From: lucifer@dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer)
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 04:35:14 +0800
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Subject: Re: Since when is supporting unrestricted crypto unreasonable?
Message-ID: <199705072021.QAA31743@dhp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:46 PM 5/6/97 -0500, Omegaman wrote:
>I'm starting to think that until someone actually gets arrested and
>jailed for using strong, unbreakable encryption that is "suspected" of
>supporting a crime, little will change.  In the meantime, the
>administration, Congress, and the TLA's will keep getting closer to
>achieving their goals.

Ahh, but the government is far too clever to haul up Phil Cypherpunk and charge him with "Encryption with intent to hide".  Instead, they'll wait until they get a Tim McVeigh-esque case, show that he "conspired" using encryption, and say "See how tough on crime we are?  We must convict and fry this evil militia member.  And give him an extra 230 volts for using encryption, according to the SAFE law."  There isn't an American politician alive who would dare publically ask to have a McVeigh-level-case's sentence reduced or any stupid charges dropped.  "Sorry, I can't appear soft on this kind of criminal!"

Then, there is *legal precedent* for all kinds of criminals to get the extra 5 years (or 230 volts).  Then, when they DO come around and pound down the doors of Jim Cypherpunk for having evil thoughts about FBI agents and find an encrypted copy of Penthouse; well, hey, that law's been tested on the books before.  Lock him up.

When charges are brought up against a suspect, the suspect is truly spammed with all manner of accusations.  It's how the legal game is played.  Find someone you want to lock up, then throw enough turds and some will eventually stick.  Tim May's new signature nicely reflects this.

Therefore, citizens won't ever "win" if ProCODE or SAFE or whatever is enacted.  It'll just be another turd thrown at suspects.