Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Encryption Security Your Rights Online

Making Encryption A Special Circumstance 45

Posted by timothy from the more-numerous-the-laws dept.
heby writes "According to an article at SecurityFocus, the U.S. Justice Department is apparently planning to criminalize encryption when used during the commission of a felony under federal law. If you think you have nothing to worry about, think again. Have you ever filed too many tax deductions? If you use e-file via a web page using SSL for filing your taxes, under this proposal this becomes an additional five-year felony."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Making Encryption A Special Circumstance More

Making Encryption A Special Circumstance

Comments Filter:

  • Per the article (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Catilina ( 465165 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @08:20AM (#5523193) Homepage
    Per the article: "This new proposal, unrelated to terrorism, is merely a tool to enhance penalties for ordinary crimes, and should be rejected."

    One can only assume this legislative proposal will indeed not be implemented in its current form, given the obvious pitfalls, examples of which can be found in the article. Nevertheless, it seems like a step back to the pre-2000 way of thinking, that considered encryption to be a form of ammunition.

    • Re:Per the article (Score:5, Insightful)

      by www.sorehands.com ( 142825 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @12:37PM (#5523808) Homepage
      The government has been pushing through all these laws to strip us of our rights under the guise of "national security."

      You must be a criminal if you don't like having your phone tapped, being stripped search when entering buildings, having the police pull you over and search your car. What do you have to hide?

    • Re:Per the article (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      One can only assume this legislative proposal will indeed not be implemented in its current form, given the obvious pitfalls

      And what, in recent legislative history, warrants that assumption? Seems to me that common sense has long gone out the window.

  • That's It! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by blankmange ( 571591 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @08:57AM (#5523223)
    From now everything I do will be encrypted. In fact, here goes: daqe8= adk983jd a8wee dadiiq11.

    Now, if that was felony-related material, come and get me.... This is getting ridiculous. Granted, more logical minds may prevail and this won't happen....but who knows? Will encrypted lies to your girlfriend or wife become punishable? How about encrypted websites where you give a false email address to avoid the spam?

  • In other news.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by GiMP ( 10923 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @09:05AM (#5523239)
    In other news, private conversation has become a crime when used during the commision of a felony. Felonies commited with the aid of private conversations will carry an additional 5 years sentence.
    • If you discuss the crime before hand you have commit the extra crime of conspiracy.
      • However, now discussing the crime via encryption may become an additional sentence over the crime of conspiracy.

        The point is that what is the difference between using encryption to secure communications and speaking to that person in private? There is no difference and the government should treat those situations respectfully, without difference.

  • Big brother is watching... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by n1ywb ( 555767 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @09:21AM (#5523263) Homepage Journal
    1984 wasn't like 1984 but maybe 2004 will be.

    Isn't there something in the constitution about cruel and unusual punishment, and right to a fair trial? What about double jeopardy? This sounds like a federally endorsed manditory minimum sentence for using encryption in the comitting of a felony. Department of Justice indeed, more like department of INJUSTICE. Aren't those assholes supposed to ENFORCE the law, not CREATE IT? What the hell did I learn in school about the three branches of federal government?

    What if you're using a digital CELL phone to help with your crime, or a digital cordless phone? The average person probably doesn't even understand that their conversation is being encrypted.

    I've half a mind to start encrypting everything I do on principle. Use your rights or lose your rights.

    • Re:Big brother is watching... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by e-gold ( 36755 ) <`moc.macnitram' `ta' `yarj'> on Sunday March 16, 2003 @11:19AM (#5523531) Homepage Journal
      The thing to keep in mind is the same thing all judges, lawyers, and politicians have ignored for the past three decades (much to this nation's detriment, IMO). "The enumeration in the constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others, retained by the people." (That's the Ninth Amendment.)

      IOW, "No, the constitution doesn't directly mention things like privacy, encryption, etc. and no, it doesn't matter because we didn't have to list everything we can do." I wish more folks got this...
      JMR

      Speaking ONLY for Jim Ray (all others are usually disgusted with my views!)

    • More specificly, what about the right to secure your papers and property against unreasonable searches. IIRC that would be the 8th. Bill of rights in anycase.

    • $ mount /dev/hda1 on / type ext3 (rw)
      none on /proc type proc (rw)
      none on /dev type devfs (rw)
      none on /dev/pts type devpts (rw,mode=0620)
      none on /dev/shm type tmpfs (rw)
      none on /tmp type tmpfs (rw) /dev/hda2 on /home type ext3 (rw,encrypted,loop=/dev/loop0,encryption=AES128)
      none on /proc/bus/usb type usbdevfs (rw,devmode=0664,devgid=43)
  • Everything I write is triple encrypted in ROT-26.

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jarran ( 91204 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @10:30AM (#5523421)
    Another fine example of the proliferation of pointless laws. If something is a crime, why is it any more damaging to use cryptography in the process? If I rob a bank, I am not doing extra extra harm to the bank or the public if I use encryption to plan the robbery. There is no moral, financial or environmental harm done by using encryption - it is te actual crime which does this damage. There are already laws against and punishments set out for the crime Why stop with encryption? Why not make it a crime to use a telephone, letter, car, mobile phone etc to commit a crime?
    • You'd be making the government work a touch harder to convict you.. and #$@$, but do they hate that.
    • Why stop with encryption? Why not make it a crime to use a telephone, letter, car, mobile phone etc to commit a crime?

      Because it is easy for them to intercept those communications. What they really need to do is make it a crime to plan a felony face-to-face in a secluded location without government supervision! Then America is Safe!

      The flip-side to it is if the government finds out about a crime prior to it happening (because communication is not encrypted), what obligation do they have to prevent it f

      • Re:Why? (Score:2, Informative)

        by jarran ( 91204 )
        What they really need to do is make it a crime to plan a felony face-to-face in a secluded location without government supervision

        Don't know about the US, but this is already a crime in the UK. Agreeing with another on a course of action which will result in the law being broken is called "Conspiracy", and the maximum punishment is equal to the maxiumum punishment of the crime the person agreed to commit.

    • Why is it any more damaging to use a GUN? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Another fine example of the proliferation of pointless laws. If something is a crime, why is it any more damaging to use cryptography in the process?

      In most jurisdictions, the penalty for armed robbery [as opposed to plain-old, garden variety, everyday un-armed robbery] is substantially more severe if that arm is a gun [as opposed to, say, a knife, even though a knife is every bit as lethal as a gun].

      Encryption as a felony won't be much of a sentencing tool for violent terrorists [they'll receive the d

    • encryption of certain types got filed as munitions, yes? that was part of the reason we couldn't export encryption outside the US, even if it was already available outside the US (or had even originated outside the US!)

      so, it's more like they said "X is like a bullet, things are worse if you use a bullet, therefore things are worse if you use X" ... note how easy it will be for them to add to the list of X items. black clothing? sign language? books?

      if the claim is that encryption -hides- criminal activit

  • Double dupe (Score:3, Informative)

    by waytoomuchcoffee ( 263275 ) on Sunday March 16, 2003 @11:22AM (#5523543)
    This is part of Patriot Act II. This specific section was already discussed in the story here [slashdot.org]. /. then posted a story about the ACLU analysis of the act, which also included mention of this, here [slashdot.org].
  • It looks like its time once again to become proactive. read this [circusnews.com] then write in to your senitors and congressional reps and oppose this.
  • Judge: Not only did you commit a crime, but you also actively tried to NOT get caught... shame on you... shame shame shame.

    For all those law-abiding criminals out there, to clear up any confusion why don't you just post all unencrypted transmissions and files on slashdot. This ensures that you have many witnesses to you trying to live under societies guidelines.

    -bort
  • the U.S. Justice Department is apparently planning to criminalize encryption when used during the commission of a felony under federal law.

    So now we'll be able to change the old saw of "only criminals encrypt" to "only criminals don't encrypt". ;-)

    Seriously, would such a law really stop them from encrypting? Duh...no! The fact that the authorities are fighting encryption so hard is advertizing that it must be a good way of not getting caught.

    • Seriously, what is this law trying to do? Is it actually a law to prevent a crime or is it just a way to increase the number of years criminals spend in jail? Do they honestly think that criminals will choose not to encrypt their communications to avoid breaking this law or are they hoping it won't change a thing so many criminals will do more time?
      • It's a way the politicians can show that they are "doing something" and appear "tough on crime". You don't need to ascribe any deeper motives to big-brotherism than simple vote pandering. From the LE perspective, this just gives them another charge they can pile on to the indictment that they can use as a bargaining chip while negotiating the plea bargain.

  • No, crimes via SSL may not be an offense. (Score:3, Informative)

    by cryptor3 ( 572787 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @12:05AM (#5526709) Journal
    If you use e-file via a web page using SSL for filing your taxes, under this proposal this becomes an additional five-year felony."

    The article states that you must "knowingly and willfully [encrypt] any incriminating communication or information..." to commit a crime under this proposed law.

    I believe that you could argue that, if the SSL site does not give you a choice on how to proceed with the transaction, that it is the site which is forcing you to encrypt the transaction.

    Likewise, with ATMs, you are not electing to encrypt the transaction; the ATM provider is making you encrypt your transaction.

    Yes, I know that in the eyes of the law, machines do not commit crimes, people [operating them] do. But in this case, I believe that it is not the user that is willfully (and if you're stupid, knowingly) encrypting the communication, rather, it is the business or web site that is electing to perform the transaction encrypted.
    • Okay, but if you were (for example) on an IPSec tunnel to a private network (logged onto by you) and accessing the TurboTax website via proxy, and you submitted a tax return in error, wouldn't that be a special circumstance for tax fraud? It's just as absurd.

  • Frequent felony miles? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by unitron ( 5733 ) on Monday March 17, 2003 @01:17AM (#5526995) Homepage Journal
    How can frequent flier miles possibly be regarded as income? They're nothing but a rebate. If you don't spend, you don't get them. I never do any of the things for which people get frequent flier miles and I don't get them. If some airline were to briefly pause in their headlong rush to bankruptcy to give me some frequent flier miles, then they would be income.

    For that matter if you get them but don't use them before they expire are they still income?

    That poster in the current poll is right about the IRS, some vampires do keep their victims alive so that they can feed from them again and again.

    • I can recommend a book called "Money of the future" by Bernard Lietaer to you. It explains all aspects of our standard monetary system but also introduces complementary monetary systems, like LETS, timedollars and frequent flyer miles. Since frequent flyer miles can be used in ways regular currency also can, they are some form of currency and acquiring them can be considered a special form of income.
  • ...only outlaws will have encryption.
  • So does it also add to your punishment if you commit a crime while speaking a language that the judge can't understand? Come on, this is ridiculous...

Slashdot Top Deals

Friction is a drag.

Close