So if I hire him and the job description is "test consumer grade encryption by using it in daily life"..?
Dan Staples <[email protected]> wrote: >It's even more absurd considering the inevitable progress of technology >over the next 10 years of Hammond's sentence. If we do our jobs right, >everything will be using encryption by then. This could have the effect >of simply barring him from using any sort of communicative digital >technology...making many everyday tasks impossible. > >The only exception in the sentence is his use of encryption as required >by employment. But it's hard enough for ex-felons to find a job after >getting released as it is... > >On 11/15/2013 07:57 PM, Privarchy Mee wrote: >> Can any of you, most of whom I do not doubt are far more >knowledgeable >> about cryptography and how it's conceptualised within the legal >sphere, >> offer some insight regarding this? >> >> https://twitter.com/CyMadD0x/status/401443518612512769 >> >> The claim is that Judge Loretta A. Preska, who sentenced Jeremy >Hammond >> today, said that for the three years (post-release) that he was to >spend >> under supervision, he will not be able to use encryption for >> communication or storage purposes(!) which is practically a legal >edict >> to go and build a cabin by Walden Pond. How can this be considered >> anything but cruel and unusual? > >-- >http://disman.tl >OpenPGP key: http://disman.tl/pgp.asc >Fingerprint: 2480 095D 4B16 436F 35AB 7305 F670 74ED BD86 43A9 -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
