Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Your Rights Online

Using Net Proxies Will Lead To Harsher Sentences 366

Posted by Soulskill
from the no-word-on-mask-and-cape-penalties dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Using Net Proxies Will Lead To Harsher Sentences

Comments Filter:
  • Great idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 77Punker (673758) <spencr04.highpoint@edu> on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @07:50PM (#27579887)

    Just what the country with the world's highest incarceration rates needs, longer sentences!

    Let's get tough on crime!

  • Re:Great idea (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @07:54PM (#27579943)

    Just what the country with the world's highest incarceration rates needs, longer sentences!

    Let's get tough on crime!

    Convicting a large non-random sample of the population disenfranchises those who disagree with the establishment. I think that's pretty smart planning. No good for the country, of course, but that hardly matters.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @07:56PM (#27579971)

    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.

  • by staeiou (839695) * <<moc.liamg> <ta> <uoieats>> on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:00PM (#27580041) Homepage
    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.
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:01PM (#27580053) Journal
    "Those who have nothing to say have nothing to fear."

    (Unfortunately, they tend to spend a lot of time saying so.)
  • by CarpetShark (865376) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:04PM (#27580087)

    Pretty sure they'll define proxy somewhere in the law by its features, rather than relying on the commonly accepted (and fluid) meaning. In other words, it won't matter what YOU call it, if it fits their definition.

    Either use a properly secure (i.e., end-to-end encrypted, proxied, indirect, padded, anonymous, etc.) p2p network, or better, do it in the open, and stand up for yourself in court, so others can do the same and add their voices to yours.

  • by Wingnut64 (446382) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:09PM (#27580145)

    Most people don't unknowingly wear a mask during their day to day activities. The same can't be said of network proxies.

  • by immcintosh (1089551) <slashdot@i a n m c i ntosh.org> on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:09PM (#27580157) Homepage
    Maybe I'm the only one who doesn't really care about this, but as far as I'm concerned using a proxy (at least intentionally) IS sophistication. This is just the legal system realizing that pre-existing rules can be sensibly applied to internet crime as far as I'm concerned.
  • Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Warhawke (1312723) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:11PM (#27580197)
    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.
  • by Xiozhiq (724986) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:12PM (#27580205)

    However, if one of the fundamental conditions of accessing said 'public space' is that you have to wear that mask, or you can't go outside, should you still be penalized more for wearing the mask?

    Proxies are everywhere, and are even encouraged in many places. For example, my school encourages us to install a VPN client for use while connected to the unsecured school wireless network in order to protect sensitive data that may be transmitted (bank logins, e-mail logins, et cetera).

    Oh; and I believe the section in question is at the bottom of PDF page 8, numbered page 6. Section 2B1.1.

    All around, this seems pretty silly to me. If they want to increase the punishment for committing crimes on the internet, fine and dandy, but masquerading what SHOULD in all honesty be some basic internet safety practices as "sophistication in a crime"? That's just stupid.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:12PM (#27580209)

    Then there wouldn't be a problem, no?

  • by frosty_tsm (933163) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:18PM (#27580261)

    Most people don't unknowingly wear a mask during their day to day activities. The same can't be said of network proxies.

    While not unknowingly, some wear masks for safety reasons (paint sprayers, hazardous materials, motorcycling).

  • blech (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Red Flayer (890720) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:24PM (#27580347) Journal
    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:But (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Architect_sasyr (938685) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:25PM (#27580355)
    How is following what every single goddamned script kiddie hax0r guide tells you to do considered sophistication?? And is there a decent reference for each state and country on what is illegal and what is not? Is Port Scanning a crime?

    If anything we should be prosecuting the proxy owners for not keeping decent logs. And considering how the Sarah Palin email thing went most of the sane ones do, so we shouldn't even be doing that.
  • by Calydor (739835) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:31PM (#27580433)
    WTF does it matter what the police thinks if I'm not doing anything illegal?
  • Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jumperalex (185007) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:34PM (#27580469)

    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].

  • by Baldrson (78598) * on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:35PM (#27580481) Homepage Journal
    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 [vg247.com]:

    '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?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:46PM (#27580577)

    I still wouldn't have wanted to end up like Mr. Universe even if the signal eventually did get out.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @08:54PM (#27580651)

    What about the principle of "equal time for equal crime". I know it is a far from perfect, but this seems to contradict the concept of "precedence" whereby other criminals can get fairer treatment by citing the punishments other people got. The system seems to be no longer punishing the crime but seems to be punishing people for legal actions which are irrelevant to the crime.

  • by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @09:03PM (#27580741) Homepage Journal

    well, unless you actually think about the how much sense the "war on drugs" makes in the first place.

  • Re:But (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @09:06PM (#27580771) Homepage Journal

    And what exactly is the purpose?
    So what is the real intent ... ...the chilling effect such a law would have on 100% legal and legitimate uses ... but uses for which the government might not like

    you answered you own question.

  • by Jafafa Hots (580169) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @09:08PM (#27580805) Homepage Journal

    Let's not dilute "cruel and unusual"

    We've decided torture is ok, how much more dilute can it get?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @09:12PM (#27580837)

    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.

    You've obviously never been to prison. The entire system is a cruel and unusual punishment. Great training program for turning halfway decent people into hardcore criminals though.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @09:16PM (#27580889)
    Fuck you.
  • Re:Great idea (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @09:22PM (#27580971)

    let's start making prisons make money with all the labor they have to pay for themselves!

  • by sbeckstead (555647) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @09:29PM (#27581041) Homepage Journal
    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:But (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @09:30PM (#27581069)

    Not having used the browser, I can't really verify your comment. However, if it is anything less than a bold warning attached to any SSL connection, they aren't open about it.

    Particularly if it's tacked onto the license agreement, or buried in the FAQ.

  • by Jumperalex (185007) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @09:36PM (#27581117)

    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.

  • NAT (Score:4, Insightful)

    by QuietLagoon (813062) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @09:44PM (#27581207)
    Does Network Address Translation (performed by most DSL and cable modems) count as being a proxy? NAT hides the true IP address of my PC. Do AOL's HTTP proxies count as a proxy? (I don't see a happy ending for this.)
  • by Shakrai (717556) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @10:11PM (#27581457) Journal

    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:But (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mal-2 (675116) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @10:24PM (#27581543) Homepage Journal

    I think the theory is that using a proxy reduces the likelihood of getting caught. Thus, when they DO catch someone, they must sentence more harshly for all the other people (and other offenses by the same person) that went undetected. Not that 25% is likely to be much of a deterrent, but that is probably the rationalization of the idea.

    Mal-2

  • by Thing 1 (178996) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @10:36PM (#27581601) Journal

    It may sound harsh but being raped is one of the bad things that can happen to you in prison. Not to mention being beaten up or stabbed or killed. Prisons are bad places full of bad people, some who don't play well with others and some who happen to like hurting other people.

    Actually: prisons are full [usdoj.gov] of non-violent drug users, and a minority population of violent offenders.

    The latter routinely abuses the former.

    Our society does not get better with harsher penalties for victimless crimes. (Any penalty for a victimless "crime" is too much.)

  • by Jewfro_Macabbi (1000217) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @11:05PM (#27581783) Homepage
    "So much of the initial challenge in an investigation is determining attribution - where are the transmissions coming from?" Michael DuBose, chief of the computer crime and intellectual property section of the Justice Department's criminal division, said in an interview..."

    You wouldn't steal a car, and you won't download a mp3 via proxy - as the prison sentence will be the same.
  • Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shoemilk (1008173) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @11:09PM (#27581823) Journal
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SilverJets (131916) on Tuesday April 14, 2009 @11:37PM (#27581973) Homepage

    You're reading conspiracy where there isn't any. 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. If you are not committing a crime, you have nothing to get upset about and can happily continue to use your proxy. The article reads like it is attempting to spread FUD.

  • by DerekLyons (302214) <fairwater AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @12:20AM (#27582283) Homepage

    That's the point that you and pretty much the rest of the commenters seem to miss... And the AC hits squarely on the head. They don't care if you are doing nothing illegal. They do care when you are doing something otherwise legal in the furtherance of committing a crime because it shows intent.

  • Re:Great idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Renraku (518261) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:14AM (#27582543) Homepage

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @01:53AM (#27582747)

    I believe the FBI busted the stolen identity black market guy by setting up wi-fi honey pots by where he lived because they noticed all the IPs were near that location.

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @03:06AM (#27583089)

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

  • by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @04:04AM (#27583335)
    Please, leave your rational thought and ability to parse sentences correctly at home.

    This is SlashDot, where sensationalism and blind group-mentality are paramount.

    You just watch me get modded flamebait / troll.
  • by EdIII (1114411) * on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @05:07AM (#27583581)

    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 ;)

    That's if you really think this is about software/media piracy in the first place. Truly, this has nothing to do with music at all. It's the equivalent of "think of the children", when 99.99999999% of the time that is said, they are thinking about EVERYTHING BUT THE CHILDREN.

    It's just an excuse. "Think of the MP3's!!!!"

    No. This is about control. Who has the information, and who does not have the information.

    This has been a long time coming. There are some totalitarian people that just cannot accept the idea of privacy and anonymity actually surviving any longer. They NEED to know who is saying what, where they are, etc.

    It can be a politicians, government agents, etc. that actually believe in order to protect the American way of life they must not be thwarted in their goals to have all possible information at their fingertips. The irony that they are destroying freedom, privacy, and anonymity in order to do it is tragically beyond their twisted ideologies. Far scarier, IMO, are the people in government that have no altruistic motives in erasing privacy and anonymity from our society. They truly see it as a means to an end, which is the abuse of the citizens. Not like that has not happened in the past in other countries, and even in ours. Hoover anyone? Shit, even the rest of the government was afraid of Hoover.

    Sadly, there are also a growing number of citizens that are against anonymity and privacy since it could be used to possibly hurt someone's feelings or used to libel someone. The ability to see the big picture is well beyond their intellectual capabilities, and they only blindly and passionately see their inability to to attach a name to some MySpace/Facebook flaming session.

    Regardless of whether or not it is a misguided, but well intentioned, attempt to protect our dying empire or a more insidious attempt to gain leverage on other people, anonymity and privacy are under attack as the tools by which ordinary people stand in the way of these very un-American agendas.

    Welll... that's okay. The War is on. I always knew it was coming. Much like the Americans of our past generations, they can pry my Proxy/TOR out of my cold dead hands.

  • Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EdIII (1114411) * on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @05:43AM (#27583715)

    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".

  • by stonewallred (1465497) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @05:58AM (#27583775)
    Disagree, don't mod troll. Someone with points should fix this.
  • In Other News (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dufachi (973647) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @06:40AM (#27583981) Homepage Journal
    Criminals who do not leave business cards with full contact information will now fall under the "sophistication" law as well for attempting to hide their identity while committing a crime.

    Seriously, how is using a proxy any different than "covering your tracks" by using a mask, burning your shoes, destroying the weapon, using gloves, shredding documents, etc.?
  • Classic (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kenp2002 (545495) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @08:45AM (#27584721) Homepage Journal

    Wow the Nazi's would be proud...

    "Those that are willing to trade security for freedom deservers neither..."

    Face it: we get the government we deserve. We keep electing the same two parties who's sole mission is to control our lives, one through business and one through government, and in the end both take away our freedoms.

    We have entered a new age of feudalism, with Goverment as King, Businesses as the Fiefs, the inbred executive kabal as the Lords, the lawyers have replaced the knights, and we now have become the new pesantry.

    RIP Freedom.

  • Re:But (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jumperalex (185007) on Wednesday April 15, 2009 @09:31AM (#27585191)

    The problem with your answer is that everything you just said is, in and of itself, a crime as well. Fake (fraud)/stolen(theft) licence plates, creating gloves with fake fingerprints (ok questionable but I suppose fraud or ID theft might apply) ... so again charge, convict and sentance for THAT crime. Don't use the logic that sophistication / non-criminal actions to evade capture is an additional / aggrevating crime itself. It is not.

    Again, if the action is truly a crime on its own then fine, deal with this on their own (though at the same trial of course) but it is IMO, BS to call wearing a mask during a robbery worse than not wearing a mask just as using a TOR router should not be either.

Information is the inverse of entropy.

Working...