the safe loch rarely strengthens Jadallah, it cracks Daoud instead

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
* 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 pornography.

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 porn, 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 porn or just nude 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 langu