[856] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House J
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Phil Helms)
Fri May 16 14:55:39 1997
Date: Fri, 16 May 1997 11:08:06 -0700 (MST)
From: Phil Helms <phil@cccs.cccoes.edu>
In-reply-to: <01IIXGNMO39E9UOJU0@cccs.cccoes.edu>
To: Peter Trei <trei@process.com>
Cc: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>, cryptography@c2.net, trei@c2.net,
marc@cygnus.com
On Fri, 16 May 1997, Peter Trei wrote:
> 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.
I tend to agree with you on this. Although my original question was in
view of the fact that there seems to be a precedent for this kind of
"add-on" law, it would appear reasonable that such add-ons are unreasonable,
and therefore unjust, generally speaking.
I can concieve of special cases, however, where it might be desirable to
have such add-ons to discourage, or at least punish more severely, certain
types of crime. Although I'm not anti-gun, I can see the use of a firearm
to commit a felony as one such case, because of the escalated violence
factor introduced by the use of the firearm.
Extra punishment for using cryptography in the commission of a felony
would be more of a stretch, however. The factor that is amplified here
is not violence, but perhaps resistance to authority. In a land where
checks and balances are designed into the government itself, so that
one branch of the government in effect resists another, and where the
citizenry should be the ultimate check against bad government so that
the citizenry has a certain right, even a certain responsibility, to
resist the government (within bounds of course... I'm not talking about
anarchy here), in such a land do we want to heap extra punishment on
someone for doing something which they could do otherwise without penalty
in the normal exercise of their civil responsibility?
If, unprovoked, I threaten you with a gun, that by itself is criminal.
If, unprovoked, I resist the government, that's freedom of speech.
--
Phil Helms Internet: phil@cccs.cccoes.edu
Community College Computer Services Phone: 303/595-1524
Denver, Colorado FAX: 303/620-4697
