From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:22:41 +0800
To: Lizard <lizard@mrlizard.com>
Subject: Re: The Telcos oppose Oxley
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9709242132.A24955-0100000@inet.uni-c.dk>
Message-ID: <v03007803b04f44c3de03@[204.254.22.38]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



At 13:23 -0700 9/24/97, Lizard wrote:
>At 09:47 PM 9/24/97 +0200, Peter Herngaard wrote:
>>They support the penalty enhancement for use of encryption
>>in futherance of a felony.
>
>I don't find this particularly offensive, on the grounds that if you're
>convicted of any given crime, the government can more-or-less drum up so
>many related charges they can put you away for 500 years ANYWAY, so what
>difference does it make?

Lizard's position is sadly incoherent. If he believes in civil liberties --
and I know he does -- then he should think twice. Just because the federal
government has broad powers doesn't mean we should give them more.

Under Lizard's reasoning, he should find a law outlawing "breathing air (or
speaking Spanish) in the commission of a crime" acceptable. Or at least not
"particularly offensive."

-Declan