because he placed an ad seeking an "open relationship" with
* couples interested in "family nudity."
* City Attorney James K. Hahn said "Certainly if you see something flicker
* across your computer monitor, then you are not in possession, but if you
* go to the difficulty of downloading...then you're guilty."
As you can see, this technical detail totally escapes some people.
Continuing: then the Feds raid their place.
Naturally, they charge you with possession of child ***ography.
Let's further say you have some gibberish
files which might be encrypted material.
The government then says if you don't plead guilty to child ***, then we'll
prosecute you for the crypto-crime provision of this bill too.
i.e. Cypherpunk Tim May's succinct complaint "It's wrong when I'm a felon
under an ever increasing number of laws".
Because government will lean on you with it:
In the AA BBS case, a company delivering raunchy *** or just *** pictures,
the government threat included prosecuting the person's wife too. Just like
it could in the private home raid scenario above. Only now with a new club
to swing. It was the main reason the husband agreed to plead guilty. He
wouldn't risk his wife to a trial just to protect his own rights.
The government will use every available tool to menace crypto users.
NYT, quoting a Supreme Court member on police use of legislative language:
"They will take it as far as they can."
They have absolutely no scruples, often.
In the AA BBS case, the Feds PURPOSELY PULLED graphics legal in California
into hick Tennessee, and succeeded in jailing the CA owner.
Wow. The Feds must have been drooling when Congress passed the CDA.
In addition, the