🚀 go-pugleaf

I would have to disagree completely.  The fact that someone behaved in a
criminal manner in the past is not apriori evidence that they will
behave criminally in the future.  Thus, disallowing convicted criminals
who have served their sentences from using cryptography goes against the
idea that criminals are rehabilitated in prison and the idea that former
crimes of a different nature are not admissible evidence in present
cases.

Further, I return to the whole issue of limiting cryptography, shouldn't
we take a lesson from the former USSR where the gov't tried to control
every aspect of what was heard.  If you disallow DES, PGP, etc, etc,
people will just use other methods, fake languages, jibberish,
or memorization.  For example, I carry a piece of paper with a thousand
four digit numbers on it with me at all times.  My PIN numbers and
other information is encoded on the paper, and given a modicum of
intelligence and luck you might be able to decode, however, it merely
need be secure enough that you don't get it in 3 tries so that the
Mac machine swallows the card.

The same idea applies to these criminals, they could write down a few
thousand words on a piece of paper, of which only 6 or 7 might be
significant to them.  Are they using encryption now?


I think this whole debate about criminals using encryption then reduces
to the whole issue of limiting cryptography.

As to the issue of the convicted child molester.  The first thing I
would like to say is that I am _extremely_ sensitive to the issue of
child molestation, having been molested myself, but I am also
_extremely_ sensitive to issues of due process, as a jew, I a firmly
believe we have to stand up for even the most reprehensible people and
insure that they get a fair trial.  Because if I don't stand up
for this person's rights now, then who will stand up for mine?

I am going to assume that the police have some reason to believe this
person is engaging in illegal behaviour other than these mysterious
encrypted files.  If they do have a reason, than that reason either is
or isn't admissible in court.  If their reason for arresting this person
is inadmissible in court, then the case should be thrown out.  The fact
is, the police can't arrest you without probable cause.  Which is a
weaker burden of proof than required in the courts, reasonable doubt.
It is the job of the police to find probable cause, and provide evidence
beyond a reasonable doubt, it is then the job of the DA to prosecute
this person.  If the police believe this man is molesting children
again, how about evidence from a child who was molested instead of
trying to pick at straws and complain that this user is encrypting files
whose content you are unaware of.  Also, remember that the burden of
proof for the search warrant is considerably less than required in court
for proof of guilt.

Personally, I believe that without stronger evidence on behalf of the
police, this man is being persecuted for his status as a convicted child
molester rather than anything he has done at present.  I am fully aware
as I say this, that the standard of evidence I am demanding is too hard
in many cases, but I know that I was molested, and I could testify
against that person.  The case would be fairly strong.  On the other
hand, trying to rely on a notebook kept by molester in which my name
appeared along with an addrss wouldn't strike me as a very helpful piece
of evidence.

>>> END RANT <<<
>>> STEP OFF SOAP BOX <<<

Sorry for the tirade in this post, but the issue of molestation and fair
trials strikes two such powerful chords in me, both from my past and one
from the heritage of my people for thousands of years.

-Erik