Slashdot Mirror
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."
Just what the country with the world's highest incarceration rates needs, longer sentences!
Let's get tough on crime!
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.
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.
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.
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.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
WTF does it matter what the police thinks if I'm not doing anything illegal?
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
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].
If you can't be good, be good at it!
Perhaps it has something to do with this attitude:
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?
Seastead this.
well, unless you actually think about the how much sense the "war on drugs" makes in the first place.
This space available.
Let's not dilute "cruel and unusual"
We've decided torture is ok, how much more dilute can it get?
This space available.
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.
Why bother
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 ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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!
Good question. If they can leave us the hell alone when we need them, why can't they when we don't?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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".