Using Net Proxies Will Lead To Harsher Sentences 366
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."
Great idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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.
Law without common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Different from wearing a mask? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now replace mask with proxy.
Re:Don't break da lew and you don't worry then (Score:3, Insightful)
(Unfortunately, they tend to spend a lot of time saying so.)
Re:Time for a new name... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Different from wearing a mask? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't unknowingly wear a mask during their day to day activities. The same can't be said of network proxies.
Is This So Horrible? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Different from wearing a mask? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
so how about just not violating the law (Score:1, Insightful)
Then there wouldn't be a problem, no?
Re:Different from wearing a mask? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re:This just in.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But (Score:5, Insightful)
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].
So let's escallate this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps it has something to do with this attitude [vg247.com]:
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?
Re:oblig serenity reference (Score:1, Insightful)
I still wouldn't have wanted to end up like Mr. Universe even if the signal eventually did get out.
Re:Equal time for equal crime? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Let's not dilute "cruel and unusual" (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:But who are we kidding (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Great idea (Score:1, Insightful)
let's start making prisons make money with all the labor they have to pay for themselves!
Re:Don't break da lew and you don't worry then (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:But (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Different from wearing a mask? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Away! Into our submarine! (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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
Re:So let's escallate this... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.)
Who would push for such a law? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re:This just in.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re:Away! Into our submarine! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Away! Into our submarine! (Score:5, Insightful)
Good question. If they can leave us the hell alone when we need them, why can't they when we don't?
Re:Don't break da lew and you don't worry then (Score:3, Insightful)
This is SlashDot, where sensationalism and blind group-mentality are paramount.
You just watch me get modded flamebait / troll.
Re:Away! Into our submarine! (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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".
Re:Away! Into our submarine! (Score:2, Insightful)
In Other News (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.