Posted on 05/24/2005 9:56:37 PM PDT by atomic_dog
Total BS.
This completely misses (and misrepresents) the point. It's not that the court took into account that he *had* used the encryption to conceal his crime -- and from the article, it sounds as if they did not or could not establish that -- it's that the mere fact that he *had* the encryption software was used "as evidence of criminal intent". That's completely inexcusable, and by the very same standard almost all of us could be shown to have "evidence of criminal intent".
...and how long have you worked for one of PGP's competitors?
"As a blanket statement that is utter drivel. This computer has XP with all service packs and updates and co-exists just fine with PGP, and I have installed it on 4 others also.
Perhaps there is a specific problem with your setup but you should avoid making sweeping and untrue statements."
There was nothing wrong with my XP setup. Perhaps you should practice what you preach and not be so condescending. You're holier than thou attitude speaks volumes about your arrogance. That's a good way to start a flame war. If that was your intent, then chill out, I'm not playing. The following Microsoft article details the XP incompatibility problem with PGP version 7.03
Network Problems After You Install Pretty Good Privacy 7.03 on Windows XP
Excerpt:
"Microsoft Knowledge Base Article - Q286562
Network Problems After You Install Pretty Good Privacy 7.03 on Windows XP
The information in this article applies to:
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Symptoms
After you install the free version of Pretty Good Privacy version 7.03, you may be unable to browse the Internet or connect to an IP-based network. When you try to establish a Dial-Up Networking or RAS connection, you may receive the following error message:
Unable to Negotiate Connection
------------------------------
PGP Error
Cannot establish connection with the PGP SDK service.
[OK]
When you try to start PGPTray and PGPKey, you may receive the following error message:
Launching PGPDisk:
------------------
PGPDisk
The PGPDisk application could not start because: "PFLError #-11939."
[OK]
Cause
This issue can occur because Pretty Good Privacy 7.03 is not compatible with Windows XP.
More Information
Note that if you uninstall Pretty Good Privacy 7.03, the issue is not resolved because the program uninstalls the TCP/IP stack, and the TCP/IP stack does not support manual reinstallation."
Unfortunately, I spoke from the bitter experience of installing PGP 7.03 several years ago (before version 8) and when it trashed my networking ability, I uninstalled it, which resulted in also uninstalling the TCP stack. Since there was no way to reinstall the TCP stack, I was left with no choice but to reformat and reinstall everything. I ignored PGP from then on because Zimmerman was no longer associated with it.
Historical background:
Phil Zimmerman, the creator of PGP, left Network Associates Inc. (NAI) because they stopped releasing ALL of the source code. Without the source code, later versions could not be certified to be back-door free. (I lost interest in PGP because of this fact and the loss of the Zimmerman's services.) The rights to PGP were later purchased from NAI by a startup company named PGP Corporation and which company has now developed versions 8 and 9.
I've just found out that Zimmerman is once again associated with his creation and has now become a reseller for PGP Corporation which now provides complete source code. According to his website, these versions are now compatible with WinXP. This is good news. Perhaps I'll give it another try (on a test machine 1st) now that he's back.
If you're going to buy it, then buy it from the man himself - the person that created it: http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/findpgp/index.html
(They still have a freeware version for personal use.)
Judges like this need to be in jail. For everyone elses safety.
Thank you for the link and for NOT making sarcastic condescending comments.
New information is always welcome and appreciated.
You might want to check out the website of the guy who created PGP, Phil Zimmerman:
http://www.philzimmermann.com/EN/findpgp/index.html
He has some links to other privacy type programs there as well.
FReegards,
RT
Gee guys, your comments are really helpful and informative.
See post # 44
"Geez, how many people have PGP on their computers?"
If they looked at my computer they'd just take me out and shoot me. Practically everything I have that's important is encrypted as per my company.
"Does anyone else see something wrong here or am I just being paranoid?"
Not paranoid. When the government can make laws for itself that states normal activities are criminal, we are in big trouble, and so is the government.
It would be inaccurate to single out this ruling as definitive to the sentencing and verdict.
BUMP
Sure it can. They'll snip one sentence out of the juris dictum and use that to bolster another case. We've seen it before over the last hundred years innumerable times. Lazy judges grasping at straws to bolster their increasingly anti-Constitutional findings.
I disagree. Possessing a legal program or item does not show criminal intent. If it did, then we're all in trouble. For example: having a pack of cigarettes in your pocket while entering a 'smoke-free' building would be a crime (the criminal intent of smoking in a prohibited place being evident by the mere possession of a pack of cigarettes).
If the investigation had uncovered encrypted porn files (which according to the article, it didn't), then a case for criminal intent might be more plausable, based on the encrypted incriminating files, not possession of the encrypting software.
IMHO, there was no reason for ruling that encryption software shows criminal intent. The appeal was based on showing that the possession of the software should not have been introduced as evidence (I agree), however the appeal itself should have been ruled as irrelevant or at least remanded for retrial. The article seems to suggest that there was enough evidence to convict without that argument.
You have FReepmail.
PGP version 9 claims to be compatible with WinXP. I have not tried it, so I can not personally verify that statement.
Other posters are claiming to be using PGP with WinXP, so the current version may be OK, but I would ask them which version they are using & if it is retail or freeware.
Also, remember that there is usually less support for freeware.
"I disagree. Possessing a legal program or item does not show criminal intent."
Purchasing a legal firearm prior to a murder IS however compelling evidence of the intent to commit crime (with premeditation), when placed before a jury in CONJUNCTION with the appropriate substantive and circumstantial evidence. Please note the importance of the legal standard of evidence is not prejudiced (beyond reasonable doubt)
"If the investigation had uncovered encrypted porn files (which according to the article, it didn't),..."
Careful they never actually said that see here: "The court didn't say that police had unearthed any encrypted files ..."
"IMHO, there was no reason for ruling that encryption software shows criminal intent. "
I still disagree that the case is about impacting on our liberty. If you own encrypted software that is one thing and on it's own there is no pretense that you could be victimized for this. HOWEVER if in CONJUNCTION to owning this encryption software you visit child porn sites or abduct girls of the street to photograph them. If you have some Internet and bank transactions that could be incriminating and if you do own a secret photography studio at home with evidence suggesting that children are photoed there and are accused by a female child victim. then I think you may need to worry about this ruling. As a Mother it gladdens me to know that finally there is some action being taken by right minded judges concerning the vile sickening scum out there preying on our children, these scum know there is a legal loophole they can exploit and technology that will protect them (PGP is one there are also cache and web history erasers) so in the main they act with impunity.
Which should be more than enough reason for us to not adopt the same standard.
PGP has been compatible with XP since version 8.
The last freeware version was 6.5.8.
PGP9 incorporates SHA-512 encryption since SHA-1 is becoming theoretically breakable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.