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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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...

[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...

[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.

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

[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.

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!

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"

[Jafafa Hots]

Let's not dilute "cruel and unusual"

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

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.

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!

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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: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.)

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....

[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: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".

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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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!

[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]

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

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.

my "pet peave"

[PotatoSan]

pet peeve

Re:my "pet peave"

[JustOK]

It should be D'oh!

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.

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...

[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: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.

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.

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: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.

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 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.

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: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.

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.?

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.