Anonomizing your on line activities and time in the clink

If you carry out illegal on line activities and do so using a proxy to anonomize your activities, the crime could be considered "sophisticated" and thus a higher form of felony.

A key vote Wednesday on new federal sentencing guidelines would classify the use of proxies as evidence of "sophistication," increasing sentences by about 25 percent - which could mean years or even decades longer behind bars, depending on the crime. It's akin to judges handing down stiffer sentences when a gun is used in a robbery.

Yet digital-rights advocates are worried. Although they aren't absolving criminals, they complain that the proposal is so broad, it could lead to unnecessarily harsh sentences for tech neophytes who didn't know they were using proxies in the first place or who were simply engaging in a practice often encouraged as a safer way of using the Internet.

"It sends a bad message about protecting your own privacy," said John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology. "This is the government saying, 'If you take normal steps to protect your privacy, we're going to view you as a more sophisticated criminal.'"


Read the story here

Tags

More like this

compiled by Otis Dudley Duncan and Tim Lambert revised 23 Oct 2005 by Tim Lambert Note: With the exception of academic publications, some tapes and some found by LexisNexis search, these were found on the Internet. The web is, of course, not perfectly reliable, and items appearing there…
The New York Times reports that the ACLU has a huge internal battle going on over their use of a data mining company to gather information on those who contribute money to the organization, as well as potential legal trouble: The American Civil Liberties Union is using sophisticated technology to…
Given that Matt and I are both gun enthusiasts, scientists, and bloggers, and we're both interested in something being done to prevent mass shootings such as in Newtown, Aurora, and almost one dozen other locations in just the last few years, we decided to host a more formal debate on the issue. I'…
Liz Ditz left a link to some other articles written by Michael Tremoglie, the author of the very badly reasoned article on church and state that I fisked the other day, and I had to take a look. It looks like that article was no fluke, he really is that clueless about most things. To wit, this…

It's akin to judges handing down stiffer sentences when a gun is used in a robbery.

Sounds more like harsher sentencing for people who did not pin their driver's licences to their shirt.
I.e. people have an interest in protecting their privacy, and doing so is not indicative of criminal intent, even if it is indicative of IT awareness.

By Spaulding (not verified) on 15 Apr 2009 #permalink

Methinks the motive is that most of them don't understand it, therefore they're afraid of it.

Well, along with using 1984 as a govt. manual again.

IT awareness marks you as a young'un, and thus likely you are uppity and too smart for your own good. That's worth a 25% increase in your sentence.