🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1580.517.uupcb@grapevine.lrk.ar.us> john.eichler@grapevine.lrk.ar.us writes:
>In article: <palmer.722276991@news.larc.nasa.gov> (Michael T. Palmer) states:
>
>>Hmmm, an interesting point.  But how do you restrict access to tools that
>>they can construct themselves?  Sure, it is illegal for a convicted felon
and
>>Remember, if they're already convicted criminals, they probably won't
>>pay too much attention to such laws anyway, so you'd have to find some

>That all is true however by making it illegal for them to do this gives
>LE agencies one more useful tool to combat crime.  With the relatively
>Any comments?

I can imagine that LE agencies *on an investigation* would ask for the
secret key, or at least verifiable plaintext, and if refused *and* they had
evidence a charge of obstruction may be in order, but to criminalise the use
of encryption tools would be unenforceable, and would prevent protection of
correspondance from other non-government agencies, such as ex-spouses,
journalists, criminals etc.

It would simply be ignored by felons who intended to continue to break the
law, and would put felons trying to go straight at a disadvantage.

I therefore say that it would be a bad mistake to make this a crime in
itself. That is not to say that using these tools for criminal ends should be
without penalty.


-- Bob Grahame, Streatham, London. LAN Consultant
-- Voice :- +(44)71 406 7795 : PGP 2.0 Key available