Lets take this seriously for a second. Say we're actually trying to catch cyber criminals and child pornographers and we're discussing enacting this law. Someone speaks up and says, "For all the discomfort and trouble we're putting innocent people through, the real criminals will just store their data online and travel with cleaned computers." How do you continue enacting this legislation? I'm trying to be as serious as possible.
How does any legislator look at the people they represent and come to the conclusion that this is a good idea?
In my opinion this is exactly like SOPA, a corporation-sponsored bill. Why would any government care if you "pirate" a movie? There is no tax on cinemas, but you pay an tax + extra fees if you're buying blank CD/DVDs -- because they presume you're going to write ("burn") illegal content.
Put copyright aside for a sec and lets try to actually frame it in the case of child porn or drug trafficking. How can any legislator conclude that disrupting the public like this is acceptable after having a reasonable discussion about how easy it would be for criminals to circumvent?
The hugely ironic part of all of this is that laws like this don't make moving data harder for criminals. It just forces them to use better data-securing practices in their day to day lives which make it harder for local law enforcement to get their job done.
The only impact I can see this legislation having is making law abiding citizens upset with their democracy.
Put copyright aside for a sec and lets try to actually frame it in the case of child porn or drug trafficking. How can any legislator conclude that disrupting the public like this is acceptable after having a reasonable discussion about how easy it would be for criminals to circumvent?
Did you see the excerpts from the SOPA hearings? The legislators can conclude that this degree of disruption is acceptable because they are morons.
How does any legislator look at the people they represent and come to the conclusion that this is a good idea?