[842] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House J
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Trei)
Thu May 15 15:13:04 1997
From: "Peter Trei" <trei@process.com>
To: Phil Helms <phil@cccs.cccoes.edu>, cryptography@c2.net
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 15:04:02 -6
Reply-to: trei@process.com
CC: trei@c2.net
Phil Helms writes:
> On Thu, 15 May 1997, Declan McCullagh wrote:
> > But you're missing the point: this whole "crypto in a crime" section
> > should not be in this bill in the first place. The new portion is much
> > better than the old, but it still has no business being law.
> Why not? There is other law similar to this for the use of firearms in the
> commission of a crime.
> Phil Helms Internet: phil@cccs.cccoes.edu
It's not comparable. Use of crypto does not make a crime more likely
to result in death or injury, which use of a gun (as opposed a less
lethal persuader) does.
Crypto enthusiasts picture a future where crypto is embedded in
almost every electronic device, to authenticate users and protect
communication privacy (ie, to prevent crime!).
In such a future, almost any act, from making a phone call to
locking a door, could involve crypto, possibly without the
user even being aware of it.
Thus, even the most minor crime might well find the perpetrator
facing a 5-year term.
"Yes, we know that when you scanned Miss November onto your hard
drive, it was only a misdemeanor copyright enfringement, but since
your HD is factory shipped with a sector level encryption system,
we're sending you up the river for 5 years."
To crypto enthusiasts, this provision is equivalent to adding 5 years
to the sentence if you were breathing at the time the crime was
committed.
Peter Trei
trei@process.com
