Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] Hammond Banned from using Cryptography

Bernard Tyers - ei8fdb ei8fdb at ei8fdb.org
Tue Nov 19 03:17:55 PST 2013


It seems a similar stupidly idiotic requirement to the one imposed on Kevin Mitnick when he was released. 

From memory the requirment on him was that he wasn’t allowed to use “computers or telephony” equipment. It might have been possible in the early 2000’s but today?

IANAL, but would it be worth getting some lawyers to prod this argument further? “You’re honour, what is defined as cryptography?” At least then (in the US) there’d be precedent on what is seen as crypto? Or does that already exist?

Could be good for an education campaign “Crypto is not the end goal” to spead the already daily use of cryptography as opposed to the unfortunate view that “crypto is for turrists and sex fiends”.

“The government see [online banking] as using cryptography. Everyone uses it.”

Just a thought…


On 16 Nov 2013, at 06:01, Shava Nerad <shava23 at gmail.com> wrote:

> It is so common for judges to be complètement sans clue regarding technology -- I'm sure the judge has no idea how pervasive crypto is, probably doesn't understand his online banking uses it, and so on.
> 
> It's tragic.
> 
> bleh.
> 
> 
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:36 PM, Yosem Companys <companys at stanford.edu> wrote:
> From: Privarchy Mee <privarchy at gmail.com>
> 
> 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?
>

--------------------------------------
Bernard / bluboxthief / ei8fdb

IO91XM / Contact me: me.ei8fdb.org





More information about the liberationtech mailing list