John, calm down. I replied to all on a message you wrote; I asked you for a different file format. It had nothing to do with the substance of the case. Also, your "if my name does not show up on the To: line I'm OK" is terribly naive. A prosecutor would show to the jury the "In-Reply-To:" header that shows I'm replying to your message, the quoted text below which demonstrates the same thing, or even the fact that I started this message with your name, as you did to me. The problem with your analysis is that it's impressionist, and perhaps a little terrified. You chose to testify without hiring a lawyer, a bad move that left you at the mercy of the prosecutor. What you should have done (if you have the resources; I know cryptome is hardly a for-profit venture) is said you were a journalist and refused to answer questions beyond did-you-publish-this-article. (At the time, you told me representing yourself on the stand gave you more leeway and protection, a belief that turned out not to be correct.) Instead, you ended up chatting as much as that local reporter. Just because the "homeland war" -- which you seem overly fixated on -- will likely lead to an erosion of some liberties, it does not logically follow that it will lead to an erosion of all of them. I urge you and any other publisher/reporter/commentator types reading this not to stand up for your First Amendment rights and not assume that you must divulge unpublished information about sources if you happen to receive a subpoena. See documents at: http://www.mccullagh.org/subpoena/ I don't remember telling you that what you (John Young) told me would be "someday revealed in court" and I suspect you misunderstood. (Unless I was talking about wiretaps or electronic surveillance.) I did not reveal what, if anything, Jim Bell told me, during my brief courtroom appearance, which prompted the prosecutor to say I was a "hostile witness." As I've said here quite, my general policy is that I treat information that I collect during newsgathering and reporting purposes in confidence. Most other reporters do the same, and complaining about "homeland wars" does not change that fact. -Declan On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 03:44:25PM -0700, John Young wrote:
Declan, you are still tarring me with messages addressed to me and cc'ed to cpunks. So I state: I want no direct e-mail to me about cybercriminals convicted or likely to be that. Anybody does that after I ask them not to I will consider working with the authorities, wittingly or unwittingly.
Let me say that again, any reporter, priest, doctor, lawyer, or any other likely undercover agent which meets with me, sends me e-mail, telephones me, or faxes me without making that simultaneously public I will interpret as an attempt to entrap either for professional reasons or to help the authorities or both.
Declan, I say to you, that means you. I think you are being used as a lure just as much as Jim Bell, CJ and a several more. Your journalistic conceit appears to be blinding you to the threat you pose. Recall our talk about this in Seattle when you warned me that our conversations could be someday revealed in court, and that you considered your telling me that as fair warning to be careful what I told you.
This is not to single you out, I told the 60 Minutes reporters and other journalists what I'm saying to you here. None of you fuckers are free of being forced to tell what you have been told in confidence, and no fair warning relieves you of the obligation to tell those who confided in you just what you are telling others to save your own ass.
All the privileged receivers of confidential information got to get used to going public before they are forced to testify in secret. That is happening now and will happen more as the homeland war heats up and nuts and tits get squeezed.
Where am I going with this? I believe Jim Bell and CJ were shopped to the feds, and others are probably being shopped right now, whether on purpose or by inadvertency. I don't know who all is involved with this shit but it is damn well is going to come out.
Best to just not pretend anymore that these privileged parties can or will keep information confidential. That means nobody.