Re: Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy & anonymity)
Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote :
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
By contrast, Jim Choate was visited by the FBI for one of the show trials and offered speculations that I (Tim) am a dangerous person with lots of guns and money. The court records show these depositions from Choate. No such malicious help came from Declan, at least none in court records.
Liar, check the archives. I never said anybody was dangerous. What I did say was that I felt the C-A-C-L philosophy was dangerous. I stand by that. I believe that were the C-A-C-L philosophy to take hold the results would make the death counts from Nazism and Communism in this century pail in comparison.
As to you, the only thing I told them was you worked for Intel, made some money, retired, live out in the boonies with a bunch of guns, and talked a lot of crap.
1 worked for Intel 2 made some money 3 retired 4 live out in the boonies with a bunch of guns 5 and talked a lot of crap. 1-4 you have only read about, not observed 5 is a matter of opinion
Stand by that too.
I guess that I wonder why there was anything more to say than : "I only know what I've read on the net and cannot testify to its accuracy or completeness and any conclusions I've drawn from this reading would be my opinion not facts." with some "I don't recall" s thrown in where appropriate. Mike
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
1-4 you have only read about, not observed
Really? How do you know...
5 is a matter of opinion
Exactly! That's what they asked for, what I thought (opinion) of Tim May and several others. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote :
As to you, the only thing I told them was you worked for Intel, made some money, retired, live out in the boonies with a bunch of guns, and talked a lot of crap.
When even tell them that? I know that it's easier not to talk to the Feds when you've got a team of lawyers on your side, and I don't really (for once) mean to pick on Jim, but I'm not sure what such polite chitchat accomplishes. What I can imagine is how words -- "bunch of guns" -- can be twisted and used against Tim or other cypherpunks. -Declan
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
Jim Choate <ravage@EINSTEIN.ssz.com> wrote :
As to you, the only thing I told them was you worked for Intel, made some money, retired, live out in the boonies with a bunch of guns, and talked a lot of crap.
When even tell them that?
I've answered this question before. I'm not a C-A-C-L. I don't see them as the 'enemy'. If CJ had really been running around putting bombs in courthouses (in Canada or not) or was a credible threat to anybody (whether they are agents are not is irrelelvant, and the distinction is really unconstitutional) then I WANT him in jail and will happily help put him there. I met CJ in person, under some rather strange cirumstances. He also went out of his way to involve me (eg the bomb description posts to the list he had on his person when he was captured) and the Austin Cypherpunks. I will say this, the AC were not impressed by him in general and the general consensus was he was at least a couple bricks short. If you want information, you sometimes have to give some. I operate a remailer for the express purpose of discussing alternatives to the current approaches to our society. Part of that is the willingness to involve myself with people, even if the odds of success are very low. I asked myself how credible I'd be if I ran around deciding I'd talk to this group but not that group. I felt, not very. Everything I said came from voluntary and reasonably public comments made by the appropriate parties over several years of interaction (I joined the original list in late '92 or early '93). Nothing I said can't be backed up by reams of posts. Finally, I'm more worried about my butt than yours or Timmy's. It was a personal judgement call, one that I believe I resolved equitably. If you don't agree, tough. It wasn't your call. (the fact that you want respect for your actions but can't seem to give it to others is only another indication of your real world view) Basically, I don't see it in the same immature black/white:us/them view that you and your cronnies hold. It ain't a football game, goober. -- ____________________________________________________________________ natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thursday, August 16, 2001, at 04:13 PM, mmotyka@lsil.com wrote:
I guess that I wonder why there was anything more to say than :
"I only know what I've read on the net and cannot testify to its accuracy or completeness and any conclusions I've drawn from this reading would be my opinion not facts."
with some "I don't recall" s thrown in where appropriate.
Gary Condit was not required to talk to either the police or the FBI, absent a subpoena to testify before a grand jury or in an actual trial. And even then he may have certain Fifth Amendment protections (less in front of a grand jury, apparently). I cite Condit becuase it reminds us that "talking to the police" is not required. Not only are there issues of self-incrimination, but also issues of "takings" (compelling an expert to talk without some agreed-upon contract and rate is of course compelling him to donate his time; and we are all experts, of course). There is no obligation to give interviews with cops or investigators, either before or after an arrest. Absent the appropriate subpoenas and court-ordered testimony, modulo the Fifth Amendment. There's a strange bit of fluff floating around on the t.v. talk shows, based on my recent viewings, along the lines of "Once you've been read your rights, you don't have to talk to the police." Does this mean that one is required to talk to the police, to give potentially incriminating statements, to donate one's time, _before_ one's Miranda rights have been read? Nope, not so. One may remain silent long before an arrest and formal Mirandizing. While telling a cop to "Fuck off" may not be the most tactful thing to say, and may even violate some laws about obscene speech to public officials, saying "I have nothing to say" or "No comment" is not prosecutable...unless the speech has been compelled (grand jury, petit jury/trial) and the necessary general or use immunities granted. Choate was under no obligation to pontificate to cops about whether someone like me plans to do something. He chose to cooperate with the Feds and speculated freely on what he thought I would do. He's a rodent. --Tim May
participants (4)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Jim Choate -
mmotyka＠lsil.com -
Tim May