[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Lawz to be.

Cut & Paste
>  "�2804. Unlawful use of encryption to obstruct justice"    
>   "Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct,   
...
>Interesting wording - sounds almost like if you impede the *commission* of 
>a felony, you is been had. Keyword would seem to be "willingly".
Jim:
>You need to learn to read more carefully.  The word they (according to VTW) 
>used was "willfully," not "willingly."

Agree, problem was that to get into E-Mail had to cut/paste in 255 bytes
segments but the quoted part is what I got off VTW with minor line
length adjustment and separation of elements for clarity. 

>In any case, assuming they either never made the error you noticed, or they 
>manage to correct it before the bill becomes law, they will have just 
>outlawed the used of encrypted remailers, because:

No, what the wording seems to outlaw was the use of encryption to obstruct 
the commission of the crime, not the investigation.  Read it again please.

>> Suspect  they meant to say "...obstruct (etc) the investigation of a
>>felony..."

>Probably.  This section is their wish-list to Santa Claus.  It's easy to 
>make mistakes when you're excited about something.   They're hoping you 
>suckers will support the whole bill despite this booby-trap.  

Thought the gotcha was down in the part about the Secretary of Commerce. 
My reading is that the secretary will still be required to grant
approval for commercial export. Is past the part about no regulation
inside the US (which is true now - still would be nice to see a "Congress
shall make no law..."). The puzzler is the requirement that a comperable 
foreign product must exist before permission to export will be granted.

Will this be like "comparable product" price matching in discount houses ?
Somehow there never is one...
						Warmly,
							Padgett

ps did you mean the Thomases and Memphis ? Not aware of similar 
   prosecution in Oklahoma. Besides my understanding was that the online
   stuff was dropped, the conviction was for stuff sent through the mails.
   Is that incorrect ?