Re: the police state cometh....

Well, again, this is a mis-characterization of the situation. As I read
the report, the software is supporting evidence. So, if your theoretical
computer crime had no need or possible use for encryption software, it
wouldn't be considered as evidence. I could be wrong. I am not a lawyer.

Enkidu wrote:
>
> Fielder George Dowding wrote:
>
>>Well, you mis-characterize the situation. I see it like the conviction
>>of a Scottish Piper who was tried and convicted of treason (and
>>subsequently hanged) after he was captured with the Scots who had taken
>>Stirling Castle (about 1746 I think). His defense was that he was just a
>>piper and not a combatant. The judge pointed out the Scots never went to
>>war without pipers, thus, his presence amongst the Scots at Stirling
>>Castle and his pipes was sufficient evidience that he was indeed guilty
>>of treason.
>>
>>It was not the Great Scottish Highland Bagpipe that was convicted, but
>>merely part of the evidence that convicted the possessor of the
>>instrument. So, there is not criminal intent of having encryption
>>software if one is not committing crimes.
>>
>
>
> But if you are accused of a computer crime then the presence of encryption
> software counts against you, I don't like that at all. It's a double-edged sword
> that I feel should stay sheathed for everyones sake.
>
> Art

-- 
Fielder George Dowding, Chief Iceworm        .^.   Debian/GNU Linux
dba Iceworm Enterprises, Anchorage, Alaska   /v\   "Sarge" Testing
Since 1976 - Over 25 Years of Service.      /( )\  User Number 269482
                                             ^^-^^  "Seth" 186667
---------
To unsubscribe, send email to <aklug-request@aklug.org>
with 'unsubscribe' in the message body.