Article:		Use P2P, Go to Jail. Any Questions?
Subject:		15 years?? for installing a program?
Date:		2001-07-11 04:56:31
From:		sker
OMG, this is so insane!! Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think the real reason for prosecuting McOwen is to halt the advance of p2p applications in general. P2p apps like freehaven and freenet pose serious threats for the investigative capabilities of law enforcement agencies. Since it's hard to ban p2p applications because of the first amendment *, they attack p2p from a whole other angle: the economic angle. Making it illegal to install a client because it consumes bandwidth will effectively 'kill' all Napster's, Gnutella's, Publius'es and other p2p apps out there. Any1 agree? greetz, el $ker, a worried student. * I'm a dutch law student, so correct me if I'm wrong; but this is freedom of speech right?

Showing messages 1 through 2 of 2.

• 15 years?? for installing a program?
  2001-07-11 14:20:32  Shelley Powers | [Reply | View]
  
  
  David wasn't charged because he installed a specific type of software -- he was charged because he installed the software illegally, without permission, and left a door open -- albeit with no intent to harm. It's not the software, it's the action that's being charged.
• 15 years?? for installing a program?
  2001-07-21 01:09:22  democritus [Reply | View]
  
  
  shelleyp wrote:
  >David wasn't charged because he installed a
  >specific type of software -- he was charged
  >because he installed the software illegally,
  >without permission, and left a door open --
  >albeit with no intent to harm. It's not the
  >software, it's the action that's being charged.
  
  I sincerely doubt that he'd have been charged if he'd installed the screen saver for the distributed project that's working on protein folding. I'd bet anything that it was the words "breaking encryption" that sent up a red flag to the attorney general. Someone no doubt has some weird half-baked notions that encryption breaking contests represent hackers, anarchy and the destruction of national security. Perhaps it occured to our dimwitted attorney general that computers that break sample messages for free could break real encrypted messages for free.
  
  It's like the story by physicist Richard Feynman who worked on the top secret Manhattan project. When he showed a general that the combination locks on their desks could be easily picked, the general didn't respond by changing the locks or by warning people not to trust the locks - no he responded by writing a memo telling people to change their combinations only if Richard Feynman had access to their desks. Great minds think...
  
  If we can scare the public away from decryption, the simple minded tyrant thinks...