At 13:23 -0700 9/24/97, Lizard wrote:
At 09:47 PM 9/24/97 +0200, Peter Herngaard wrote:
They support the penalty enhancement for use of encryption in futherance of a felony.
I don't find this particularly offensive, on the grounds that if you're convicted of any given crime, the government can more-or-less drum up so many related charges they can put you away for 500 years ANYWAY, so what difference does it make?
Lizard's position is sadly incoherent. If he believes in civil liberties -- and I know he does -- then he should think twice. Just because the federal government has broad powers doesn't mean we should give them more. Under Lizard's reasoning, he should find a law outlawing "breathing air (or speaking Spanish) in the commission of a crime" acceptable. Or at least not "particularly offensive." -Declan