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?
     [1]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?

   --
   Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

References

   1. https://twitter.com/CyMadD0x/status/401443518612512769