At 8:33 PM 11/27/94, Aron Freed wrote:

On Sun, 27 Nov 1994, Mike McNally wrote:

...

So why pick specifically on cryptography? Why not increase penalties for criminals who in their crimes are found to have used:

* computers; * pagers; * cellular phones; * Casio watches with multiple alarms; * Cars with power windows; * Velcro-fastening tennis shoes; * Gore-Tex jackets; * Ibuprofen pain relievers; * Fat-free ice cream;

Why don't we stick to the topic? Do you have an intelligent reply or are you going to shoot your mouth off? Or Maybe you can share something better with us, all knowing and wise one.

Something better? I guess most of us think that "something better" would be _not_ having increased penalties for criminals who use cryptography in their crimes. I'm certain that this was the "something better" Mike was suggesting. What rationale is there to have increased penalties for using cryptography to commit a crime, any more then there should be increased penalties for using computers at all? (or do you think there should be?) What reason is there to have increased penalties for using modern technology over using older technology to commit a crime? Using modern technology is somehow "worse" then using older technology? Should we have harsher penalties for someone that uses a getaway automobile after a bank robbery, instead of trying to get away on foot? That might be a better analogy to what's being proposed then Mike's sarcastic ones, if you really want a good analogy. Automobile technology surely makes it easier for a bank robber to escape from the crime scene and not be caught, just as cryptography surely makes it easier for someone selling drugs to close a deal without being caught. So if that somehow justifies harsher penalties for crimes committed with the help of cryptography, does it also justify harsher penalties for crimes committed with automobiles? Why not?