US mulls stiffer sentences for common Net proxies

Apr 14, 2009 By JORDAN ROBERTSON , AP Technology Writer

(AP) -- "Proxy" servers are an everyday part of Internet surfing. But using one in a crime could soon lead to more time in the clink.

A key vote Wednesday on new federal sentencing guidelines would classify the use of proxies as evidence of "sophistication," increasing sentences by about 25 percent - which could mean years or even decades longer behind bars, depending on the crime. It's akin to judges handing down stiffer sentences when a gun is used in a robbery.

Yet digital-rights advocates are worried. Although they aren't absolving criminals, they complain that the proposal is so broad, it could lead to unnecessarily harsh sentences for tech neophytes who didn't know they were using proxies in the first place or who were simply engaging in a practice often encouraged as a safer way of using the Internet.

"It sends a bad message about protecting your own privacy," said John Morris, general counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology. "This is the government saying, 'If you take normal steps to protect your privacy, we're going to view you as a more sophisticated criminal.'"

Proxies are computers that sit between a user and the Internet at large. They can be used to disguise that person's numeric Internet Protocol address, which is akin to a street address for a computer. Proxies are scattered around the Internet and are routinely used to relay , often unbeknownst to Internet users.

Corporations routinely use proxies to let their employees work from home; virtual private networks, or VPNs, make traffic look like it's coming from within the company's internal network, thus bypassing its security firewalls.

Cell phone providers use proxies to connect devices to the Internet, while people in repressive countries use them to circumvent Internet censors. Internet service providers also use proxies to speed traffic, by storing copies of frequently accessed Web pages locally, avoiding the need for users to reach out to the original site every time.

Privacy-minded users also rely on proxies to surf the Internet anonymously. With the free service Tor, for example, people install software to turn their computers into relay points for routing traffic between other people's computers. Thus, a Web site only knows the identity of the last relay point, not the user actually accessing it.

But such anonymity proxies can be used for both good and bad, and a debate is stirring as the government proposes to impose stiffer penalties for crimes committed by someone who had been using those and other proxies.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission is to vote Wednesday on a series of amendments to the sentencing guidelines, which heavily influence the sentences that judges hand down. The amendment in question would treat the use of proxies as evidence of "sophistication" in planning certain types of crimes, from embezzlement to forgery and other types of fraud.

If the commission approves it, the change takes effect Nov. 1 unless Congress takes the rare step of blocking it beforehand.

Opposing the change requires a delicate touch, because the rule would apply only to people already convicted of crimes and facing sentencing.

"It's kind of a fine line we're dancing around, because we're not trying to coddle cybercriminals, but we also really don't think the government should be creating and institutionalizing a disincentive, a penalty for routine, safe privacy practices," Morris said.

The Justice Department pushed for the change as a way to exact a harsher punishment on criminals who set up extensive proxy networks in multiple countries to evade law enforcement. Investigators can spend months, if not years, unraveling the networks. Sometimes, it's impossible if they can't get cooperation from foreign governments.

Officials pointed to several recent cases that illustrate the complexity of investigations involving proxies.

One probe - into a spamming operation specializing in "pump and dump" schemes involving Chinese penny stocks - took three years to complete and resulted in the indictment of 11 people in federal court in Michigan last year.

Investigators said the defendants bought lists of known proxies and used them to send millions of pieces of spam e-mail, earning millions of dollars by selling the stock they were promoting at inflated prices.

Criminals often tap into legitimate proxies that are misconfigured. Businesses, universities and home users who own such proxies usually aren't aware their bandwidth is being sucked up by spammers or other criminals trying to hide their tracks.

A criminal could throw off an investigation by making traffic appear to come from a country with weak law enforcement. U.S. investigators could waste months trying to get cooperation only to hit a dead end - by then, the criminal has long moved on.

"So much of the initial challenge in an investigation is determining attribution - where are the transmissions coming from?" Michael DuBose, chief of the computer crime and intellectual property section of the Justice Department's criminal division, said in an interview.

DuBose said the change is meant to punish people who knowingly use proxies to hide their identity and execute a criminal scheme.

But the current wording has been criticized as vague, and its opponents want a clearer statement of its application only to people who use proxies with criminal intent. Some also say that calling the use of proxies "sophisticated" is a stretch, given their ubiquity. The commission could change the language when it votes Wednesday.

"Even if someone did use a technology that made law enforcement's life harder, and even if they did have criminal intent, technologically it may not be sophisticated at all," Seth Schoen, staff technologist with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based nonprofit focused on online free speech and privacy. The EFF also helped fund development of the Tor anonymity proxy service.

"They're proposing to make a kind of judgment that this is something unusual or remarkable, which just doesn't match my experience with the technology. This is an everyday technology."

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Explore further: Japan court orders Facebook to reveal revenge porn IP addresses

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Groups battle FCC's Wiretap Act extension

Oct 30, 2005

Civil liberties groups have come out strongly against the Federal Communications Commission's order to expand the Wiretap Act and force universities and public Internet networks to overhaul their networks to make it easier ...

Networking: Virus writing for profit

Sep 26, 2005

Unscrupulous e-mail marketers are collaborating with criminal virus writers to combine selling questionable goods and services online with attempting to steal information from consumers, experts told United Press International's ...

EU to sue Britain over Internet privacy

Apr 14, 2009

(AP) -- The European Union started legal action against Britain on Tuesday for not applying EU data privacy rules that would restrict an Internet advertising tracker called Phorm from watching how users surf the Web.

Internet under attack by zombie computers

Jan 08, 2007

Computer code writers in Europe are the chief suspects in the creation of programs that turn other computers into zombie-like slaves for Internet crimes.

IPv6: Challenge to Internet freedom?

Mar 20, 2006

A China-backed Internet technical standard reportedly might allow the traceability of Internet users, especially those opposing government policies.

Recommended for you

Kickstarter suspends privacy router campaign

Oct 20, 2014

Kickstarter has suspended an anonymizing router from its crowdfunding site. By Sunday, the page for "anonabox: A Tor hardware router" carried an extra word "(Suspended)" in parentheses with a banner below ...

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

earls
3.5 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2009
The tougher law is pointless, but so are the concerns of the privacy groups... If you're not doing something illegal, what do you have to worry about?!

It doesn't matter if you're using a proxy or not, you're still doing something illegal!
x646d63
5 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2009
The tougher law is pointless, but so are the concerns of the privacy groups... If you're not doing something illegal, what do you have to worry about?!

It doesn't matter if you're using a proxy or not, you're still doing something illegal!


Have you read any history?

There is no point in making things *more* illegal, as this does, so that is not likely the ultimate point of this.

More likely, this is a precursor to making some other activity illegal that is currently not illegal--one that relies on proxies and anonymity.

My guess? Concealing or misrepresenting your identity on the internet.

So, if you register under the name "earls" and your real name is actually Bob, you might be breaking the law. Now you're doing something illegal, so you should be worried.

When they came for the embezzlers I said nothing.
When they came for the file sharers I said nothing.
When they came for the critical commenters I said nothing.
When they came for me, it was too late.
denijane
5 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2009
It doesn't matter whether you're doing something legal or illegal, remember, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You're not supposed to prove your innocence, the police or whoever is supposed to prove you are guilty. So, one has every right to use a proxy to protect his/her privacy. With privacy being the ONLY reason.

I don't want ANYONE to track my internet activity, to check what sites I visit, what I do or say there, what kind of porn I prefer or what are my political views without my explicit consent. If and when I commit a crime, then the police may invade my privacy rights. Not before that!
x646d63
not rated yet Apr 22, 2009
If and when I commit a crime, then the police may invade my privacy rights. Not before that!


I think you mean "If and when I am suspected to have committed a crime then the police may invade my privacy rights."

The real question is what qualifies as "suspect activity." The People (who should be deciding this) will have a very different answer than The Establishment.