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

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

[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

[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".

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...

[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

[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!

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?

[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?

[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.

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:This just in....

[Calydor]

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

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...

[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: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.

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.

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]

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!

[Opportunist]

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