[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Telcos oppose Oxley
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
>>convicted of any given crime, the government can more-or-less drum
>>many related charges they can put you away for 500 years ANYWAY, so
>>difference does it make?
>Lizard's position is sadly incoherent. If he believes in civil
>and I know he does -- then he should think twice. Just because the
>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
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----