The Government Wants To Jail You
Jay J. Hector sent me the link to a compelling story in WIRED, Brendan I. Koerner's piece on Alfred Anaya, who installed primo secret compartments in cars -- and was imprisoned for it, though he apparently had nothing to do with smuggling drugs:
A common hacker refrain is that technology is always morally neutral. The culture's libertarian ethos holds that creators shouldn't be faulted if someone uses their gadget or hunk of code to cause harm; the people who build things are under no obligation to meddle in the affairs of the adults who consume their wares.But Alfred Anaya's case makes clear that the government rejects that permissive worldview. The technically savvy are on notice that they must be very careful about whom they deal with, since calculated ignorance of illegal activity is not an acceptable excuse. But at what point does a failure to be nosy edge into criminal conduct? In light of what happened to Anaya, that question is nearly impossible to answer.
"What's troubling a lot of people is that this conviction seems to impose a new sort of liability on people that create state-of-the-art technology," says Branden Bell, an attorney in Olathe, Kansas, who is handling Anaya's appeal. "The logic goes that because he suspected his customers of doing something, he had a duty to ask. But that is a duty that is written nowhere in the law."
The challenge for anyone who creates technology is to guess when, exactly, they should turn their back on paying customers. Take, for example, a manufacturer of robot kits for hobbyists. If someone uses those robots to patrol a smuggling route or help protect a meth lab so that traffickers can better evade law enforcement, how will prosecutors determine whether the company acted criminally? If it accepted payment in crumpled $20 bills and thus should have known it was dealing with gangsters? If the customer picked up the merchandise in an overly flashy car? The law offers scant guidance, but prosecutors have tremendous leeway to pursue conspiracy charges whenever they see fit. And as 3-D printers enable the unfettered production of sophisticated objects, those prosecutors will be tempted to make examples out of people who are careless about their clients.
Anaya can attest to the great sorrows of becoming such an example. When I visited him at the Victorville Federal Correctional Complex, on the sun-cooked edge of California's Mojave Desert, he was still coming to grips with the desolation of prison life. His ex-wife, Aimee Basham, with whom he recently reconciled, brings the family to visit at least once a month. But Anaya is anguished by the prison's restrictions on personal contact with his children; he can scarcely believe that his youngest son will never again sit on his lap. And he bemoans the financial disaster that has befallen his family in his absence--ING Direct foreclosed on the house, and his other creditors are hounding Basham for tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid bills.
Above all, Anaya seems baffled that he will likely spend the next two decades in prison for doing something that isn't specifically forbidden by federal law. "If it takes me never building another compartment again for me to get out of here, that's what I'm willing to do," he says. "But I think I should be able to."
He's in prison for over 24 years, sans possibility of parole -- for building some secret compartments, supposedly. But really, it seems, for not bending over when the feds said so.
Don't think you can't be imprisoned if they really want to do it.
Alfred Anaya knew what the compartments were being used for.
He had a close relationship with the drug cartel he built these compartments for. So close, that he actually went down to Mexico for them to open one up.
While I think most of the drug laws should be wiped off the books, this guy was getting paid well and was part of a conspiracy to traffic drugs. He was not selling these compartments mail order to people he did not know.
This is what I hate about journalists. In order to write a compelling story, they leave out half the facts, in order to induce outrage in the reader.
Isab at April 1, 2013 12:15 AM
"So close, that he actually went to Mexico for them to open one up."
How do you know that? It says that he declined the offer to go Mexico.
Anaya knew what he was building the compartments for, though, and the
writer explains this pretty well. He thought he wouldn't get busted if drugs were not mentioned, which is stupid. Sounds like he was making other bad decisions as well (big spender on fancy toys, debt, alcohol abuse).
Jason S. at April 1, 2013 5:31 AM
24 years is certainly excessive, but he wasn't morally neutral. He was working with cartels.
"Sounds like he was making other bad decisions as well.."
Don't forget about asking his peers if they were on the right side of the law instead of say, a lawyer.
Elle at April 1, 2013 5:55 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2013/04/01/the_government_13.html#comment-3664452">comment from ElleThere is a very scary line that's being crossed here. With clever lawyers, the government can prove you guilty of anything.
Amy Alkon
at April 1, 2013 6:28 AM
While he knew at least some of the compartments would be used to smuggle drugs, other compartments could have been used to conceal valuables from potential robbers.
Compartments don't smuggle drugs, people smuggle drugs.
Conan the Grammarian at April 1, 2013 10:48 AM
No longer allowed to hide anything in this country. Better keep that travelling cash, the jewelry and other valuables (as well as your dear diary) in a *clear* plastic bag taped to the car window, so all can see what you have, in case a cop walks by... Wouldn't want to keep anything private or even closely-held among family. Only criminals hide something. If one is not a criminal, one should have no objection to a weekly proctoscoping. Only bad people will holler about it, so bend over.
bmused at April 1, 2013 12:53 PM
So if you buy a dime bag from your local corner dealer whos to say the governemnt can claim you knew you were funding murders and drug running?
Same pricible, right?
lujlp at April 1, 2013 2:25 PM
Alfred Anaya made one basic mistake. He talked to the Authorities without a lawyer. Anyone who makes this one basic mistake can be convicted of anything.
Assholio at April 1, 2013 3:50 PM
"Alfred Anaya made one basic mistake. He talked to the Authorities." FIFY
Martha Stewart. Scooter Libby. Both would remind you to never pass on the opportunity to shut up. No one knows all of the criminal code. We are all at least unknowingly criminals, and if by some miracle we are not, at least some innocent people have been convicted of crimes they have not committed.
MarkD at April 2, 2013 1:15 PM
I'm pretty certain that aiding and abetting is a crime.
I'm not feeling any sympathy here.
LauraGr at April 4, 2013 7:10 AM
This is my brother your talking about. If even though he knew what they were used for....24 year federal prison is not acceptable. Especially with a clean law record. If our family could of afford a lawyer he wouldn't of gotten that long of a sentencing. There are murders and child molesters out there that get less time. Dept of Justice used my brother as an example and that's messed up. My brother is a great man and father. I believe in god he will not do that much time. We miss him dearly especially his children.
Esther Anaya at January 4, 2015 10:36 AM
Esther, I'm so sorry about your brother, and you are absolutely right about the amount of time.
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2015 6:29 PM
Leave a comment