NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/crypt/5160

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-21 | 3.6 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!clark!nsrvan.vanc.wa.us!sysevm
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: sci.crypt
Subject: Re: PGP and real criminals
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Nov 92 19:52:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: nsrvan.1992Nov21.115208.61
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: National Systems & Research, Vancouver WA
Lines: 74

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Hal Finney) writes:
> I think Ed Hall, [e-mail], makes a good point when he writes:
>
>>Arguments
>>like "should terrorists, child-molestors, and other evil-doers be allowed
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>to use encryption to evade justice?" have a lot more impact with John Q.
.
.
.
>>evil-doers who are otherwise too slippery to catch.
>
> I think Ed is right.  The anti-cryptography laws have to have enough
> "teeth" so that the people who are committing these heinous crimes, the
> crimes which the public is going to care about, can't just hide behind
> their encrypted files.
>
> That means that illegal use of cryptography must be punished by a prison
> sentence.  That's the only way these criminals can be gotten off the
> streets despite their encryption, which is the whole purpose of the
> proposed laws.
>
> Think about that.  We're not just talking about a fine, or even a night
> in jail.  We're talking about locking someone up for months or years,
> just because they encrypted a file and would not (or could not) produce
> the plaintext in response to a court order.  We're talking about a very,
> very serious punishment for this crime.  For the first time, it would be
> possible to face a prison term simply by running a forbidden program on
> your computer.

[good arguments removed]
>
> John Q. Public may not fear government wiretaps, and he may not care a
> whit about email privacy, but he doesn't want to spend years in prison
> just because he ran the wrong program on his computer.
>
> --
> Hal Finney

    Good bit of work Hal in formulating an argument in defense of available
strong cryptography.

    Let me point out the basic flaw not in your reasoning or in the
accurate expectations for public reaction to them but with the whole mess out
courts and LE are in and in the argument given by Terry.

1)The argument for key registration is so we can put away the suspected
  child molester

2)We are unable to convict them because they encrypted some data that we
  suspect is about their crimes.

3)We know that they are guilty because they have done it before (else we must
  apply the innocent till proven clause)

4)We are in this mess bacause when we got them on their prior molestation rap
  they were convicted and served 0.8 year of their 10 year term.

SO WHY BOTHER TO TRY TO CONVICT THEM OF A CYPHER CRIME WHEN WE HAD THEM
ON A HEINOUS CRIME ALLREADY AND LET THEM GO!

At this stage of the game (and I don't promote this) the only lasting solution
would be for the mother and father of that child to take the law into their own
hands and shoot the molester until dead. The courts can't keep them from
reoffending they can't even keep them off the street. (Westly Allan Dodd,
arrests 7 or 8, jail time < 1 year, molestations est >>100, murders 3)
----

I recoginize the reality of the situation and wish it were differient. I
salute those who are working to come up with a counter to those who would use
emotional arguments to create cypher crimes. Sadly our real task is not
addressed, that is putting the REAL criminals away and keeping them there.

Ethan