[846] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House J
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marc Horowitz)
Thu May 15 17:52:26 1997
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Cc: trei@process.com, Phil Helms <phil@cccs.cccoes.edu>, cryptography@c2.net,
trei@c2.net
From: Marc Horowitz <marc@cygnus.com>
Date: 15 May 1997 16:47:16 -0400
In-Reply-To: Black Unicorn's message of Thu, 15 May 1997 16:34:03 -0400 (EDT)
Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> writes:
>> Defendant goes to a payphone because he/she expects the cops are watching
>> him. Payphone happens to be encrypted. Show me a court that will buy the
>> argument he didn't know it was encrypted.
You only have to convince the jury. My experience indicates that the
jurors won't know what crypto is, nor where it can be found. It's a
poor defense lawyer who can't get you off of this.
>> > >> Thus, even the most minor crime might well find the perpetrator
>> > >> facing a 5-year term.
>> >
>> > "in the commission of a felony", not "any minor infraction".
>>
>> There are several felonies which are a bit tame. I believe adultry is
>> still a felony in some states.
True. But I was debating Peter's point, which was clearly wrong as
stated.
>> > >> "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."
>> >
>> > "under a criminal statute". copyright infringement of this sort is
>> > civil.
>>
>> There can be federal criminal liability for e.g., EPA violations, (dry
>> cleaners which encrypts its financials is at some risk here).
Peter didn't mention EPA violations. He mentioned copyright
infringement of a sort which is clearly civil in nature.
>> > >> 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.
>> >
>> > If I, as a crypto enthusiast, think that your arguments are this
>> > absurd, you have no chance at all of convincing the people you need to
>> > convince. Please come up with a straw man which doesn't explode when
>> > light falls on it.
>>
>> It's deeper than that. You may be a legal literalist (so am I) but not
>> all courts are, and VERY few juries are.
Agreed. I'm not convinced that the new wording is good law (and am
becoming more unconvinced), but argument's like Peter's don't help.
My real point is that spewing without thinking only helps the enemy,
because it makes you look irrational, even if you are also right.
Marc
