Jim Choate wrote:

anonymous wrote

...

And it's likely they have subpoenaed more people than we've heard from. I just hope they don't subpoena Bill Payne, or we'll receive a copy of it every week for years to come.

Yep, with those silly/strange capitalizations and sentence structures of his which look suspicously like some form of stego. You'd think somebody who claims to be that educated would have at least learned basic grammer (unless it was intentional).

That explains it.

This does raise an interesting point about freedom of speech and the duties of LEA's. In a democratic society what are the ethical implications of LEA's archiving publicly available documents as a matter of course, not for inclusion in ongoing investigations but rather as a base for future investigations.

Echelon. Also see [*1 below]

In addition, while the remailer operators do seem to be protected by ECPA (I was advised that I fell into this category via SSZ) what about the public archive operators? Are they covered under this umbrella?

remailers are carriers. ECPA says that if you do not review content, you aren't responsible for it. Archivers are content providers. They have to make do with a 1st ammendment fig leaf. What archives are there? There is one in Singapore (outside jurisdiction) and one at sof.mit.edu that mysteriously went off the air a little while ago. Or was it something more sinister? On the topic of ECPA, I did an archive search: (my comments in []) From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org> Subject: Re: FIDOnet encryption (or lack thereof) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1993 11:07:09 -0400 (EDT) Bill writes:

Heh. OK. Well, if one behaves "ethically", then I guess *that* closes the issue. It's his machine and he gets to make the rules. (this is my personally-adhered-to point of view)

My question is this: how does he know that the mail is encrypted if he's not examining the mail that passes through his system? If he *is* examining the mail that passes through his system, it seems likely that he is violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. --Mike [hey, Jim really is protected. He's not even allowed to read CDR mail.] To: cypherpunks@toad.com Subject: The last word? (forwarded article) From: fergp@sytex.com (Paul Ferguson) Date: Fri, 02 Jul 93 00:21:16 EDT BoardWatch Magazine July 1993 pages 43 - 46 Steve Jackson Games v. US Secret Service by Peter D. Kennedy [preamble] The Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Two provisions of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (or ECPA) were paramount in the suit. The plaintiffs claimed the Secret Service violated two provisions -- one prohibiting unjustified "disclosure and use" of e-mail (18 U.S.C. 2703; the other prohibiting "interception" of e-mail (18 U.S.C. 22511(1)). [*1 Interesting. Maybe they have Toto for something intercepted illegally and they're trying to find it from another source (by subpoena).] From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic@eff.org> Subject: Re: Restrictions on crypto exports Date: Sun, 19 Sep 1993 23:32:17 -0400 (EDT) [re: public domain software on ftp archives] It matters not, IMHO, since an ftp archive site qualifies as a library open to the public. --Mike