• annette_runner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    36
    ·
    20 hours ago

    I think it’s contextual. It is definitely relevant to bring into a criminal case that criminals made attempts to obstruct gathering of evidence in commission of the crime. It’s no different than shredding or burning paper files. Evidence of criminals taking steps to hide the criminal activity is how you prove that a transgression is willful rather than negligent. That matters in cases like murder.

    Encryption is also criminal in some contexts, like encrypted radio broadcasts on frequencies for public use.

    It definitely belongs as a talking point in a courtroom, imo.

    • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 hour ago

      It’s no different than shredding or burning paper files.

      Both are normal if you work with information you wouldn’t like to leak. Or something very personal.

      They are that thing you said only if they are unusual for the circumstance. When that gives information that a person did something not normal.

      Because that’s a sign of something, kinda similar to shaking hands and missing shovel and sudden lack of time for guests.

      Encrypting everything on Internet-connected machines is not unusual. It’s perfectly normal. It’s f* obligatory.

      Encryption is also criminal in some contexts, like encrypted radio broadcasts on frequencies for public use.

      Because that’s almost jamming, if everyone could broadcast all they can, nobody could use those frequencies. And since you have to make space there, private transmissions probably belong somewhere else. Doesn’t matter when using wire. This is irrelevant to encryption.

      It definitely belongs as a talking point in a courtroom, imo.

      No it doesn’t. Even if someone suddenly started encrypting everything, no. Maybe they learned how the world works and decided to learn to do it just in case.

    • Revv@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      17 hours ago

      With respect, this is a short-sighted take. There’s literally no legitimate crime that is made worse because a person tried to avoid it being detected. Plot a murder over tor? Not a good look. But in what universe is someone less morally culpable because they just posted on craigslist?

      On the other hand, allowing the use of encryption or other privacy methods to affect the criminality or punishment assigned to an action just creates a backdoor to criminalizing privacy itself. Allowing that serves no real purpose in deterring folks from hurting others, but it sure does further the interests of an oppressive or authoritarian regime.

      • annette_runner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        16 hours ago

        How does covering up a crime not make it worse when it allows you to get away and commit more crime?

        • jmf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Doing crime in the privacy of my own home allows me to get away with it and commit more crime, doesn’t mean we should have transparent walls that everyone can watch what you do through.

          • annette_runner@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            I don’t disagree with that but the article is talking about what arguments are permissible in a court room which is a little different. Same as using tools to commit a crime. It’s not illegal to own or use tools but when used in commission of a crime, this can be a factor in proving elements of a crime that require proof of intention or malice.