[Cryptography][Law] Jeremy Hammond Banned from using Cryptography
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?
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
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Dan Staples wrote:
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.
So GSM/CDMA phone calls are out of the question? Does this bar him from 911 service? What about debit/credit cards or ATM transactions? - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507
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...
I would hire him in a flat second and I would encourage others to do the same. Jeremy has a good heart and a great mind - I hope that after TEN YEARS IN PRISON for breeching a WEBSITE and EMAIL SERVER that people will consider his time served and help him to re-enter society. This sentence is so disproportionate and unjust, it is sickening, it is revolting and it is infuriating. With contempt and disgust for this show at the US Court system today, Jacob
I hope you realize I was making a point about the challenges of ex-felons in general, and not making a judgment on Hammond. He is obviously brilliant and courageous, and many activists with the ability to hire employees would be more than willing to help and employ him when he gets out... Witnessing his sentencing yesterday was physically sickening, and definitely the worst abuse of our "justice" system I've ever seen. I can only hope it inspires, rather than intimidates, other activists and hackers to continue the type of work that he did. Dan On 11/16/2013 01:12 AM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
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...
I would hire him in a flat second and I would encourage others to do the same.
Jeremy has a good heart and a great mind - I hope that after TEN YEARS IN PRISON for breeching a WEBSITE and EMAIL SERVER that people will consider his time served and help him to re-enter society.
This sentence is so disproportionate and unjust, it is sickening, it is revolting and it is infuriating.
With contempt and disgust for this show at the US Court system today, Jacob
-- http://disman.tl OpenPGP key: http://disman.tl/pgp.asc Fingerprint: 2480 095D 4B16 436F 35AB 7305 F670 74ED BD86 43A9
Still, recognize that hammering Hammond is meant to be sickening, as with Manning, Anonymous and Lulzsec members. In every case rats were coerced into incriminating others by threats of doing to them what was done to Hammond. If nobody is ever hammered the threats are not taken seriously. At a HOPE panel on informants, several hackers disclosed those pressures to rat, some succumbed and were let off, Emmanuel Goldstein admitted it, some refused and were jailed, Bernie-X, Kevin Mitnick. All agreed it is far worse to go through than you think. Goldstein estimated 25% of hackers are rats. Barrett Brown is on the hot seat right now, being offering deals to rat, as customary, with three (!) trials postponed to maintain pressure. Shit, even his mom was used as a fed provocation to misbehave then as a persuasion club as were Sabu's nephew and niece. Anybody with a high profile is targeted, so beware publicity hounds crowing of derrying-do and urgings by high profilers who may or may not be in the grips of the feds, and if not, will soon be due to their publicity narcosis, and then used as clubs or head to jail for obstruction and recidivism or some other nut-squeezing -- even in jail they are offered deals to rat and sentence reduced. In or out jail the pressure to rat continues, as with Adrian Lamo. Ex-cons never know if an overture is an LE sting or a an honest request for advice, so they rat to be safe -- recall they are obliged -- forever -- to report overtures, just like ex-spies remain under the gun to rat for life. If you haven't been there don't imagine you know what it's like. Don't imagine this list and others like it, chats, OTRs, TOR, are not being spied for easy targets. At 10:50 AM 11/16/2013, you wrote:
I hope you realize I was making a point about the challenges of ex-felons in general, and not making a judgment on Hammond. He is obviously brilliant and courageous, and many activists with the ability to hire employees would be more than willing to help and employ him when he gets out...
Witnessing his sentencing yesterday was physically sickening, and definitely the worst abuse of our "justice" system I've ever seen. I can only hope it inspires, rather than intimidates, other activists and hackers to continue the type of work that he did.
Dan
On 11/16/2013 01:12 AM, Jacob Appelbaum wrote:
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...
I would hire him in a flat second and I would encourage others to do the same.
Jeremy has a good heart and a great mind - I hope that after TEN YEARS IN PRISON for breeching a WEBSITE and EMAIL SERVER that people will consider his time served and help him to re-enter society.
This sentence is so disproportionate and unjust, it is sickening, it is revolting and it is infuriating.
With contempt and disgust for this show at the US Court system today, Jacob
-- http://disman.tl OpenPGP key: http://disman.tl/pgp.asc Fingerprint: 2480 095D 4B16 436F 35AB 7305 F670 74ED BD86 43A9
On Sat, Nov 16, 2013 at 8:36 AM, John Young
... At a HOPE panel on informants, several hackers disclosed those pressures to rat, some succumbed and were let off, Emmanuel Goldstein admitted it, some refused and were jailed, Bernie-X, Kevin Mitnick. All agreed it is far worse to go through than you think. Goldstein estimated 25% of hackers are rats.
Jim Bell's exhortations to deny all pleas a hard sell considering that one in four rolls over completely under pressure. :/
Barrett Brown is on the hot seat right now, being offering deals to rat, as customary, with three (!) trials postponed to maintain pressure. Shit, even his mom was used as a fed provocation to misbehave then as a persuasion club as were Sabu's nephew and niece.
it would be interesting to see a survey of the carrots and sticks used by federal prosecutors.
Anybody with a high profile is targeted, so beware publicity hounds crowing of derrying-do and urgings by high profilers who may or may not be in the grips of the feds, and if not, will soon be due to their publicity narcosis, and then used as clubs or head to jail for obstruction and recidivism or some other nut-squeezing -- even in jail they are offered deals to rat and sentence reduced.
good thing JYA stays under the radar!
In or out jail the pressure to rat continues, as with Adrian Lamo. Ex-cons never know if an overture is an LE sting or a an honest request for advice, so they rat to be safe -- recall they are obliged -- forever -- to report overtures, just like ex-spies remain under the gun to rat for life. If you haven't been there don't imagine you know what it's like.
what do you mean by "obliged -- forever -- to report overtures"? i would be very interested to know if there are clauses compelling disclosure in these agreements for unrelated activities. is this "soft" pressure, or legally binding?
Don't imagine this list and others like it, chats, OTRs, TOR, are not being spied for easy targets.
this opportunistic spying even has a code name: EPICFAIL
So if I hire him and the job description is "test consumer grade encryption by using it in daily life"..?
Dan Staples
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.
The absurdity deepens further when you consider that Hammond will no doubt be using encryption at some level in the stack when he makes phone calls via new VoIP-for-inmates services like the one recently highlighted here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/fcc-rules-that-prisoners-can-use-... On 11/16/2013 02:40 AM, Dan Staples 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.
On 11/15/2013 07:57 PM, Privarchy Mee wrote:
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?
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013, at 06:57 PM, Privarchy Mee wrote:
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?
Simple explanation: Idiot judge who simply does not understand technology and just wants good PR for the court. This is simply unconscionable and unenforceable and will probably be at least accidentally disobeyed at least once without the court's knowledge. -- Shawn K. Quinn skquinn@rushpost.com
participants (10)
-
Bill St. Clair -
Bryan Bishop -
Cathal Garvey (Phone) -
coderman -
Dan Staples -
Jacob Appelbaum -
John Young -
Mike Gogulski -
Privarchy Mee -
Shawn K. Quinn