Choate wrote:
How the wind changes...
The point, hardhead, is to keep communications public. Private stuff can be leveraged into a subpoena. Not your own private stuff, somebody else's. Like your CDR rat. I handed my subpoenaed material (public messages to cpunks and the HTML subpoena on Cryptome) to the grand jury foreman after being told by London that it was an informal procedure to give subpoenaed material to him or Capt. Jeff Gordon, the "case's lead investigator." Robb didn't know what was in the package during his questioning, nor did the grand jury. I referred to the material several times to buttress my testimony, and only near the end did Robb say, "are you saying you only provided public information?" That's right, I answered. And I told him and Jeff beforehand I wanted to publish my testimony, and told the jury I intended to report on the process: To help the public understand how government works, especially the secret part. One juror said, you're not going to publish our names are you? Robb hastened to testify, no way. Anyway, this could be a pack of lies, and more filthy secrets about how government works, and how you get snared by artful bargains for personal protection and national security, on the jury and off, by folks who preach that faith. Which comes back to the CDR forehead mark. And how you get pariahed by contact with the feds no matter what you do obey their commands or to wash away the dirt. They're addicted to that secret sadistic pleasure, and aim to addict juries.
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, John Young wrote:
Choate wrote:
How the wind changes...
The point, hardhead, is to keep communications public. Private stuff can be leveraged into a subpoena. Not your own private stuff, somebody else's. Like your CDR rat.
The point of keeping communications public was mine long before you jumped on the bandwagon John. Until now you've always held the position it was 'paranoid'. 'your own private stuff' is just as open to subpoena. Simple private contact could potentially be enough to incriminate, and that doesn't have to be from your initiation either. ____________________________________________________________________ Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it. "Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sat, 27 Jan 2001, John Young wrote:
Choate wrote:
How the wind changes...
The point, hardhead, is to keep communications public. Private stuff can be leveraged into a subpoena. Not your own private stuff, somebody else's. Like your CDR rat.
It's flatly weird to me to see which people are getting dragged into this and which ones aren't and which ones aren't *yet*. Something in the back of my brain is going, There's a Pattern Here. And I even think the pattern is based on public communications. And I think the pattern applies in such a way that there are people it requires to get dragged into this, that haven't gotten dragged into it yet. But I can't quite put my finger on what the pattern is. So I've been digging through the cypherpunks archives trying to figure it out. Nothing yet. Just a feeling. And it could be purely subjective at that. It's a weird feeling, like trying to solve a really short vignere cryptogram; not really enough information to use anything but intuition, but something is there, right beneath the surface, that shows a pattern if you can only figure out what the pattern is. Bear
Bear wrote:
There's a Pattern Here. And I even think the pattern is based on public communications.
One point: Robb London kept referring to posts to cypherpunks as if they were between individuals, say me and Jim Bell. I had to point out that the messages were to the cypherpunks list not between individuals. And that I had not sent mail to Jim directly and that Jim's messages were not to me but to a public list. That distinction may not have been absorbed by the jury, especically if they had already been briefed about mail between Jim and me, despite there having been none. This confusion is caused by the way return messages are addressed. In my Eurora mailer, if you just hit return to a cpunk message, the writer's address pops up, or it does in my configuration. To avoid that I have to manually add the cpunk address. Moreover, responders often send two or more messages, to the writer, to cpunks, and, in some cases, to previous responders. I try to avoid that by sending only to the list. The thing is, an outsider who sees the messages, say in the archives or as a subscriber, may interpret what you think is public mail as private, especially when the To: is to an individual not the list.
At 12:39 PM 1/27/01 -0500, John Young wrote:
Bear wrote:
There's a Pattern Here. And I even think the pattern is based on public communications.
I've been pondering that. I wonder if Jeff's significant other might be willing to provide some critical dimensions, and if those dimensions might be a, err, a public key of sorts, for decrypting the pattern,,,
One point: Robb London kept referring to posts to cypherpunks as if they were between individuals, say me and Jim Bell. I had to point out that the messages were to the cypherpunks list not between individuals. And that I had not sent mail to Jim directly and that Jim's messages were not to me but to a public list. That distinction may not have been absorbed by the jury, especically if they had already been briefed about mail between Jim and me, despite there having been none.
This confusion is caused by the way return messages are addressed. In my Eurora mailer, if you just hit return to a cpunk message, the writer's address pops up, or it does in my configuration. To avoid that I have to manually add the cpunk address.
That's why I use Reply-All, to see who is in the To: and Cc: fields, and remove stuff I don't want there.
Moreover, responders often send two or more messages, to the writer, to cpunks, and, in some cases, to previous responders. I try to avoid that by sending only to the list.
The thing is, an outsider who sees the messages, say in the archives or as a subscriber, may interpret what you think is public mail as private, especially when the To: is to an individual not the list.
Anyone who thinks this is a private email just because I left John's addy in the To: line needs to learn more about mailing lists, and how easy it is to manipulate and forge electronic documents. John, be sure to note this email, and if any part of it is used as evidence, be sure it is complete.
Moreover, responders often send two or more messages, to the writer, to cpunks, and, in some cases, to previous responders. I try to avoid that by sending only to the list.
The thing is, an outsider who sees the messages, say in the archives or as a subscriber, may interpret what you think is public mail as private, especially when the To: is to an individual not the list.
If incomplete data is presented, yeah, that would be an easy conclusion. Hence this post, to call attention to such things. Reese
participants (4)
-
Jim Choate -
John Young -
Ray Dillinger -
Reese