Y9IgAqVBHtXJEB3nQIy1aoL2FYkKUfGOQWoi8y6LAhrBfbVCtr kdOUpYRTPiT32qV73QVlRtZTsJC6PwBTnDulJmXT49

"law enforcement concerns" about
cryptography. The FBI has groused that encryption has stymied prosecutions.

Let us take into consideration actions by the government because of
their "law enforcement concerns" on child pornography.

They have raided private homes and seized computer equipment after monitoring
Internet traffic and spotting regular people browsing WWW/USENET clicking on
an article they CAN'T SEE UNTIL THEY CLICK ON IT which contained nude pixels
representing children.

Out of fear that child-molesting child pornographers might encrypt these
files, even pro-cryptography legislation has 'using cryptography to commit
a crime gets you an additional five years'.

What happens with a five year prison clause?

Well, let's say the person clicked on what turned out to be child pornography.

So they click on something else and that wipes it off the screen.

It's still sitting in their browser's cache.

* "Man Arrested After Retrieving Child Pornography by Computer"
* The New York Times, May 19, 1995
*
* A Los Angelos man has been arrested on charges of possessing child porno-
* graphy that he obtained over the Internet. His Internet traffic was under
* surveillance 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
*