So if I hire him and the job description is "test consumer grade encryption by using it in daily life"..? Dan Staples <danstaples@disman.tl> wrote:
It's even more absurd considering the inevitable progress of technology over the next 10 years of Hammond's sentence. If we do our jobs right, everything will be using encryption by then. This could have the effect of simply barring him from using any sort of communicative digital technology...making many everyday tasks impossible.
The only exception in the sentence is his use of encryption as required by employment. But it's hard enough for ex-felons to find a job after getting released as it is...
On 11/15/2013 07:57 PM, Privarchy Mee wrote:
Can any of you, most of whom I do not doubt are far more knowledgeable about cryptography and how it's conceptualised within the legal sphere, offer some insight regarding this?
https://twitter.com/CyMadD0x/status/401443518612512769
The claim is that Judge Loretta A. Preska, who sentenced Jeremy Hammond today, said that for the three years (post-release) that he was to spend under supervision, he will not be able to use encryption for communication or storage purposes(!) which is practically a legal edict to go and build a cabin by Walden Pond. How can this be considered anything but cruel and unusual?
-- http://disman.tl OpenPGP key: http://disman.tl/pgp.asc Fingerprint: 2480 095D 4B16 436F 35AB 7305 F670 74ED BD86 43A9
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.