[853] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House J
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Trei)
Fri May 16 13:32:25 1997
From: "Peter Trei" <trei@process.com>
To: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>, trei@process.com,
Phil Helms <phil@cccs.cccoes.edu>, cryptography@c2.net, trei@c2.net,
marc@cygnus.com
Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 09:33:58 -6
Reply-to: trei@process.com
Marc Horowitz is quite correct when he points out that my
scenario (encrypt Miss November and get 5 years in jail) is
quite mistaken. I was basing my statement on earlier versions
of the bill.
I have a general problem with the notion that an ordinary,
everyday activity which is perfectly legal in normal use
should add to a jail sentence. The example I see most often
is 'wire fraud' charges that get tacked on to almost every
case if the defendent made a phone call. To give a contrived
example, if two sheepherders discuss how to get rid of a bald
eagle which is killing their lambs, they are felons (killing
a BE is a felony, and conspiracy to commit a felony is a felony
in itself). If they conduct their discussion over the phone
instead of face to face, they could get wire fraud charges
tacked on as well. Whatever I think of the basic charge
(conspiracy to kill an eagle), it seems to me ludicrous that
using a telephone should make a difference in the outcome.
Peter Trei
