of ignorance if nothing else) and is just wrong on so many levels. Law enforcement in this country is once again in need of being reined in. It's happened before (anyone old enough to remember the FBI under Hoover?) but this President is obviously not going to do it. Things will have to get worse, much worse, for there to be any hope of Congress stepping in, as they did before. Of course, America and its leadership have change dramatically in the past half century, so I don't hold out much hope for that either.

Re:You can't surf without using a proxy.

[Anonymous Coward]

You should read the actual legislation yourself:

Sophisticated Means Enhancement.â"For purposes of subsection (b)(9)(C), "sophisticated
means" means especially complex or especially intricate offense conduct pertaining to the
execution or concealment of an offense. For example, in a telemarketing scheme, locating
the main office of the scheme in one jurisdiction but locating soliciting operations in
another jurisdiction ordinarily indicates sophisticated means. Conduct such as hiding
assets or transactions, or both, through the use of fictitious entities, corporate shells, or
offshore financial accounts also ordinarily indicates sophisticated means. In a scheme
involving computers, using any technology or software to conceal the identity or
geographic location of the perpetrator ordinarily indicates sophisticated means.

Re:You can't surf without using a proxy.

[sbeckstead]

It only applies if you deliberately use the proxy to conceal your identity while committing a crime. No deliberate concealment, no crime, no worries.

Re:You can't surf without using a proxy.

[Thinboy00]

No, I don't expect Congress to "step in" on Obama either.

Re:You can't surf without using a proxy.

[ScrewMaster]

No, I don't expect Congress to "step in" on Obama either.

Oh, not on Obama ... that would be political suicide at this point. But a few years down the road, when we have another President (who maybe isn't quite so worshipped) and some history of abuse of process by current law enforcement, we'll see someone willing to do something. Probably (as it was in J. Edgar's time) some members of Congress itself will have to get fucked over before they'll make some changes.

Re:You can't surf without using a proxy.

[Pichu0102]

Except with the technology the government has now, they can destroy anyone they want with the push of a button. Accidental sex offender registration and said person is likely to be killed by vigilantes, and anyone going against the system, it's just as easy to destroy them.

We no longer have any hope of getting any better. And all governments around the world are now the same.

It's too late to turn back. The common, honest people are fucked.

Re:You can't surf without using a proxy.

[Jason Pollock]

The problem is that you can commit crimes without even intending to. If you are going through a proxy as a matter of course, any spurious law breaking (hacked a phone anyone) instantly gets an extra 25%, perhaps even making it worthwhile to chase you.

Everyone breaks the law, even if it is just spitting on the sidewalk or jaywalking. It just isn't worth the effort to chase you yet. However, we're making it cheaper to chase you every year. At some point, the graphs will intersect, and then the definition of "sophistication" will become incredibly important to you.

Re:You can't surf without using a proxy.

[bws111]

It is not just 'a crime'. It is one of 12 specific crimes, all dealing with identity theft, bank fraud, and unauthorized access of federal or financial computers.

Re:You can't surf without using a proxy.

[sbeckstead]

Actually using a proxy while jaywalking should get you thrown in jail. But a proxy for spitting on the sidewalk is just gross.

Why not

[Anonymous Coward]

just rename the US government to "Entertainment Industry Protection, Inc?". I mean, that's basically your government's only function now...

Let's not dilute "cruel and unusual"

[subreality]

Others fear this may lead to 'cruel and unusual punishments'

No, it leads to excessive sentences. Those may be unreasonable and, unfortunately, quite usual, but there's nothing cruel and unusual about them, as that term is defined.

Re:Let's not dilute "cruel and unusual"

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying the quoted phase is defective by design?

Re:Let's not dilute "cruel and unusual"

[Jafafa Hots]

Let's not dilute "cruel and unusual"

We've decided torture is ok, how much more dilute can it get?

Re:Let's not dilute "cruel and unusual"

[Anonymous Coward]

Others fear this may lead to 'cruel and unusual punishments'

No, it leads to excessive sentences. Those may be unreasonable and, unfortunately, quite usual, but there's nothing cruel and unusual about them, as that term is defined.

You've obviously never been to prison. The entire system is a cruel and unusual punishment. Great training program for turning halfway decent people into hardcore criminals though.

Re:Let's not dilute "cruel and unusual"

[subreality]

The entire system is a cruel and unusual punishment.

I qualified it as "as that term is defined" for exactly this reason. While I agree, the failure of the system as a whole is a separate problem from the excesses that are greatly crueler than the usual cases.

Re:Let's not dilute "cruel and unusual"

[shutdown -p now]

No, it leads to excessive sentences. Those may be unreasonable and, unfortunately, quite usual, but there's nothing cruel and unusual about them, as that term is defined.

IANAL, but so far as I know, "cruel and unusual" actually has broader meaning in the U.S. law than some people think. It's not just "painful" or "gruesome" - excessive punishment for the crime can also fall into this category; which, I think, is what those people mean here.

Re:Let's not dilute "cruel and unusual"

[stonewallred]

Hmm, really? How about the folks that are sitting in prison for extended amounts of time for having crack?While folks with 10 tines as much cocaine have already finished their sentences? The phrase cruel and usual does not usually(IANAL) reference sentence lengths, just treatment. If it did, there would be a more standard length of sentences for the same crimes throughout the US. For comparison purposes, look at the penalty for cheating in NV versus anywhere else in the US. You arguement fails on that level, as cheating in NV can garner a life sentence. But nowhere else in the US does it carry anything close to that long. I actually need to stop drinking vodka this early, because it makes me forget stuff.

Re:Let's not dilute "cruel and unusual"

[radio4fan]

Others fear this may lead to 'cruel and unusual punishments'

No, it leads to excessive sentences. Those may be unreasonable and, unfortunately, quite usual, but there's nothing cruel and unusual about them, as that term is defined.

No, excessive prison sentences can be found to be 'cruel and unusual'. See Solem v Helm.

The SCOTUS held that:

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments prohibits not only barbaric punishments, but also sentences that are disproportionate to the crime.

But hey, electrocuting people is OK, and that's cruel and must have been unusual the first time it was done!

Law without common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the hell adding internet makes thing so different in law?

If two guys both killed someone and robbed a bank where the only difference is one wore a ski mask and the other didn't, should the stupid one get less of a sentence because he was "easier to catch." I fail to see how being easier to harder to catch weight that much on the weight of the crime itself.

Sure, they may mean it as a deterrent but shouldn't that be on the crime itself instead of any tools that has both legal and illegal uses. Of course, there are other issues related to more technical aspects especially when proxies are relatively common.

Re:Law without common sense

[Jafafa Hots]

Look on the bright side - since it's a new application of law "on the internet," that means someone will probably patent it and then nobody can use it anyway.

Re:Law without common sense

[sbeckstead]

But if the one not wearing a mask deliberately had plastic surgery after the crime and then was only caught because of DNA evidence. He deserves to be added to the sophisticated class of criminal and treated harsher.

Re:Law without common sense

[DJRumpy]

Mod Up. Why doesn't the DOJ hire some common sense?

Re:Law without common sense

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why does the hell adding internet makes thing so different in law?"

Because people in power are afraid of people who are smarter than they are.

Re:Law without common sense

[Maelwryth]

"If two guys both killed someone and robbed a bank where the only difference is one wore a ski mask and the other didn't, should the stupid one get less of a sentence because he was "easier to catch." I fail to see how being easier to harder to catch weight that much on the weight of the crime itself."
 
Possibly because the smarter one had more chance of getting away with it, or leads the court to conclude that he/she is more dangerous because of his/her intelligence.

Re:Law without common sense

[Opportunist]

So the laws now not only rewards and protects you if you're dumb, it actually punishes you for being smart.

Idiocracy ain't far away.

Re:Law without common sense

[Maelwryth]

"Idiocracy ain't far away."
Yes. Only the UN can save us now!

Dear Legislators:

[svnt]

We spent millions on our warrantless wiretapping systems installed in telecoms across the nation. Unfortunately, it turns out you can avoid having your data collected by use of a fancy system called a 'proxy' that's been around since the dawn of the Internet. Who knew?

Please fix this for us.

Sincerely,
The NSA

P.S. We have sexting photos of your wives and daughters. They're not 'sophisticated' but they sure look like fun!

Re:Dear Legislators:

[Icegryphon]

You are probably trying to be funny but, I think the truth is rather close to what you just stated.
Seriously the fact that they act as proxies are some new sort of evil is rather odd.
Wonder how long it will be before VPNs such as iPREDator from pirate bay will get you a harsher sentence.
Because downloading X-Men Origins Wolverine is far more dangerous then actual people whom want to blow things up.

Good luck!

[Tackhead]

Good luck! I'm not behind any proxies!

Re:Good luck!

[Ortega-Starfire]

Don't worry. I make up for your lack of proxy usage by using 7 proxies.

Re:Good luck!

[Hatta]

For every proxy you use, I'm not going to use 3.

Different from wearing a mask?

[staeiou]

If you wear a mask to rob a bank, you will get a harsher sentence than if you rob a bank without a mask. Now, masks aren't banned - you are totally free to wear one in public. Wearing a mask is neither a crime nor suspicious behavior that can be used as evidence of a crime by itself. The increased punishment only applies if you commit a crime wearing a mask.

Now replace mask with proxy.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Wingnut64]

Most people don't unknowingly wear a mask during their day to day activities. The same can't be said of network proxies.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in the land of the free. I've see cops harass people for wearing a mask in public on any other day than Halloween. Maybe it isn't illegal as I've not see anyone get arrested, but if you are wearing a mask the cops come down on you like a ton of bricks until you comply and remove the mask. They immediately seem to suspect you are up to no good and are trying to hide your face to conceal your identify for some crime that you must be about to, or just did commit.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Todd Knarr]

What about the proxy you don't know you're using? Like say the caching proxy your ISP uses to minimize the amount of traffic they pass out of their network. You don't configure your browser to use it, you can't avoid it (the redirection's handled on your ISP's routers that you've no control over), you may be completely unaware that it's even being done, yet you'll be considered more sophisticated simply because you aren't the kind of techie who could spot this happening.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Xiozhiq]

However, if one of the fundamental conditions of accessing said 'public space' is that you have to wear that mask, or you can't go outside, should you still be penalized more for wearing the mask?

Proxies are everywhere, and are even encouraged in many places. For example, my school encourages us to install a VPN client for use while connected to the unsecured school wireless network in order to protect sensitive data that may be transmitted (bank logins, e-mail logins, et cetera).

Oh; and I believe the section in question is at the bottom of PDF page 8, numbered page 6. Section 2B1.1.

All around, this seems pretty silly to me. If they want to increase the punishment for committing crimes on the internet, fine and dandy, but masquerading what SHOULD in all honesty be some basic internet safety practices as "sophistication in a crime"? That's just stupid.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you wear a mask to rob a bank, you will get a harsher sentence than if you rob a bank without a mask. Now, masks aren't banned - you are totally free to wear one in public. Wearing a mask is neither a crime nor suspicious behavior that can be used as evidence of a crime by itself. The increased punishment only applies if you commit a crime wearing a mask.

Now replace mask with proxy.

$_ = "If you wear a mask to rob a bank, you will get a harsher sentence than if you rob a bank without a mask. Now, masks aren't banned - you are totally free to wear one in public. Wearing a mask is neither a crime nor suspicious behavior that can be used as evidence of a crime by itself. The increased punishment only applies if you commit a crime wearing a mask.";

$_ =~ s/masks/proxies/g;
$_ =~ s/mask/proxy/g;
eval $_;

"If you wear a proxy to rob a bank, you will get a harsher sentence than if you rob a bank without a proxy. Now, proxies aren't banned - you are totally free to wear one in public. Wearing a proxy is neither a crime nor suspicious behavior that can be used as evidence of a crime by itself. The increased punishment only applies if you commit a crime wearing a proxy."

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[drawlight]

The mask thing isn't exactly so.
It is illegal for an adult to wear a mask in public in at least some states.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[frosty_tsm]

Most people don't unknowingly wear a mask during their day to day activities. The same can't be said of network proxies.

While not unknowingly, some wear masks for safety reasons (paint sprayers, hazardous materials, motorcycling).

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't unknowingly wear a mask during their day to day activities. The same can't be said of network proxies.

...though I know a few people who probably should.

*ducks*

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't unknowingly wear a mask during their day to day activities. The same can't be said of network proxies.

Most people don't unknowingly rob banks during their day to day activities either. So it all works out rather nicely.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[mlts]

You never know though... I've seen other sysadmins wearing some odd items when woken up by a page or an emergency cellphone call.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[VargrX]

so sayeth Xiozhiq:

That's just stupid.

brother, you just summed the entirety of the technical knowledge of the our lovely socio-facist government

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Red Flayer]

While not unknowingly, some wear masks for safety reasons (paint sprayers, hazardous materials, motorcycling).

Cosplaying, attending conventions, hiding deformities...

Protip: remember your audience :)

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Schemat1c]

Most people don't unknowingly wear a mask during their day to day activities. The same can't be said of network proxies.

Unless you work at Disneyland or you're Batman.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[sbeckstead]

Not in the winter in any state where it snows!

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Thinboy00]

While not unknowingly, some wear masks for safety reasons (paint sprayers, hazardous materials, motorcycling).

Cosplaying, attending conventions, hiding deformities...

Protip: remember your audience :)

What, is the Phantom reading this?

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[sbeckstead]

Geez, Ok look, there is no increased penalty for wearing a mask to commit a crime if you have to wear a mask to get into the environment. There is however a penalty if you further conceal your identity "Deliberately" to avoid being identified while committing a crime in that environment. This sentencing suggestion (guideline) only applies if they can prove you did it with the intent to conceal.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Jumperalex]

It might not be different (and that is a decent analogy IMO), but of course I don't accept your premise. I don't accept that wearing a mask during the commission of a crime should increase the penalty for committing that crime. There is no legitimate purpose to such laws / sentencing guidelines. It does not deter people from using a mas. What it does is allow for a way to increase penalties using false logic where otherwise increasing the penalty for the actual crime (robbing a bank) would seem excessive.

Hell I could use my own logic to say that ALL Crimes should be commited with a mask on and ones without should be punished harsher. Not wearing one puts the innocent at risk because, by wearing a mask the victim doesn't know the perp's identity, and the perp is less likely to want to kill them to prevent identification. But I digress.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Xiozhiq]

I think I may have come across as too harsh in my original post.

I completely agree that any act done to cover up criminal activity should be punished. If my buddy felt like robbing a store, and I pulled up a big truck in front of the store to obscure the criminal activity, I would absolutely say that I was at fault and should be charged with something.

My main concern is with the idea that "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide". While I in fact don't have anything to hide per se (from the government, at least), I feel that I do have the right to privacy. I personally would look at the third amendment (protection from unreasonable searches/seizures) as giving me the right to obfuscate my activity from such unreasonable searches and seizures. For example, if I'm walking around a public street shouting into my cell phone, anyone around can hear it. If I, however, stand in a corner and make sure no one's around before I speak into my cell phone (or do so in my own home), I would feel violated if someone was spying on me. Much in the same way, I feel like using the internet without certain means of securing your data in transmission, or obfuscating it from outside parties, would be akin to standing in a corner hoping no one is spying on you. It's fairly easy to intercept unencrypted wi-fi traffic, for example.

The trouble comes in making the distinction between the right to privacy that I believe each of us has or should have, and an illegal activity designed to hinder law enforcement. If I am always, 100% of the time, connected to a VPN to protect my personal information, and then don't purposefully disconnect before committing a crime, would that be considered "deliberately" avoiding being identified? I'd be willing to bet that most people would say that if I was connected to a VPN 100% of the time, that's not "deliberately" avoiding being identified, and is just something of a standard practice for me. What if I connect to the VPN ONLY when I do banking? If I connect 25% of the time I spend online, and happen to commit a crime while using a proxy/vpn, is that deliberate concealment of a crime?

That gray line is what can begin to erode citizens' privacy. If it starts with this, I don't think it's too far-fetched to see legislation that says "if you encrypt illegal information (mp3s/movies), we'll tack on 50% to your sentence". I like to encrypt my laptop because I have information that's sensitive to ME on it, pictures of loved ones, passwords to my e-mail, tax return information, et cetera. If that fell into the wrong hands, my personal life would be severely compromised, even though I have nothing illegal on my computer.

Well... that was a bit rambly... but anyhow, in addition to this, even though it was never really enumerated in the constitution, the supreme court has historically regarded the right to privacy as being an inherent right. Typically, it's attached to either the 9th (enumaration of rights in constitution shall not limit those not mentioned) or 14th (No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States) amendments.

And, for the record, I am pro-government. I don't think that this is what they're intending. However, if everything is just taken on 'good faith' without discussion, that could create considerable gray area that might be a problem in the future. I like my privacy, and don't want to see it go away :)

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably has to do with ROI of police in investigating a crime. From the perspective of resource allocation a masked perpetrator should have to pay for increasing the difficulty of the investigation. This is more the product of bureaucracy or legal scholasticism than justice.

Interestingly, masks are popular with paramilitary police units. Apparently they wear them just because they are strictly penalized in the criminal population, like cops who carry switchblades. Or are they modified executioner's hoods?

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[DerekLyons]

Most people don't unknowingly wear a mask during their day to day activities. The same can't be said of network proxies.

While not unknowingly, some wear masks for safety reasons (paint sprayers, hazardous materials, motorcycling).

But the people who wear them for safety reasons, don't wear them into banks and don't wear them with the intent to conceal their identity.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[shutdown -p now]

It probably has to do with ROI of police in investigating a crime. From the perspective of resource allocation a masked perpetrator should have to pay for increasing the difficulty of the investigation.

Given than sticking the guy into the prison for longer actually costs more in taxes, this sounds rather pointless. Unless by "pay" you mean "made to suffer".

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[nabsltd]

I personally would look at the third amendment (protection from unreasonable searches/seizures) as giving me the right to obfuscate my activity from such unreasonable searches and seizures.

If you have a bunch of soldiers in your house, unreasonable search and seizure is the least of your worries.

I believe you meant the 4th Amendment, although the US is heading down the road where we might seriously have to worry about violations of the 3rd Amendment.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Xiozhiq]

Ugh... sigh... yeah that's the one, 4th not 9th.

Apologies. In the midst of schoolwork while writing that, must've gotten distracted.

Thanks for the correction ^^

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[bitt3n]

what if you wear a mask, but the mask is of your own face? I almost want to rob a bank just so I can see what the supreme court would say.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Opportunist]

Not in every country. Wearing a mask during a protest is a punishable offense in some parts of Europe.

In other words, yeah, you may protest and exercise your right to free speech, but we wanna know who dared to.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[stonewallred]

http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2001/07/15/loc_anti-mask_laws_are.html check your facts at least a little. It is illegal to wear masks in many places in public in the USA.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are not doing anything illegal, why are you worried about the government looking at your stuff?

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in certain states (Georgia for one), wearing a mask in public that covers your entire face is a crime.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Tejin]

Khalid Khulaif Alhardbi is charged with hostage taking, assault causing bodily harm and wearing a mask during an offence. source

In Nova Scotia at least, wearing a mask during a crime gets you stiffer penalties.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[bws111]

I think if you are behind a proxy you 'didn't know you were using' when you committed identity theft, bank fraud, or accessed a federal or financial computer without authorization, that comes under the category of 'too bad'.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Ash-Fox]

In other words, yeah, you may protest and exercise your right to free speech, but we wanna know who dared to.

There is a paradox in asking a masked man who he is.

However, if you want some pictures of masked protesters, here you go.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Anonymous Coward]

This kind of stuff goes back to Hammurabi, basically if you know you're breaking the law and you break it, that's worse than doing it by accident. If you know you're breaking the law and you do something to conceal the fact and make it harder to investigate, that's worse than just breaking the law. What's that hangup?

FWIW, the serious cyber criminals all use proxies, sometimes multiple proxies. It's all pretty simple really, how many casual users accidentally break the law in the first place? Nobody is proposing to ban proxies. Nobody is criminalizing proxies or suggesting their use implies guilt.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[kalirion]

They do wear dark sunglasses though.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Anonymous Coward]

here in holland wearing a mask without appearant reson will result in the police stopping you and asking you to remove it, so they can see your face. Afterwards your free to put it up again, only to encounter the next police patrol doing the same.

Our police does consider this a suspicious behavior. I don't.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Todd Knarr]

And if you happen to unknowingly be behind a proxy when you commit the heinous crime of publishing proof of a television station's copyright infringement against you? Or happen to be Julie Amero?

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Ninesmith]

In Nixon's fifth term masks were made illegal.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[frosty_tsm]

What if they walk into a bank on a really cold day? Or there is a blizzard?

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[Ninesmith]

Now, masks aren't banned - you are totally free to wear one in public. Wearing a mask is neither a crime nor suspicious behavior that can be used as evidence of a crime by itself.

Wrong. During Nixon's third term masks were made illegal.

Re:Different from wearing a mask?

[sbeckstead]

Ok look there is a cost for privacy. There is no prohibition from concealment here. There is no erosion of rights or privacy. If you are being hidden and committing no crime for which you can be convicted (there are specific ones here) all is well. If you are being hidden and do commit the crimes, and get convicted then yes this would apply because you were hiding while committing this crime. I don't see why people don't understand this it's for god's sake not rocket science. It even allows you the right to be private during the commission of these crimes just that it is going to cost more than if you weren't hiding. I don't see why people are so damned concerned about a sentencing recommendation for a crime they never plan to commit while hiding or not. If you do plan to commit these crimes I don't want to know but you deserve to get everything they can throw at you including the increased sentencing for hiding while doing it.

Re:Don't break da lew and you don't worry then

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

"Those who have nothing to say have nothing to fear."

(Unfortunately, they tend to spend a lot of time saying so.)

Re:"Privacy advocates"

[pentalive]

I suppose your posting this anonymously is part of the joke?

The point of proxies in crime...

[Anonymous Coward]

....would be to not be traced and hence get away with it. If that fails then it would be due to incompetance with the technology hence the opposite of sophistication, so by definition they would have to be innocent of the additional offence n'es pa?

ianal of course, and since when has the law followed common sense so this is almost certainly wrong.

Re:The point of proxies in crime...

[tjonnyc999]

*n'est ce pas

*IANAL. Acronym. "ianal" sounds like an Apple Corp. sex toy. :D

This just in....

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's imagine you buy a gun, and take steps to do it anonymously. You go out of state to a place that lets you evade checks. What do you think the police are going to think?

This is nothing new, and nothing exceptional.

Re:This just in....

[Calydor]

WTF does it matter what the police thinks if I'm not doing anything illegal?

Re:This just in....

[sbeckstead]

Give that person a lolipop, why did you bother to post?

Re:This just in....

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed, it doesn't matter what they think unless there's some crime involved.

Re:This just in....

[DerekLyons]

That's the point that you and pretty much the rest of the commenters seem to miss... And the AC hits squarely on the head. They don't care if you are doing nothing illegal. They do care when you are doing something otherwise legal in the furtherance of committing a crime because it shows intent.

Re:This just in....

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think the police are going to think?
I don't give a rip. If I'm not committing a crime (of course with Congress passing ex post facto laws these days who really knows what crimes one's committed?) it's none of their damn business. This is just one more example of the legal system run amok.

I'm just glad there are still a few sensible states that allow the purchase of firearms for cash that do not require record keeping. I really don't want the Government to know that I do/do not have weapons that can be used to check a tyrannical regime.

Re:This just in....

[Logic Worshipper]

If you shoot something or someone, you have 0 right to anonymity, whether it's a person or a street sign. Illegal downloading isn't murder, but doing something with the intent to commit murder, or to hide committing murder, should be illegal.

Re:This just in....

[Anonymous Coward]

You're doing something illegal...you just don't know it yet!

Re:Don't break da lew and you don't worry then

[svnt]

I really think the AC was confused and just understandably concerned about toilets continuing to function.

Is This So Horrible?

[immcintosh]

Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't really care about this, but as far as I'm concerned using a proxy (at least intentionally) IS sophistication. This is just the legal system realizing that pre-existing rules can be sensibly applied to internet crime as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Is This So Horrible?

[ogdenk]

That's like saying using a gun in an armed robbery constitutes sophistication. No, it's standard practice.

Or sending cocaine in an opaque envelope with no return address instead of a clearly marked bag labeled Cocaine with the perp's social security number is "sophisticated".

Using a proxy is much simpler than the crime itself, all you do is google "proxy", and type a URL.

Using it to proxy your SSH connection to your employer when you wipe the servers takes a little sophistication so that might apply.

Using a web proxy to post anonymous information on a forum or web site is NOT sophisticated. It's standard practice and should be protected as such. Just because governments are abusing their citizens and are being caught, doesn't mean I deserve 25% more time for using a proxy to post it.

We already have computer trespassing laws. If they want tougher sentences, why not just amend those with harsher sentences? We already have laws against releasing sensitive government data? Why not just amend those with harsher sentences?

This is the kinda crap I'm getting tired of. We have so many laws that you have no idea if the cop is lying to you about your supposed "crime" when your arrested. Everything in some form or fashion is against the law somewhere in this country and it's getting stupid.

Any time someone says "There should be a law!", chances are they are wrong and one already exists to punish that offender anyway.

I have a bad feeling this exists solely for "selective enforcement".

Re:Is This So Horrible?

[stonewallred]

just reminding you what to say when a cop tries to talk to you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc very interesting

Re:Is This So Horrible?

[pnuema]

Using a web proxy to post anonymous information on a forum or web site is NOT sophisticated

Nor is it illegal. However, I take issue with it not being sophisticated. It is something the average internet user can't spell, much less understand why they need to use it. It may not be sophisticated to you, but to my dad it is fucking magic.

Re:Is This So Horrible?

[ogdenk]

BS..... Your average 7th grader knows how to use one to get on MySpace in the school computer lab. They might not understand how it really works but they can definitely use it.

The proliferation of massive amounts of private proxy servers has rendered my content filter at a local college where I teach (as well as being the SysAdmin) pretty much useless. Not that I care much, I just put it in place to cut down on gay porn and video streaming with our limited bandwidth (a single T-1 with >200 users).

Your dad is most likely fairly old and probably doesn't fully understand how to copy a file using Windows explorer much less understand anything about networking.

This will end up applying to any "cyber" crime

[socalmtb]

Anyone who is going to commit a crime online is going to use a proxy. Maybe many proxies. Unless they're stupid and want to get caught really quickly. Why don't they just increase the penalty for the base crime 25% and leave the proxies out of it.

Re:This will end up applying to any "cyber" crime

[sbeckstead]

Damn I was going to reply to this but my reply turned out to be stupider than the posters statement and question.

Re:This will end up applying to any "cyber" crime

[Anonymous Coward]

Because then they can't squeeze the proxy provider on conspiracy charges.

Away! Into our submarine!

[nebopolis]

We must flee this tyrannical legal system in our army of privately owned submarines! oh wait, they though of that: page 30, PROPOSED AMENDMENT: SUBMERSIBLE VESSELS The Act creates a new offense at 18 U.S.C. Â 2285 (Operation of Submersible Vessel or Semi-Submersible Vessel Without Nationality), which provides: âoeWhoever knowingly operates, or attempts or conspires to operate, by any means, or embarks in any submersible vessel or semi-submersible vessel that is without nationality and that is navigating or has navigated into, through, or from waters beyond the outer limit of the territorial sea of a single country or a lateral limit of that country's territorial sea with an adjacent country, with the intent to evade detection, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.â

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Chyeld]

Drug running. That part I can actually understand.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Anonymous Coward]

Submarines crossing the Arizona border would be pretty damn impressive, wouldn't it?

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Jafafa Hots]

well, unless you actually think about the how much sense the "war on drugs" makes in the first place.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[aynoknman]

We must flee this tyrannical legal system in our army of privately owned submarines! oh wait, they though of that:

I thought that an army of privately owned submarines would be a navy

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[MadnessASAP]

I personally lead a hell of war agaisnt drugs. Why not last Saturday not only ground parts of the cannabis plant into very small pieces and proceeded to abuse them by packign them very tightly together, I lit them on fire. I take to ridding the world of all drugs quite often using similar techniques it's a wonder I haven't received more recognition for my truely valiant efforts.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[joocemann]

well, unless you actually think about the how much sense the "war on drugs" makes in the first place.

If most people actually tried to *think*, we wouldn't have these stupid laws in the first place. ... back to Family Guy reruns and a good helping of Fox News.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Lumpy]

Honeslty it only causes people to be more insidious. if I want to do something "illegal" online, I'm going to starbucks.

Also this new "law" is only to criminalize the common citizen. Hackers, ones that are real not the ankle biter wanna-be's, have ALWAYS used not only a proxy but a different location, you dont hack from your home unless you are a complete moron. well you dont download your Mp3's and movies from home. build a nice high gain dish antenna and steal wifi to do your mp3 and movies. if you make it mobile and know what you are doing you can go to multiple locations and suck it up. Hotels are a great place to grab the free Wifi this way and sit and download that new album that the police will send you to jail for.

Also, get yourself a "dirty" laptop. something that you can ditch and not have anything that can identify it as yours. Great idea is a laptop that has a easily removed hard drive. Think the heat is on? snatch the drive, dump the laptop (bonus points for having a decoy HDD to slap in it.) and now you can stash a 2.5" drive easily. cops dont have hard drive sniffing dogs yet.

Because your government hates you, you need to adopt the tools and techniques of the past pioneers that figured it out before you. You gotta treat everything as suspect, be random in your open AP's that you use, and dont get lazy.

They hate you and will be happy if you are rotting in jail. Dont give them the chance in capturing you, and be sure you can destroy your evidence if you are cornered.

I'm not overblowing this, this kind of crap is only going to get worse. Many innocent people will be forced to become criminals because of more and more corrupt laws like this.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Shakrai]

If most people actually tried to *think*, we wouldn't have these stupid laws in the first place

Actually the problem with half our laws is people thinking too damn much, IMHO. If we just legislate X, then Y will go away/be solved/cease to be a problem. Perhaps our legislators should stop thinking, stop legislating and just enjoy the DC cocktail circuit while leaving the rest of us the hell alone?

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Shakrai]

Also, get yourself a "dirty" laptop. something that you can ditch and not have anything that can identify it as yours. Great idea is a laptop that has a easily removed hard drive.

Of course for the price of that laptop you just ditched you could probably have bought a lot of $0.99 tracks on iTunes and saved yourself the hassle ;)

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Shakrai]

I take to ridding the world of all drugs quite often using similar techniques it's a wonder I haven't received more recognition for my truely valiant efforts

Be careful looking for such recognition. Two goons might show up and piss on your rug or something. Just sayin', it's been known to happen after you wage the 'War on Drugs' for a few hours ;)

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[cayenne8]

"Of course for the price of that laptop you just ditched you could probably have bought a lot of $0.99 tracks on iTunes and saved yourself the hassle ;)"

I dunno, you can get laptops dirt cheap on eBay

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Bluesy21]

Ve vant ze money, Lebowski.

Ja, uzzervize ve kill ze girl.

Ja, it seems you have forgotten our little deal, Lebowski.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Shikaku]

Just like they did with New Orleans?

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Of course for the price of that laptop you just ditched you could probably have bought a lot of $0.99 tracks on iTunes and saved yourself the hassle ;)

Yeah? 99 cents for X-Men Origins Wolverine? Wow.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Hojima]

Yea except the crime committed was (FTA):

The dorm room search stemmed from an investigation into who sent an email to a Boston College mailing list alleging that another student was gay.

Read it for yourself. I was stunned. Things have gone from this:
Johnny: Teacher, Joe called me gay
Teacher: Johnny STFU no one cares
To this:
Johnny: Teacher, Joe called me gay
Teacher:*cuffs Joe*

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[someone1234]

Yes, practicing criminals surely sell their dirtied laptops dirt cheap on eBay.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe the FBI busted the stolen identity black market guy by setting up wi-fi honey pots by where he lived because they noticed all the IPs were near that location.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[LiENUS]

cops dont have hard drive sniffing dogs yet.

I wouldn't count on that. They have cellphone sniffing dogs already. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out they have hard drive sniffing dogs.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[SupremoMan]

well, unless you actually think about the how much sense the "war on drugs" makes in the first place.

For the politicians, it made absolute sense, because their constituents liked the idea of "getting tough on crime." Weather it works or not, that's not their concern.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Opportunist]

Good question. If they can leave us the hell alone when we need them, why can't they when we don't?

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Opportunist]

I'd also recommend using that laptop with surgical gloves only (they don't get in the way as much as most other gloves), just to be sure about prints.

Aside of that, it's not the hacker such a law is after. Nobody cares about them. Catching them is way too much work for way too little PR effect. Do you have the faintest idea how much work it is to dig up someone who knows what he's doing? I've done it. Way too much work. For way too little reward or effect. Unless someone like this really pisses off some important company (or other institution), nobody will care.

It's Joe Filesharer and similar people this is aiming at. Think back about 10 years, to the onset of Napster and FTPs. Did anyone care? Nah. It was something a handful of people used to move a few MP3s around. Joe was buying CDs back then and probably didn't even know what that Interwebthingie is (aside from hearing here or there that there's some really freaky pr0n to find there and he should prolly check it out). Most FTP/P2P users were from universities. FTP servers were set up in server rooms, nobody cared, and there was a terabyte of "nice" stuff to have, sitting behind a fat pipe, same for every other university I had contact with... good times.

Did anyone care? Nah. The amount of people was minimal. A few college and university students. Nobody else. CD sales were still high, by far not all students even knew about it (or cared about it), the Joes "out there" didn't know jack about it, and the RIAA didn't blow it out of proportion because, well, what student buys CDs anyway?

Laws like these aim at the Joes. Not at people knowing what they're doing. Again, way too much effort for way too little effect.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[supernova_hq]

Only if you can get them to water. Otherwise they are just very inefficient cars.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Opportunist]

Calling someone a homosexual is now a jailable offense? That's so gay!

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Opportunist]

Only if they're stupid.

You'd be amazed what you can find on used laptops if you know a bit about forensics. Even without CSI-esque equipment. Most people think that deleting something erases it.

Yes, even criminals. Well, the stupid ones at least.

Detach yourself from the idea that a "computer criminal" has to be a "hacker" in the old fashion sense (not the sense the media spews today). Computer crime is not an "art" anymore, it's a business. A trade if you want. A lot of the forensic info we get today is from improperly secured drop machines used by people who dropped a few 100 to 1000 bucks on someone who wrote the attacking tools. They have no idea what they're doing. They get instructions how to set up a server, they get the offer to spread the client with spam mails (no need to do anything yourself, just a little extra cash an infection spam is sent out for you), then they wait for people dumber than even them to get infected and harvest information, which is then in turn used.

And since it gets easier and easier to be a "computer criminal", we also get quite good results hunting them. Hell, they're about as smart as the proverbial bank robber who forgot to bring a bag and uses the paper bag he used as a mask instead to carry the loot.

And that kind of 'criminal' is what laws like that aim at. Copycats and freeloaders. Will you get caught using a proxy to P2P or FTP? Probably not. Will someone who has no idea how proxies work but just pushes buttons because someone said "do this and you're hidden"? Maybe.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[L4t3r4lu5]

You're gay.

Shit.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[EdIII]

I wouldn't count on that. They have cellphone sniffing dogs already. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to find out they have hard drive sniffing dogs.

Aha! I thought of that already... which is why I have a little hard drive case lined with some nice Columbian ground coffee. Ohh, and I shove that up my ass.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[EdIII]

Of course for the price of that laptop you just ditched you could probably have bought a lot of $0.99 tracks on iTunes and saved yourself the hassle ;)

That's if you really think this is about software/media piracy in the first place. Truly, this has nothing to do with music at all. It's the equivalent of "think of the children", when 99.99999999% of the time that is said, they are thinking about EVERYTHING BUT THE CHILDREN.

It's just an excuse. "Think of the MP3's!!!!"

No. This is about control. Who has the information, and who does not have the information.

This has been a long time coming. There are some totalitarian people that just cannot accept the idea of privacy and anonymity actually surviving any longer. They NEED to know who is saying what, where they are, etc.

It can be a politicians, government agents, etc. that actually believe in order to protect the American way of life they must not be thwarted in their goals to have all possible information at their fingertips. The irony that they are destroying freedom, privacy, and anonymity in order to do it is tragically beyond their twisted ideologies. Far scarier, IMO, are the people in government that have no altruistic motives in erasing privacy and anonymity from our society. They truly see it as a means to an end, which is the abuse of the citizens. Not like that has not happened in the past in other countries, and even in ours. Hoover anyone? Shit, even the rest of the government was afraid of Hoover.

Sadly, there are also a growing number of citizens that are against anonymity and privacy since it could be used to possibly hurt someone's feelings or used to libel someone. The ability to see the big picture is well beyond their intellectual capabilities, and they only blindly and passionately see their inability to to attach a name to some MySpace/Facebook flaming session.

Regardless of whether or not it is a misguided, but well intentioned, attempt to protect our dying empire or a more insidious attempt to gain leverage on other people, anonymity and privacy are under attack as the tools by which ordinary people stand in the way of these very un-American agendas.

Welll... that's okay. The War is on. I always knew it was coming. Much like the Americans of our past generations, they can pry my Proxy/TOR out of my cold dead hands.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[SlashWombat]

Honestly, aren't people getting sick of the old "You'd be amazed what you can find on used laptops if you know a bit about forensics. Even without CSI-esque equipment. Most people think that deleting something erases it." Seriously, this was somewhat true with 20 meg, and even 100 meg HDD's, but trawling through a 80 gig or larger HDD looking at "deleted" entries would be dreary in the extreme, I can not believe that many people would even be anal enough to bother, unless they already had some suspicion that there was likely to be a good prize for their effort! Add to this "file fragmentation", and finding a complete document might end up being nearly impossible.

If you don't believe me, just look through the contents of your current hard disk drive. Have fun!

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[stonewallred]

Disagree, don't mod troll. Someone with points should fix this.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Opportunist]

Well, I've been doing just that for a living for a while. If you want to see the seedier parts of the 'net, this is where I'd start looking. Chances are that you find a copy there.

Also, there are tools that can string those fragments together, as well as filter the results to return only what you're looking for. Yes, it is usually when you're already looking for something (so, say, when you're looking for certain pictures you may ignore erased programs, or when you're looking for the infector to a threat you can usually ignore text files (at least those that really are text files)), but hey, if I wasn't morbidly curious, I'd have chosen another job.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[chrismeidinger]

Yep, that's a sure sign that they're still practicing.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup about $40 of them. you dont need anything but a $40.00 P-III laptop to do this stuff.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Shakrai]

Umm, what the hell does New Orleans have to do with my remark? I was complaining about our legislators. Unless you think it's the role of the 535 members of Congress to start filling sandbags (something I'd personally pay to see but don't consider real likely) I don't see what New Orleans has to do with anything.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[SCHecklerX]

New law:

In order to create a new law, you must repeal 2.

Maybe we'd get some sensible laws then.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[AlexBirch]

Perhaps our legislators should stop thinking...
This implies that they are thinking. That's a dangerous assumption.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[spikedvodka]

Don't you realize that that would be the first law that they repealed?

or that failing that, they'd pick 2 laws, bundle them with the third, pass the new omnibus law, and then repeal the 2 chosen ones that would then be included in the omnibus?

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[shakah]

Weather it works or not, that's not their concern.

But they probably do bring an umbrella if they're really worried about the whether.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[sabre86]

New law: In order to create a new law, you must repeal 2. Maybe we'd get some sensible laws then.

I wonder what the first one they'll repeal is? Hmmm.... Maybe we should make it a Constitutional amendment instead.

--sabre86

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope.

With the mandatory ISP tracking, they'll just look at the logs generated to your cable modem. Also they'll look at the MAC address of your wireless card.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[spirality]

These rules are not being written by the legislative branch of government. What exactly is the US Sentencing Commission anyway? What are non-congressional bodies doing making laws? Congress is not empowered to delegate its power to write laws.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[starfishsystems]

On the subject of thinking, it seems ironic that the proposed law punishes people for doing exactly that.

Look, I understand the desire on the part of society for criminals to be dumb. One way to achieve that would be to eliminate all the smart people. Oh, and we'd better make sure to avoid teaching all those courses in Computer Science too, because then people would learn about proxies and stuff.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Cowmonaut]

Legislatures did nothing to contribute to a problem in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina hit. That blame lies solely on the Executive. FEMA was supposed to execute rescue and recovery operations and failed to do so properly.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Anonymous Coward]

That is my new sig. Gracias

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[blhack]

Thank the gods there isn't a way to automate the task!

(in about 10 lines of perl/bash).

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Golddess]

Maybe we should make it a Constitutional amendment instead.

Yeah, that would totally fix the problem of our congresscritters immediately repealing the law, because it's not like you can repeal an amendment.

Sarcasm aside, the beauty (and curse) of this country of ours is that (in theory) we can change the laws however the fuck we want. If we wanted to re-introduce slavery and send the women back to the kitchen and revert ourselves to 18th century living, we could. Anything which would seem to explicitly state that we could not, can be worked around. Thus, the only solution to our crap laws is to stop electing crap politicians.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[sabre86]

Yeah, that would totally fix the problem of our congresscritters immediately repealing the law, because it's not like you can repeal an amendment.

It would fix the problem of Congress repealing a law, because Congress doesn't ratify amendments, the states do. So the amusing self-reference in the grandparent's rule wouldn't occur.

You're mostly right about the election of crap politicians, though. That would be the best solution.

--sabre86

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[LearnToSpell]

Aha! I thought of that already... which is why I have a little hard drive case lined with some nice Columbian ground coffee. Ohh, and I shove that up my ass.

Is that the Hot Coffee mod I keep hearing about?

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[skarphace]

These rules are not being written by the legislative branch of government. What exactly is the US Sentencing Commission anyway? What are non-congressional bodies doing making laws? Congress is not empowered to delegate its power to write laws.

WTF are you talking about? Legislators don't have to write the bills, they just have to sponsor and approve them. This is constitutional law federally, and most, if not all states.

As for the US Sentencing Committee, I have no idea where the hell that came from but this is their purpose, in their own words:

(1) to establish sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts, including guidelines to be consulted regarding the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes; (2) to advise and assist Congress and the executive branch in the development of effective and efficient crime policy; and (3) to collect, analyze, research, and distribute a broad array of information on federal crime and sentencing issues, serving as an information resource for Congress, the executive branch, the courts, criminal justice practitioners, the academic community, and the public.

How they got into your paranoid rant, I can not figure out.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[Hucko]

To use your solution, people need an option. As I understand it, USA does have an option, that is, not to vote. The only problem is that when so little of the population turns out, it is taken as an endorsement of what they have been offered, not a slur on the incompetence of the candidates.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[the_arrow]

Oh man, that rug really tied the room together.

Re:Away! Into our submarine!

[LiENUS]

Aha! I thought of that already... which is why I have a little hard drive case lined with some nice Columbian ground coffee. Ohh, and I shove that up my ass.

I don't want to hear about your honey moon.

so how about just not violating the law

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there wouldn't be a problem, no?

Re:so how about just not violating the law

[Opportunist]

It's getting harder and harder these days, especially with the internet, and especially when copyright or pr0n is in any way involved. And it sure as hell is a nightmare when you're facing copyright AND pornography. You don't even have to have the intention to break the law anymore, visiting the wrong webpage can in some countries already make you a criminal, if for some reason the judge believes the accusing party that you did so intentionally. Now, how do you prove that you didn't do something? Or that you did not have a certain intent (yes, burden of proof on YOU!)?

my "pet peave"

[PotatoSan]

pet peeve

Re:my "pet peave"

[DoofusOfDeath]

pet peeve

D'oh.

Re:my "pet peave"

[JustOK]

It should be D'oh!

Re:my "pet peave"

[Anonymous Coward]

My pet pees while I pet peas.

Re:my "pet peave"

[Thinboy00]

It should be "D'oh!"

There. Fixed that for you (the quote marks; bold-facing didn't work well).

Re:my "pet peave"

[cynical kane]

Actually, it should be (annoyed grunt)

Re:my "pet peave"

[JustOK]

more like a grunt that implies a realization of a simple mistake or result that wasn't as intended, instead of annoyance.

Conversely

[gringofrijolero]

Anybody who goes about screaming, "HEY! Look at me! I'm doing something you don't like!" on the net, with a camera broadcasting your face, name ,and address, will receive a letter of commendation and a gold star from the president.

I have one thing to say to this law-

[moniker127]

And here it is: http://www.bootlegsbypeoplewhocare.net/together/Good_Luck_I'm_Behind_7_Proxies.jpg

blech

[Red Flayer]

Just to restate this in blindingly simple terms -- if someone tries not to get caught when committing a crime, they should be subject to harsher punishment?

Seriously?

So if someone hides a body, he should have an increased jail time (not a decreased jail time for eventually disclosing the location of the body)?

If I fudge my books to embezzle money, I should have an increased jail sentence over someone who just takes the cash and makes no effort to not get caught?

Why are we rewarding stupidity?

I think I know why...

If [PUNISHMENT] times [RISK OF GETTING CAUGHT] is less than [BENEFIT OF CRIME] then [COMMIT CRIME].

Since these criminals using proxies reduce their risk of getting caught, they need to have harsher punishments in order for the punishment to act as a deterrent.

It's hardly fair, though, since the down side of all this is that the legit use of proxies is made to seem like a crime itself. Maybe they need to realize that this formula, while logical, doesn't actually work, since criminals tend to underestimate their risk of getting caught.

Re:blech

[ScrewMaster]

Why are we rewarding stupidity?

I think you only have to look at Congress for an answer to your question.

Re:blech

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason for the harsher sentence is, that sophistication implies some amount of rational plannning, which in turn means that you made a rather concious decision to commit a crime.

Therefore, somebody who commited a crime on the spur of the moment or out of emotional distress does get a lesser sentence than somebody who thought long and hard about what he wants to do and how to avoid the consequences.

To me, this seems like a good thing.

Re:blech

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are we rewarding stupidity?

Didn't you hear, that's part of "hope and change" for all the fools who voted for him.

Re:blech

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is money on a desk and I nick it, it is simple theft. If I convince the rightful owner of the money I am a trustworthy person and will look after his money, and go to length to obscure who I really am, use forged ID etc then this make the theft more sophisticated and would be viewed more harshly.
However thish change may make operators of proxy's or TOR exit points more nervous if they are caught up in a sting.

Re:blech

[BlueParrot]

Just to restate this in blindingly simple terms -- if someone tries not to get caught when committing a crime, they should be subject to harsher punishment?

This is done all the time. If you get into a fight and kill somebody, and then call the police, saying you've done something terrible, apologize to the family etc... you're likely to get a far more lenient sentence than if you've hatched some advanced plot in which you did your very best to hide the body, avoid leaving fingerprints etc... One of these cases will be seen as a tragic case of a disagreement gone wrong, while the other will be seen as you mercilessly planing a vile crime.

The reason this becomes an issue is that it will be applied to things that should not be crimes in the first place, like whistle blowers revealing government corruption and mere accusations of file-sharing of copyrighted material without permission. Essentially the problem is not so much this guideline on its own, but the countless of other stupid things you may be punished for that could be applied in conjunction with it. If the only crimes this would be applied to were things like somebody using a proxy to cover their tracks while trying to break into some company's server, then quite frankly it is fine. However we all know that it will be used by failing industries who try to turn litigation into a business model.

Re:blech

[pnuema]

So if someone hides a body, he should have an increased jail time (not a decreased jail time for eventually disclosing the location of the body)?

Yes. Destruction of evidence.

If I fudge my books to embezzle money, I should have an increased jail sentence over someone who just takes the cash and makes no effort to not get caught?

Yes. It's called fraud.

There is plenty of precedent in our legal system for this. I'm not really sure where the outrage is coming from.

International Use of Proxies

[popo]

Proxy use has become standard among international web surfers for a variety of reasons.

Users in China who are commonly blocked by the so-called "Great Firewall of China" use proxies to circumvent it.

US expats use proxies to watch their favorite shows on Hulu. (Because outside the US you can't access the streams).

Etc.

Making the argument that proxy use is somehow an effort to conceal identity for the purposes of committing a crime overlooks the many obvious (non criminal) uses of proxies.

The argument would never stick in a court of law.

Re:International Use of Proxies

[Anonymous Coward]

Proxy use has become standard among international web surfers for a variety of reasons.

Users in China who are commonly blocked by the so-called "Great Firewall of China" use proxies to circumvent it.

US expats use proxies to watch their favorite shows on Hulu. (Because outside the US you can't access the streams).

Etc.

Making the argument that proxy use is somehow an effort to conceal identity for the purposes of committing a crime overlooks the many obvious (non criminal) uses of proxies.

The argument would never stick in a court of law.

Both of the examples that you have cited are illegal uses of proxies.

I am certain that it is illegal to circumvent the "Great Firewall of China" while within China.

I am also certain that it will violate a ToS to use a proxy to watch shows on Hulu. (Computer trespass, illegal access to data, accessing a computer or network without permission, fraud, etc.)

Re:International Use of Proxies

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Hulu - not so much, it depends on the copyright legislation rules in the country you're in.

In New Zealand, parallel importation is explicitly allowed in their copyright legislation, allowing any and all protection measures to be broken to allow the data to be played back.

Re:International Use of Proxies

[bws111]

Nowhere in this legislation does it say anything about proxy use by itself being a problem. In fact, nowhere does it even mention proxy. What it does say, is that IF YOU ARE CONVICTED of one of 12 specific crimes, they can use 'level of sophistication' to increase your sentence. Simple proxy use might show a little bit of sophistication. Setting up a botnet may show a whole lot of sophistication.

Re:Don't break da lew and you don't worry then

[Cynonamous Anoward]

Don't Tase me Bro!

What does this have to do with the President?

[sweatyboatman]

can anyone explain why this is tagged "Obama" and "Obamerica"?

Seriously, what's with all the anti-Obama-trolling on Slashdot lately?

my town recently increased the fines for speeding! Is that what Obama meant by change?

I thought electing a black man would mean I could commit whatever crimes I wanted without fear of repercussion! This isn't change I can believe in!

Re:What does this have to do with the President?

[Anonymous Coward]

Conservatives are scared yet entertaining children

Re:What does this have to do with the President?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well maybe you should keep in mind that anything that happened in the past 8 years was considered to be the fault of Chimpy McBushitler. No matter what it was the left had to whine about on any given day the blame was laid at directly at his feet.

Now someone else has Chimpy McBushitler's job. Seems only fair that the new guy gets all the blame now.

Turing word: tyranny

oblig serenity reference

[GregNorc]

You can't stop the signal.

Re:oblig serenity reference

[Anonymous Coward]

I still wouldn't have wanted to end up like Mr. Universe even if the signal eventually did get out.

So let's escallate this...

[Baldrson]

Strange we don't see "stiffer sentences" being handed down for more "sophisticated" legal techniques to violate the immigration law or financial fraud.

Perhaps it has something to do with this attitude:

'TV Judge Greg Mathis and filmmaker Matty Rich are teaming up to create game for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 called Mathis âoeDetroitâ Street Judge.'

'The game is expected to be reminiscent of Grand Theft Auto - but with prison rape.'

'Huh?'

'Mathis says his goal as a judge, and as a gamer, is to introduce consequences todayâ(TM)s youth and the best way to do that is through videogames.'

'âoeThe main difference between our game and Grand Theft Auto is that players will have to deal with the justice system and consequences for their actions,â said Mathis.'

'âoeWhen you go to prison, you gain credibility when you come back on the streets. On the other hand, when you go to prison you can also be raped. So take your chances. We may see young people who make the wrong choice and go to prison and are assaulted repeatedly (in this game).â'

I wonder how long before some "geek" responds with a video game where the judges, bureaucrats, politicians and fortune 1000 executives are being killed en masse by the "sophisticated technologists" who got prison raped?

Re:So let's escallate this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you got any viable solution for prison rape?

Maybe complete and total isolation of prisoners from each other? That's about the only possible solution I could envision that would totally eliminate prison rape and it would not be a simple solution or an inexpensive solution. Given the current economy you'd be hard pressed to convince the tax payers to shell out even more money to ensure that someone who broke the law sufficiently to be imprisoned doesn't have to squeak "But I poop from there!"

It may sound harsh but being raped is one of the bad things that can happen to you in prison. Not to mention being beaten up or stabbed or killed. Prisons are bad places full of bad people, some who don't play well with others and some who happen to like hurting other people.

Re:So let's escallate this...

[shermo]

So prison rape is approved by judges as a part of sentencing?

I guess we could have figured that one out, but it's nice to know for sure.

Re:So let's escallate this...

[Thing 1]

It may sound harsh but being raped is one of the bad things that can happen to you in prison. Not to mention being beaten up or stabbed or killed. Prisons are bad places full of bad people, some who don't play well with others and some who happen to like hurting other people.

Actually: prisons are full of non-violent drug users, and a minority population of violent offenders.

The latter routinely abuses the former.

Our society does not get better with harsher penalties for victimless crimes. (Any penalty for a victimless "crime" is too much.)

Re:So let's escallate this...

[Thing 1]

So prison rape is approved by judges as a part of sentencing?

Yeah, last time I was called for jury duty, the judge gave us all "his speech" and in it he mentioned something about PMITA prisons -- not using that acronym or referencing Office Space, but he definitely made us aware that he is aware that he is not only sentencing criminals to rehabilitation, he's also sentencing them to ... inappropriate widening.

I was rather shocked. Not very surprised, since I've heard of this issue since high school if not earlier, and if "lowly me" has heard of it then I'm sure that judges have as well -- however, I was shocked at the way he conveyed his awareness of the issue to us.

Re:So let's escallate this...

[PPH]

TV Judge Greg Mathis and filmmaker Matty Rich are teaming up to create game for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 called Mathis Detroit Street Judge.

What!? No Linux version? I guess they're not targeting the 'sophisticated' criminal after all.

Complaints from Mac users in 3....2....1

Re:So let's escallate this...

[shutdown -p now]

I wonder how long before some "geek" responds with a video game where the judges, bureaucrats, politicians and fortune 1000 executives are being killed en masse by the "sophisticated technologists" who got prison raped?

That sounds like a wonderful setting for the next Postal game, actually. Though that one probably wouldn't have many humorous lines in it...

Re:So let's escallate this...

[stonewallred]

15 years in the NCDOC and I saw only three rapes. And all of them were the end result of a escalating series of various incidents(take the guy's stuff, take the guy's stuff the next week and smack him, take the guy's stuff the next week, smack him and beat him down, then same thing and then rape him.)Usually what is portrayed on TV concerning prison is usually wrong. Rape will happen, but it is not an everyday event, and the common sense approach of not allowing someone to take a small amount of advantage of you usually prevents a larger amount from being taken from you.

Re:So let's escallate this...

[Baldrson]

Give priority to prisoner preferences for wings, cell blocks and cell mates, and the vast majority of nonconsentual activity will disappear.

Also, accept invitations from foreign governments, under extradition treaties, to take those prisoners off your hands that consent to transfer to those countries. Of course this requires actual enforcement of immigration laws.........

sounds like double standards to me...

[3seas]

that the government can spy on us but we can't spy on them....

Wait a minute, government for the people by the people....

Seems the government has gone arrogant...

Re:Equal time for equal crime?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the principle of "equal time for equal crime". I know it is a far from perfect, but this seems to contradict the concept of "precedence" whereby other criminals can get fairer treatment by citing the punishments other people got. The system seems to be no longer punishing the crime but seems to be punishing people for legal actions which are irrelevant to the crime.

But who are we kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

What is TOR for? Really. In a free country, what draconian gov't rules do I need to work around? I can't say bad things about the gov't? Wait, no.

Oh yeah. Kiddie porn.

I know, it CAN be used for evading China's firewall, but running a tor node in a free country is a red flag indicating you might just be doing something like kiddie porn. And with 100% certainly you will be facilitating:

http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org.uk/blog/2009/03/passion-and-dalliance-blog-why-you-need-balls-of-steel-to-operate-a-tor-exit-nod.html

Re:But who are we kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you.

Re:But who are we kidding

[DamienNightbane]

If I had mod points I'd mod that insightful.

Re:But who are we kidding

[Deus.1.01]

At the moment i can walk out my door without anybody being able to register me leaving or my destination.

Wouldnt it be nice to have the option on the internet?

Re:But who are we kidding

[mrrudge]

* Laughs at anonymous posting saying that using the internet anonymously means you're a pedophile.

You're using anonymity to communicate an idea that you're afraid of reprisals from, which nullifies your argument absolutely.

Please think before spreading the latest reds/gays/drugs/pedophiles-under-the-beds hysteria, if you can't understand the concepts being discussed ( and it unfortunately seems you can't ) really, just STFU. Coward.

Re:But who are we kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't associate pedophiles with communists and gays. As a pedophile, it offends me to be grouped with them.

Re:Don't break da lew and you don't worry then

[AvitarX]

This looks like a BS way to tack on sentencing, much like paraphernalia charges in drug cases.

All the sudden your little plastic bag is illegal to poses, and god forbid they catch you with a pipe that can hold stuff hotter than burning tobacco.

Government is as Government does.

[geekmux]

that the government can spy on us but we can't spy on them....

Wait a minute, government for the people by the people....

Seems the government has gone arrogant...

Welcome to America, circa post-9/11.

This isn't really anything new, just a continuation of the erosion of our privacy that's been increasing at a faster rate since 9/11, that's all. I'm not even going to waste my time in attempting to put blame on any particular party either. We would likely be reading about this regardless of who is sitting in the White House.

Oh, and you can forget about that "for the people, by the people" stuff. Seems like the last time that held any standing in Congress was when the author was still alive.

Re:Government is as Government does.

[freedom_india]

The Rot started with Nixon.
If stupid Gerald Ford hadn't pardoned Nixon, none of this would happen.
The mood of the nation at that time was fury at Nixon. He should have been jailed for breaking the law.
Ford's pardon showed to future Presidents and Vice-Presidents that they can escape away with breakig the law.
Stupid Ford. It serves him right he was defeated in next election.

Re:Don't break da lew and you don't worry then

[hairyfeet]

I wish! As someone who has lived most of his life on the wrong side of the tracks and dared to hang with blacks and bikers I can tell you that being tased would probably be considered nice treatment. It is more like "please don't rip my arms out of the socket bending my arms backward and then cracking my head with a nightstick because I dare to struggle when my shoulders pop out of socket". If you are tased it is usually because they are fat and or lazy. Most like their clubs and boots.

Remember the guy in high school that just LOVED to bully and would crack someone upside the head for being different? That person is now a law enforcement officer. Tasing? Probably would be considered light treatment by some of the thugs with badges I've run into. There are some mean motor scooters running around out there wearing a badge. For them, nothing says "I AM THE LAW" like their boots and nightstick. That is why you see those two things used in so many videos.

First Things Let's Do...

[DynaSoar]

A proxy serves to protect the initiator by acting on its behalf. It represents the initiator to the source being addressed.

Lawyers are proxies for their clients.

Being represented by a lawyer is a 'sophistication' and should lead to a harsher sentence.

Lest one think that "in committing a crime" doesn't apply, consider that a person swears to tell "the whole truth", that not doing so is lying which is perjury, and that the lawyer representing the person attempts to promote one particular version of the truth, thus not "the whole truth". A lawyer perjures on behalf of their client, and the ubiquitous "or causes to" term can be applied, making the client responsible for the perjury committed by the lawyer.

Re:First Things Let's Do...

[abigsmurf]

Which is why pleading guilty usually results in a lighter sentence.

Re:First Things Let's Do...

[Anonymous Coward]

A Lawyer can't say he's representing an anonymous person in a trial. He's representing an actual person, who's known and charged with some crime. But the point of contention here is that one is forcing anonymity before committing a crime; trying to hide one's tracks.

Re:Don't break da lew and you don't worry then

[sbeckstead]

I don't see where this has anything to do with the loss of privacy? you are welcome to use a proxy if you like, they are not outlawed by this suggestion for sentencing. If you commit a crime while enjoying your privacy however we will throw a slightly larger book at you.

shave dose feet Bro

[Anonymous Coward]

And left to you lonesome will bully do

Or, alto da yackof with foot

NAT

[QuietLagoon]

Does Network Address Translation (performed by most DSL and cable modems) count as being a proxy? NAT hides the true IP address of my PC. Do AOL's HTTP proxies count as a proxy? (I don't see a happy ending for this.)

Who wrote this amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

God, I'm sick of this bullshit. What's up with the faceless entity making the laws in this country? Have the common courtesy and decency to put your name against it! Who writes this stuff? We really need a source code management system for everything. No changes get made to laws, sentencing guidelines or otherwise without a name attached to it.

Good in Idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Concern in implementation.

Seriously, if you are trying to hide from cyber police, you deserve more of a punishment.

2 people get pulled over. one evaded cops using a seconds car but got caught. the other just pulled over. Which deserves a harsher fine?

Raping a girl with a gun gives you a LOT longer sentance than raping one without a gun. Granted, both are stupid to do and mean and deserve a long jailtime, but having a gun withouy does and should make your sentence longer.

Re:Good in Idea

[Logic Worshipper]

"Having it with you" isn't the issue. Holding it to her head is.

Re:Don't break da lew and you don't worry then

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, and silence is golden..

What's your point, pal?

Disincentivize?

[rueger]

God. Can we please "disincentivize" with extreme prejudice anyone who uses bizarre words like "disincentivize?"

And I am trying desperately to ignore "Others fear this may lead to 'cruel and unusual punishments' as Internet and cell phone providers often use proxies without users' knowledge to reroute Internet traffic."

Say what???

Re:Disincentivize?

[TechnoLuddite]

I'd have to agree.

Phrasonyms like "disincentivize" have de-optomated the English languagization.

Your first mistake as assuming you had rights...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

At this point the Easter bunny is more real than the American dream.

They (those in power) will tell you what to do. You will do it, or pay the price. Aww dont like it? What are you gonna do? Vote for one of the two parties we provide you? You do know that its rigged right? This whole thing is a fucking lie.

Who would push for such a law?

[Jewfro_Macabbi]

"So much of the initial challenge in an investigation is determining attribution - where are the transmissions coming from?" Michael DuBose, chief of the computer crime and intellectual property section of the Justice Department's criminal division, said in an interview..."

You wouldn't steal a car, and you won't download a mp3 via proxy - as the prison sentence will be the same.

Re:Who would push for such a law?

[Anonymous Coward]

The prison sentence for the mp3 might be shorter, but you could buy several cars with the fine you'll pay if the RIAA gets it's way.

In Effect already In Effect?

[__aajoqa250]

How can the decision to put this into effect already be decided before it has been voted in?

I don't care.

[Corxeaus]

You're behind 7 proxies or maybe seven masks. By the time you do something even more incredibly stupid, costing a plethora of resources and time and tax payers' monies, I hope you spend the next 140 years in prison.

so punish people for having more Intelligence?

[lpq]

Dumb criminals are easier to catch, so they get lower sentence times? Sounds like republicans trying to put more democrats in jail - republican states - country bumpkins, not sophisticated, but "them 'city-dwellin' sophisticated types -- thems we got to put behind bars longer!"

A great deal of our laws and penalties are decided upon what group of people will be most targetted. They've targetted race and religions in the past, and they've gone after political affiliations in the past 30, most obviously under Bush, where they deliberately fired Liberal leaning attorneys, and tried to only place conservo-loyalists, under their summer intern program, where they filtered out anyone with liberal keywords in their name, and even based on, the now public campaign contribution lists, democratic-party donors were targetted by Bush in his first as well.

Too often liberals are all focused on their own issues and forget to watchout for their fellow "non-conservatives". Prison, sentencing, and penalties all need major reform at the Federal and in my state (CA). The sentencing is harmful to society as a whole and our country won't be able to support the ever increasing prison load in addition to our other financial burdens.

I don't know about nation-wide, but in California, a sizable junk of our state budget has to go to prison building and prison/prisoner maintenance, and CA is ALREADY guilty of prisoner abuse with the state operating prisons at 200% of holding capacity. It's been that way for years and has been getting worse. Don't even think about health care for prisoners. It took a federal judge ordering the state to spend money for health care for prisons to get it allocated, and another ruling has ordered CA to reduce it's prison population to "only" about 133% of capacity. Following the judges order would involve releasing 57,000 inmates.

Of course many of the prisoners are in for non-violent, mandatory drug offenses, which is probably the single largest part of the prison population these days (grown since Bush-I implemented 0-tolerance). The federal prison system doubled its population during the Clinton years due to the mandatory drug sentencing (another reneged promise), predominantly affects blacks, and liberals. I don't know if it is still true, but during the Clinton era, the fastest growing segment of prison population were women, because the male drug-dealers used their women-girlfriends as couriers, thinking they'd be less likely to get caught. That sure backfired. Dunno if the first-timer rate has declined for women or not.

It's a sucky and corrupt system along with other parts of our government.

and keep in mind

[vaporland]

prosecutors will explain it as the manipulation of a series of tubes, and the rhubarbs on the jury will go "uh-huh, guilty, I saw the same thing on CSI when they hacked Second Life..."

This will cause a chilling effect

[Space_Pirate_Arrr]

If you're doing something that is in a grey area legally, you'd better not use a proxy in case it turns out to be illegal.

In fact, you should think wice about using a proxy at all. Since we all probably commit minor crimes occasionally, accidentally.

Using a proxy now exposes you to risk, which must be weighed against the risk of not using one.

Perhaps this is aimed at preventing the establishment of ubiquitous proxy usage.

   

Re:This will cause a chilling effect

[Opportunist]

Are you aware how often you're using a proxy? Do you know of every single program you use whether or not it uses proxies? And do you think that Joe Average out there can find out whether his programs use proxies?

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

So true. I really already fear what will happen in the next years.

I, for one, welcome our fascist overlords!

[Anonymous Coward]

I, for one, welcome our fascist overlords!

The saddest part of 1984 is that it wasn't fiction.

Talk about ironic, my captcha is "repress". Sigh.

Re:I, for one, welcome our fascist overlords!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a big fan of 1984 and the lessons one can take away from it, but I think what often gets overlooked is that the only people subject to total surveillance and control are the Inner Party and Outer Party members, who together only constitute about 15% of the population. The proles, or lower class, are left pretty much alone to do whatever they want in their poverty. In that respect, the parallel to 1984 that people often point to is not as exact as people say it is.

Terminology?

[janrinok]

'politicians' 'criminals' - aren't they one and the same in America?

While I don't like it

[Andtalath]

It sounds legally sound. If you are indeed doing everything you can to cover up what you are doing, you show yourself extremely aware that you are in fact doing something illegal. Sure, this can bring about loads of problems, just saying that the legal principle seems very sound.

Re:Don't break da lew and you don't worry then

[L4t3r4lu5]

Please, leave your rational thought and ability to parse sentences correctly at home.

This is SlashDot, where sensationalism and blind group-mentality are paramount.

You just watch me get modded flamebait / troll.

This is all getting a little silly

[L4t3r4lu5]

What gap in legislation does this law seek to close?

Fairly soon, there's going to be a pretty big market for Linux hackers who will put together a Netbook OS with MAC randomisation and Tor / VPN tunnelling by default shipped on a write-protected drive with a hi-gain USB wireless transceiver.

Oh, and a quickly-removable battery for that "Quick, freeze the RAM!" trick.

Heads you're a terrorist, tails you're a pedophile

[Hognoxious]

But 25% more of 0 time spent in jail is still 0. Don't do illegal sh** on your proxy and you'll be fine.

It'll only be a matter of time before using a proxy is a crime by itself, or at least carries some form of assumed guilt (like remaining silent does in the UK).

After all, you wouldn't be going to all that trouble if you weren't doing something wrong, would you?

Re:Don't break da lew and you don't worry then

[f()rK()_Bomb]

wow man, those are some crazy laws your country has, ive been raided before, and they left grinders, pipes, scales and other stuff around, only took the drugs.

It already happend: Shrub did it

[Anonymous Coward]

Sacked outed or removed people for unpopular opinions (AGW is real and we must do something about it).

Made protest at a political rally illegal (Free Speech zones).

Gitmo.

Executive orders.

In Other News

[dufachi]

Criminals who do not leave business cards with full contact information will now fall under the "sophistication" law as well for attempting to hide their identity while committing a crime.

Seriously, how is using a proxy any different than "covering your tracks" by using a mask, burning your shoes, destroying the weapon, using gloves, shredding documents, etc.?

Democrats were pro freedom ?

[unity100]

now then ? what happened to all the campaign promises of free speech, individual freedoms, liberties and whatnot ?

Don't Tread On Me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get your Don't Tread On Me flag today ;)

What About 7 Proxies?

[Chlorine Trifluoride]

Will it lead to 175% longer sentences?

Classic

[kenp2002]

Wow the Nazi's would be proud...

"Those that are willing to trade security for freedom deservers neither..."

Face it: we get the government we deserve. We keep electing the same two parties who's sole mission is to control our lives, one through business and one through government, and in the end both take away our freedoms.

We have entered a new age of feudalism, with Goverment as King, Businesses as the Fiefs, the inbred executive kabal as the Lords, the lawyers have replaced the knights, and we now have become the new pesantry.

RIP Freedom.

Just noise

[jandersen]

Certain people are always generating exasperated noises over anything governments or judges do; I wonder if it happens as a reflex, simply?

I think the basic reasoning behind this is easy to follow: if a person does something wrong, it may be because it was by mistake, but if they try to cover their tracks, that defense a whole lot harder. I can't see that using a proxy server as such is going to be an aggravating circumstance; only if it designed in such a way that it is obvious that it meant to make users anonymous and hard to track.

Re:Just noise

[Todd Knarr]

Why would they do that, though? If they're going to prosecute you for something, why wouldn't they add any aggravating circumstance they legally can? The law doesn't saw the proxy has to be used intentionally or by design, so why would a prosecutor add that additional requirement to their evaluation when they don't have to? Leaving the aggravating circumstance off doesn't help them, in fact it may hurt them by removing a bit of bargaining leverage they could use to get you to accept a plea-bargain.

My position: if they didn't intend the law to apply that way, they wouldn't have written it that way. They did write it that way. Conclusion: they intend it to apply that way and will apply it that way whenever it benefits them to do so.

Don't Tread On Me!

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting video from VforVendetta channel ;)

Logic failure.

[DaveV1.0]

[The government is telling people] ... if you take normal steps to protect your privacy, we're going to view you as a more sophisticated criminal

does not follow from

The new federal rules would make the use of proxy servers count as 'sophistication' in a crime

Using a proxy to hide one's identity during the commission of a crime does show 'sophistication' as it shows a sophisticated knowledge of the crime and techniques to avoid detection and/or capture.

First time I heard that.

[Demonantis]

I think this is the first time someone has ever called me sophisticated.

Slashdot is guilty of same...

[Areyoukiddingme]

Post anonymously on Slashdot, be branded a coward. Even Slashdot is already inculcating an attitude of disdain and disregard for anonymity.

Superficially, anyway. Ok, it's actually sarcastic, and it won't be a true negative until somebody decides that anonymous posts can't be modded up. Until then, it's fairly benign, while being eeeever so slightly negative.

use of tools

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone beats man to death with fists

Then he beats them quicker with a hammer
This too implies sophistication?

YA ok...

By Neruos

[Anonymous Coward]

Using a proxy in a crime is no different then wearing a mask or a wig. So people who do crimes under that pretense should get harsher sentences before people with virtual crimes become targets.