On Tuesday, September 25, 2001, at 03:35 PM, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
As noted in a Christian Science Monitor editorial this week, "to have FBI agents with no preparatory contact knocking on the doors of Arab or Muslim citizens with no clear ties to acts of crime is a sure way to instill fear right where cooperation is most needed."
In legal parlance, this practice is referred to as "profiling." In my book, it's just plain racism.
And it has no place in my country.
---
Riad Z. Abdelkarim is an American-born, -raised and -educated physician active in the American Muslim community. He lives in Southern California.
A dozen more warriors for Allah in this Jihad were recruited by this article. The U.S. is doing exactly what OBL is hoping for. I haven't been "visited," at least not so far. Maybe I never will be. I hope I have the presence of mind to say "You're trespassing. Get the fuck off my property." I would only "answer questions" through an attorney, and I would only hire a $300 an hour shyster if I _had_ to. Meaning, I would say nothing (I would hope) unless they arrest me. Until then, they can stay the fuck off of my property. (My last experience with security narcs was the event I described at Stanford. There, I did manage to have the presence of mind to answer none of their questions about my name, my reason for being on campus at the same time the Criminal Family was visiting, or about the contents of my bag.)
Tim wrote:
I haven't been "visited," at least not so far. Maybe I never will be.
I hope I have the presence of mind to say "You're trespassing. Get the fuck off my property."
When I was visited (by a clichi salt-and-pepper team, no less), I actually invited them in. The reason? I wanted to find out why they were there. The first thing I said was, "I do not give my permission to being recorded." Not worth much, but I wanted to see how they reacted. (For what it's worth, the assured me they weren't recording.) I then asked them why they were there. When they told me, I said, "I'm not interested in discussing that subject." Then I stood up and showed them to the door. They obviously knew that further discussion would be futile so they left without further comment. Whether you take my approach or Tim's approach isn't all that important. What is vital, is that you maintain your sense of moral superiority. Any personal fear, guilt or subservience on your part are your own worst enemies. S a n d y
On Tuesday, September 25, 2001, at 06:06 PM, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Tim wrote:
I haven't been "visited," at least not so far. Maybe I never will be.
I hope I have the presence of mind to say "You're trespassing. Get the fuck off my property."
When I was visited (by a clichi salt-and-pepper team, no less), I actually invited them in. The reason? I wanted to find out why they were there.
The first thing I said was, "I do not give my permission to being recorded." Not worth much, but I wanted to see how they reacted. (For what it's worth, the assured me they weren't recording.)
I then asked them why they were there. When they told me, I said, "I'm not interested in discussing that subject." Then I stood up and showed them to the door. They obviously knew that further discussion would be futile so they left without further comment.
Whether you take my approach or Tim's approach isn't all that important. What is vital, is that you maintain your sense of moral superiority. Any personal fear, guilt or subservience on your part are your own worst enemies.
To repeat, I haven't been visited, so I have no certainty how I'll respond. In my personal situation, I would NEVER invite them into my house. For various reasons. Inviting any agent of the government in is an invitation for them to "look around." If they see something that interests them, they are free to pursue it. For another reason, I don't even invite my _neighbors_ in to my house anymore. (Yes, I held a couple of Cypherpunks parties at my house in 1995-6, No more. A lot of people I had never met showed up "for the party." No harm done, but they might have been agents, might have sought ways to plant things. I haven't held a "public invited" party since Choate rolled over on us. There might be Choate-type people in the Bay Area who would attend one of my parties.) I am not criticizing Sandy for inviting the agents in, but it's something I hope I will never do. "Get the fuck off my property!" is what I hope I will have the presence of mind to say. They can arrest me, of course. My personal view is that if an arrest is not justified, one government agent must <censored> for every 24-hour period that I am held unjustly. --Tim May
Tim wrote:
In my personal situation, I would NEVER invite them into my house. For various reasons.
And of course, that's a perfectly legitimate choice. Even in my case, I wouldn't repeat that response. Different times, different situation. Today, though, I'd still want to know what they were after, so I'd step out of my door, close it, then engage them long enough to question them, then bid them a good day.
Inviting any agent of the government in is an invitation for them to "look around." If they see something that interests them, they are free to pursue it.
Not necessarily, but a good first approximation. At any rate, my advice wasn't about how much one should interact with the Federal Baby Incinerators, but with one's moral stance when doing so. S a n d y
At 6:06 PM -0700 9/25/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Whether you take my approach or Tim's approach isn't all that important. What is vital, is that you maintain your sense of moral superiority. Any personal fear, guilt or subservience on your part are your own worst enemies.
I personally don't answer my door unless I recognize them. Of course I realize that I'm missing scintillating conversation with Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and the occasional vacuum cleaner salesman. Making yourself generally unavailable should be your first line of defense. Regards, Matt- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************
On Tuesday, September 25, 2001, at 06:42 PM, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
At 6:06 PM -0700 9/25/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Whether you take my approach or Tim's approach isn't all that important. What is vital, is that you maintain your sense of moral superiority. Any personal fear, guilt or subservience on your part are your own worst enemies.
I personally don't answer my door unless I recognize them. Of course I realize that I'm missing scintillating conversation with Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and the occasional vacuum cleaner salesman.
Making yourself generally unavailable should be your first line of defense.
Ditto for me, though I haven't received any unusual visitors. I installed a standard one-way viewer some years ago, and I usually check to see who is knocking before I answer. I haven't yet had reason to remain silent and not answer. (I installed the viewer after being foolishly served with a subpoena.) I'm considering a major upgrade to a t.v. camera system. The wireless X10 cameras seem to be interesting. (The wireless doesn' t much bother me, as the views will be of outside.) I'm not yet ready to install Claymore mines linked to motion sensors, for various reasons, but I think the war that is coming will often involve private citizens killing Nazi narcs. It's really time we stop aiding those planning to take away our liberties in support of ZOG. --Tim May
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
I personally don't answer my door unless I recognize them. Of course I realize that I'm missing scintillating conversation with Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and the occasional vacuum cleaner salesman.
Making yourself generally unavailable should be your first line of defense.
I can't imagine that the FBI would be that easily dissuaded if they really wished to subpoena you. What about the cases of the feds "camping out" outside a witness's home in order to ambush him with a subpoena? How do you defend against this? In Tim's case, I suppose he could dip in to his Y2K emergency supplies, and remain holed up for quite some time. But some of us have to go to work. Is "I'm stuck at home because I don't want to be served" a valid reason for taking a sick day? :) More seriously, is it a crime to go out of your way to avoid being served? If I'm caught crawling out my bathroom window when there's an FBI agent on my door step, what kind of problems (in addition to whatever put the fed on my doorstep in the first place) would I be facing? -MW-
At 09:42 PM 9/25/01 -0400, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
At 6:06 PM -0700 9/25/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Whether you take my approach or Tim's approach isn't all that important. What is vital, is that you maintain your sense of moral superiority. Any personal fear, guilt or subservience on your part are your own worst enemies.
I personally don't answer my door unless I recognize them. Of course I realize that I'm missing scintillating conversation with Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and the occasional vacuum cleaner salesman.
You only get visited by Mormons if you have a history with them. But with JW's, you get 2 points off your license for every pelt, 3 if you only need 1 shot.
You can easily avoid visits by mormons because their missionary strategy is a pattern -- if you see two young-ish people with black nametags walking down the street, that's them. Anecdote: a friend of mine (who subscribes to this list) had a bad scare on 9/11 -- his doorbell rang and he saw through the peep-hole that three men in black suits with stern looks on their faces were waiting at the door. As he reached for the phone to auto-dial his lawyer, he opened the door to discover it was... Jehovah's Witnesses. Now all you FBI moles, take that as a lesson to show up on my doorstep in your 'Got Root?' t-shirts you bought at DEFCON last year... t 07:28 PM 9/25/01 -0700, David Honig wrote:
At 09:42 PM 9/25/01 -0400, Matthew Gaylor wrote:
At 6:06 PM -0700 9/25/01, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Whether you take my approach or Tim's approach isn't all that important.
I personally don't answer my door unless I recognize them. Of course I realize that I'm missing scintillating conversation with Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and the occasional vacuum cleaner salesman.
You only get visited by Mormons if you have a history with them.
At 06:06 PM 9/25/01 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
When I was visited (by a clichi salt-and-pepper team, no less), I actually invited them in. The reason? I wanted to find out why they were there.
The first thing I said was, "I do not give my permission to being recorded." Not worth much, but I wanted to see how they reacted. (For what it's worth, the assured me they weren't recording.)
Nice, but in Brinworld, you'd also advise them that they may be recorded. For yucks ask them to remove their shoes before entering your home.
David Honig wrote:
Nice, but in Brinworld, you'd also advise them that they may be recorded.
For yucks ask them to remove their shoes before entering your home.
I didn't have a handy recorder at the time, but I like both of David's ideas. When I lived in Singapore, I learned the wisdom of the no-shoes-in-the-house rule. S a n d y
(a) There just aren't enough good interviewers to go around. The cooperation of the American-Arab community is not something the FBI wants to place at risk. (b) As the interviewee was a frequent writer on Arab-American issues, the story could have been predicted (with great accuracy) following an interrogation-style interview. Maybe the FBI is beating the grass to see what moves, or runs. If you can get the cells and their associates to focus on freedom and security, rather than an attack -- you've gained time, if nothing else. Most of you would probably pick (a). It is discouraging to see the disdain in which many of you hold the FBI during a time when we need cooperation and insight from nontraditional sources. In some cases, maybe FBI agents are an inappropriate vehicle for elicitation. An NGO might be able to garner trust and serve as a trusted liaison with dissident groups, and even more so if it used "snitch-crypto." *she says, just wondering....as she covers herself with flame-retardant materials* ~Aimee
Aimee Farr wrote:
It is discouraging to see the disdain in which many of you hold the FBI during a time when we need cooperation and insight from nontraditional sources.
I think the disdain with which many of hold the Federal Baby Incinerators is (a) based on sad experience and (b) no greater now than usual. In fact, I think that now is EXACTLY the right time to call these accountants-with-guns into question. How many FBI failures, fuck-ups and Wacos does it take to demonstrate that this unconstitutional police force ain't gonna stop the next 911 any more than they stopped the last one? S a n d y
On Tuesday 25 September 2001 21:22, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
Aimee Farr wrote:
It is discouraging to see the disdain in which many of you hold the FBI during a time when we need cooperation and insight from nontraditional sources.
I think the disdain with which many of hold the Federal Baby Incinerators is (a) based on sad experience and (b) no greater now than usual. In fact, I think that now is EXACTLY the right time to call these accountants-with-guns into question. How many FBI failures, fuck-ups and Wacos does it take to demonstrate that this unconstitutional police force ain't gonna stop the next 911 any more than they stopped the last one?
I just wonder how many security professionals will be willing to work with them now that they are planning on making "hacking" a crime with a life sentence and no statute of limitations? (Especially since they have a habit of finding some reason to jail them when they are not longer useful.) "Terrorist" seems to have been redefined to mean "anyone who can inconvenience the Government, no matter how slight".
Alan wrote:
"Terrorist" seems to have been redefined to mean "anyone who can inconvenience the Government, no matter how slight".
Just to make sure we're on the same sheet, would you assign the perpetrators of WTC to that category? Marc de Piolenc -- Remember September 11, 2001 but don't forget July 4, 1776 Rather than make war on the American people and their liberties, ...Congress should be looking for ways to empower them to protect themselves when warranted. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
It is discouraging to see the disdain in which many of you hold the FBI during a time when we need cooperation and insight from nontraditional sources.
Dearest Aimee, It's discouraging that the FBI has, though its own actions, time and time again, earned this disdain in which many of us hold it. Trust is not something given lightly. And once lost, it is rarely regained. What cause do any of us have to trust in the FBI and cooperate with it now? Don't believe in the "common enemy" fallacy. -MW-
At 11:03 PM -0500 9/25/01, Aimee Farr wrote:
It is discouraging to see the disdain in which many of you hold the FBI during a time when we need cooperation and insight from nontraditional sources.
Hello Aimee, Who might the "we" include? You and who else? But to comment on your statement- Have you ever viewed the after action notes of FBI HRT member Lon Horiuchi after he shot Vicki Weaver in the head while holding her infant daughter? Horiuchi's diagram of what he saw clearly shows the outline of Vicki in the doorway to their cabin- (Made on a hotel notepad.) A clear indication that Horiuchi did in fact target her and not hit her by accident as alleged in the official report. I'd have respect for the Bureau if they upheld the constitution and the rule of law over the blue wall of silence. Regards, Matt- ************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt@coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor, (614) 313-5722 ICQ: 106212065 Archived at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fa/ **************************************************************************
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 11:03:03PM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
It is discouraging to see the disdain in which many of you hold the FBI during a time when we need cooperation and insight from nontraditional sources.
The FBI is responsible for counterterrorism efforts in the U.S. They have received billions in this area, one of the most rapidly-growing in their budgets. They have failed miserably. It makese sense, as I said in a BBC interview last week, not to hold them in "disdain," but not to whitewash their failure either. That said, it's hardly unreasonable for Americans to help the FBI (a flight school instructor who recognizes the names of some of his former students in the media might well want to phone the FBI). But cypherpunks can't be blamed for being critical of the FBI's counterrorist efforts so far. -Declan
On Wednesday, September 26, 2001, at 10:13 AM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 11:03:03PM -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
It is discouraging to see the disdain in which many of you hold the FBI during a time when we need cooperation and insight from nontraditional sources.
The FBI is responsible for counterterrorism efforts in the U.S. They have received billions in this area, one of the most rapidly-growing in their budgets. They have failed miserably. It makese sense, as I said in a BBC interview last week, not to hold them in "disdain," but not to whitewash their failure either.
That said, it's hardly unreasonable for Americans to help the FBI (a flight school instructor who recognizes the names of some of his former students in the media might well want to phone the FBI). But cypherpunks can't be blamed for being critical of the FBI's counterrorist efforts so far.
Indeed, if I ran a flight school I would probably answer any questions the FBI might have, even if I were fairly certain none of the attackers had trained at my school. Ditto for a handful of other situations, where being helpful to the FBI would be the right thing to do. But if were just an Arab, or just a Muslim, or just a Cypherpunk, then I would certainly not answer any questions whatsoever, especially not when a general throttling of civil liberties and a search for scapegoats is going on. (I chortle when I read about stegonography. I posted the first description of the LSB method in images and sound files in a 1990 sci.crypt posting. I later developed the idea further. Now I see bozo journalists theorizing that OBL used stego, when in fact there's no evidence his agents used computers for more than simple AOL mail. I even see Bruce Schneier sagely opining about "dead drops." Do a search on "digital dead drops" in my 1994 Cyphernomicon...I explored these options for freedom fighters a decade ago.) --Tim May
On Wednesday, September 26, 2001, at 10:30 AM, Tim May wrote:
(I chortle when I read about stegonography. I posted the first description of the LSB method in images and sound
Before anyone corrects me, I know it's "steganography." It's usually shortened to "stego," so I mistyped it. --Tim May
participants (10)
-
Aimee Farr -
Alan -
David Honig -
Declan McCullagh -
F. Marc de Piolenc -
Matthew Gaylor -
Meyer Wolfsheim -
Rodney Thayer -
Sandy Sandfort -
Tim May