Re: The Telcos oppose Oxley

[Lizard <lizard@dnai.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

At 06:32 PM 9/24/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>At 13:23 -0700 9/24/97, Lizard wrote:
>>At 09:47 PM 9/24/97 +0200, Peter Herngaard wrote:
>>>They support the penalty enhancement for use of encryption
>>>in futherance of a felony.
>>
>>I don't find this particularly offensive, on the grounds that if 
you're
>>convicted of any given crime, the government can more-or-less drum 
up so
>>many related charges they can put you away for 500 years ANYWAY, so 
what
>>difference does it make?
>
>Lizard's position is sadly incoherent. If he believes in civil 
liberties --
>and I know he does -- then he should think twice. Just because the 
federal
>government has broad powers doesn't mean we should give them more.
>
<shrug> Rather, my position is that the system is ALREADY hopelessly 
corrupt and imbalanced;altering the letter of the law to say '20 
years' as opposed to '10 years' FOR SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN'T BE A 
CRIME AT ALL is irrelevant. The government can just as easily create 
two trumped-up ten year charges as it can one 20 year charge;'law' 
and 'justice' have nothing to do with one another anymore.

The whole concept of criminilizing the use of crpytography is 
offensive;the exact specifics -- 10 years or 20 years -- are pretty 
much the same.

Though, on second thought, there is a serious issue with it -- if, as 
we hope, encryption becomes widespread, than anyone doing anything 
will be using it;including 'in the commission of a crime'. This could 
make petty misdemeanors into 20 year federal crimes, and THAT is 
something to worry about. Hm.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBNCm7HjKf8mIpTvjWEQL6ywCgrLu61z4DOjcIgboX8wJPZaKxHE4An2yH
QzcO/ZeobOWzOnhM5CxeULp4
=pwGM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----