On Tue, 1 Dec 1998, Blanc wrote:

I received my visit from the friendly IRS guys tonight, asking about CJ/Toto. [...] In our conversation, I discovered things that I didn't know about Toto's situation [...]

More information is interesting, but it's important to remember that cops are free to lie to ordinary people and suspects; it's not considered a violation of your constitutional rights, of the law, or of their professional standards. Good interrogators/investigators learn to use social and psychological techniques to gain the results they want - which may be gaining intelligence, extracting a confession, or isolating a suspect from their friends/supporters/codefendants. Just as a reasonable person will likely listen cautiously to an accused person proclaiming their innocence, a reasonable person should also listen cautiously when the prosecution proclaims someone's guilt. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles@netbox.com

On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Blanc wrote:

(On a piece of paper they asked me to write down some of the statements I made regarding my limited association with Toto (for the record, in lieu of a court appearance)

My evidence books are packed in a moving box (sigh) at the moment, so please take this with a grain of salt, but the only reason I see to ask you to write anything down is to use it against you, either as a witness or as a defendant. Your written statement is considered hearsay and wouldn't be admissible at Toto's trial .. unless the prosecution was using it to impeach you in the event that you testified, in which case it would be admissible solely for the purpose of making you look like a liar. (If the statement also tends to cast Toto in a poor light, the prosecution probably won't lose any sleep over the spillover effects on the jury.) If either side in a trial (especially a criminal trial) thinks you've got something useful to say, they're going to need to put you on the witness stand in front of the jury/judge and let you make your statements, and be cross-examined, in person. Statements made out of court won't be admissible to prove the truth of the matter they're discussing, unless the situation happens to fit into one of a series of narrow exceptions. One of the biggest exceptions is called "statements made by the opposing party", aka "statements by the defendant" in a criminal trial. Another is to impeach a witness with a prior inconsistent statement, where the prior statement is inconsistent with their testimony at trial. It smells like a setup to me. -- Greg Broiles gbroiles@netbox.com

At 9:22 PM -0800 12/2/98, Blanc wrote:

(On a piece of paper they asked me to write down some of the statements I made regarding my limited association with Toto (for the record, in lieu of a court appearance), and asked that I also explain what I mean by "spoofing", as I had thus described what Toto might have been up to with those incendiary messages.) .... At least they were not offensive, but polite and pleasant, but it's true one

Think "Good cop, bad cop." It seems to me that when you invite them in for cookies and tea and have a "pleasant" conversation with them, you are only helping to put away Toto. Whatever you tell them, they will almost certainly only use the negative things you tell them. Or the general knowledge you give them, or contact lists, etc. I have not been contacted by either American or Canadian cops with regard to either Jim Bell or Toto. I _hope_ I will have the presence of mind to tell them to leave. I certainly cannot foresee letting them inside my home, if only because I expect they would get nervous about the Winchester Defender 12-gauge sometimes left leaning against a wall, and the various assault rifles left at the read in case a narc needs to be dispatched. Also, my time is not free. If they want my expertise on some matter, let them pay my consulting rate. As this is unlikely to happen, I would simply (I hope) tell them to leave my property immediately. (My planned answer, rehearsed in my mind over the several "scares" seen in recent years, is to say something along the lines of: "Am I under arrest? If so, I wish to speak to a lawyer. If not, please leave.") If they want me to speak about assassination markets, the need for killing millions of political criminals, and the use of anonymous systems for smashing the state, why would I ever agree to speak with cops? Blanc, I'm afraid that in your desire to be "helpful," you have only worsened the situation for Toto. Believe me, they are not interested in exculpatory evidence...whatever that might be in this context. They are more likely interested in contact lists, in educating themselves to make themselves more convincing witnesses, etc. Expect to see any knowledge you conveighed to them coming back in Toto's trial from the mouths of prosecution witnesses. --Tim May "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, just the way the President did." ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.

At 3:13 PM -0800 12/3/98, Petro wrote:

At 5:42 PM -0500 12/3/98, Tim May wrote:

...

If they want me to speak about assassination markets, the need for killing millions of political criminals, and the use of anonymous systems for smashing the state, why would I ever agree to speak with cops?

I think millions is overstating things just a little bit, unless you mean world wide.

Those of who have voted to take away guns, those who have actually done the taking away, those who have sent in JBTs to break into homes, those who have .... It adds up fast. Whatever the precise total is, removing them is what crypto anarchy and untraceable transactions make possible. Read about this is my Cyphernomicon, released long before Jim Bell had his "wonderful idea." --Tim May "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, just the way the President did." ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.

Well, I'm glad my post has stirred up everyone into providing examples of proper cpunk behavior/responses when confronted with a visit from the Friendly Neighborhood Investigation Corp. It's great you're sharing your ideas on recalcitrance and resistance, it's more useful than all the jibberjabber about how much you hate the govmt. (Yes, but how do you actually respond to a real live representative standing at your door (they showed me their Batches), to a real-live situtation when you are taken to a little room and asked to strip ("asked"?) at the airport?) Ya'll should have done this earlier, when the news of Toto first came out. And think about it now, because if any mail from you was on his computer, you're likely to be next. But relax! - I said nothing which is not public knowledge, which is not already evident from the list archives. As far as I'm concerned, it was true but essentially useless. I confirmed things which they already knew or would already know from the postings to the list - they mentioned Tim's attitude, for instance, and Declan's stories on Toto, and the info on John Young's website, and Toto's website, and asked me if I knew of Adam Back (who?). Furthermore, just because I am nice and mannerly doesn't mean I couldn't as well be a hypocrite. James Bond is also a complete gentleman. Depending on the circumstance. (Q: so, are you a hacker? A: <g> no. I don't know Unix) Tim said: : Blanc, I'm afraid that in your desire to be "helpful," you have only : worsened the situation for Toto. Believe me, they are not interested in : exculpatory evidence...whatever that might be in this : context. They are more likely interested in contact lists, in educating : themselves to make themselves more convincing witnesses, etc. Expect to see any : knowledge you conveighed to them coming back in Toto's trial from the mouths of : prosecution witnesses. I was not being "helpful". I relied to their inquiries; I didn't offer information. I made my own inquiries to them, as I already said, about the dividing line between free speech and when they will go seeking to arrest a person. In terms of educating them, I don't have any objections to probing their mind to see what/how they think about things which we have discussed at length on the list. I also don't have any objections in referring them to read further: I told them that the cpunks often have deep discussions on this and other such subjects, where we pursue an understanding of controversial issues like free speech and privacy. I told them that there were many very smart people on the list, especially back in the earlier years, although some of these had left to pursue their other interests. I told them it is an open forum where people come and go - they stay awhile, sign off, return, there are kooks who show up and get people riled up, there are those who bring up contradictions and get jumped on for their philosophical errors. I said that the spectrum of philosophies regarding governments go from the extreme anarchists who want to be completely self-governing, to those on the opposite end who would like to have a camera in every room of their house watching them in case anything went wrong. I said that most people are in the middle, not wanting too much governance but not totally against it. I said that when the opposite groups clash, there is a lot of heat and sometimes light. (they didn't ask, and I didn't tell them, which side of the spectrum I'm on) If one of the investigators says he is interested in the concepts of which we discuss, I am glad to bring up any points I can make for the side of self-government, individuality, privacy, etc. (not that I would have a prolonged argument, but only that I would inquire as to why they are so far out of touch). If they have any intelligence at all, they will learn something; if not, well, let's compare that to the time wasted trying to enlighten one of our current prolific posters, whose name I shall not mention because I'm sympathetic to his condition, or all the time which has been spent going over the same arguments with those who never got any benefit from it anyway. If there's anyone I would be glad to aim flashes of brilliant arguments toward, it would be an IRS agent. At least they would know definitely, without my having to flash my gun or pour chemicals on their office rug, where I would stand in a case of "emergency". I am not afraid of making my stand this way, to their face. If it is anyone who could use some perspective on the controversies over government and privacy, it would be them. And above all else, beyond being symbolically defiant, I would first aim for being Real. It can be the hardest thing to do, stand your ground and be calm and real. .. Blanc Think Thong

At 8:39 PM -0800 12/3/98, Blanc wrote:

Well, I'm glad my post has stirred up everyone into providing examples of proper cpunk behavior/responses when confronted with a visit from the Friendly Neighborhood Investigation Corp. It's great you're sharing your ideas on recalcitrance and resistance, it's more useful than all the jibberjabber about how much you hate the govmt. (Yes, but how do you actually respond to a real live representative standing at your door (they showed me their Batches), to a real-live situtation when you are taken to a little room and asked to strip ("asked"?) at the airport?) Ya'll should have done this earlier, when the news of Toto first came out. And think about it now, because if any mail from you was on his computer, you're likely to be next.

I was very careful to phrase my points in terms of how I _hope_ to respond in a certain way, not claiming I have in the past or know I will in the future. Maybe I'll wimp out, maybe I'll offer to tell them everything I know about the Politician Removal Lottery, maybe I'll open up on them with my shotgun. Who knows? My point, parallel to Duncan's, is that talking to narcs and cops almost always never helps the accused. If one's goal is to help the prosecution, then by all means talk to the prosecution's investigators. As for the general points, Duncan and several others have made these kinds of common sense points in the past...even when you were subscribed to the list. For example, some folks even carry a "What to do if questioned by the police" card in their wallet, to either read from--assuming this is allowed--or to reread occasionally as a reminder. You, apparently having had personal contact with either one or both of the parties, and living in the state where both cases are centered, might have anticipated questioning by the cops.

But relax! - I said nothing which is not public knowledge, which is not already evident from the list archives.

Don't understimate the help that a helpful person provides. --Tim May "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, just the way the President did." ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.

Well, I'm glad my post has stirred up everyone into providing examples of

cpunk behavior/responses when confronted with a visit from the Friendly Neighborhood Investigation Corp. It's great you're sharing your ideas on recalcitrance and resistance, it's more useful than all the jibberjabber about how much you hate the govmt. (Yes, but how do you actually respond to a real live representative standing at your door (they showed me their Batches), to a real-live situtation when you are taken to a little room and asked to strip ("asked"?) at the airport?) Ya'll should have done this earlier, when

At 08:39 PM 12/3/98 -0800, you wrote: proper the news

of Toto first came out. And think about it now, because if any mail from you was on his computer, you're likely to be next.

I specifically remember a number of clueful letters on the topic which hit this list as the whole CJ issue came up. As I recall, there were plenty of warnings that cpunks could expect visits. In fact, you're "I got mine" subject line seems to indicate that you were aware of this concept. Secondly, since e/mail is a digital phenomenon, it can not be physically attached to a source. Since perfect copies of it can be freely made any computer can be made to appear as the originating computer. It is the very easiest type of "evididence" to plant. Imagine a virus or Trojan horse that put incriminating stuff on a computer w/o the owner knowing about it. The technology is readily available and no doubt in use. You think that a cop who would use a "throw down" gun or plant physical evidence wouldn't also be capable of planting digital evidence. I think it will be very interesting once the true nature of computer contents are litigated in terms of its non-physical nature. Without a digital signature that cannot be forged any file on any computer is really just digital nothingness that could have been placed there by anyone. There is absolutely no way to prove anybody wrote anything unless you have a number of reliable eyewitnesses physically present at the event. COPS LIE!! FEDS LIE!! Those alleged threats by Toto may (probably) actually be the result of some MIB that couldn't get anything else on him. So he invented the letters and later planted them on CJs computer during the undoubtedly unsupervised session in which they supposedly read these things off his computer. I personally have been roughed up (no bruises, unfortunately) by cops when I refused to allow them to search my car. Fortunately all the uproar gather such a crowd that they were unable to plant any false evidence and since there was nothing there in the first place they had nothing to hold me on. I wish they had bruised me, it would have made settlement talks faster and more productive ;) When asked at the Dusseldorf airport to turn-on my computer, I did ask why. When told that they wanted to make sure it was real. I clicked it on, let whir around for a couple of seconds and turned it off. No problem. Had they asked to see they contents I would have refused. That would be like letting them read my personal papers, which they have no right to do. If arrested I will fight it. But I'm a real hard-head. That's why I left the US. Got tired of always being hassled. However, hard-headed I am, I do admire the wonderful suggestions (a la Clinton) by anon!

But relax! - I said nothing which is not public knowledge, which is not already evident from the list archives. As far as I'm concerned, it was true but essentially useless. I confirmed things which they already knew or

would

already know from the postings to the list - they mentioned Tim's attitude, for instance, and Declan's stories on Toto, and the info on John Young's website, and Toto's website, and asked me if I knew of Adam Back (who?).

The stuff on this list is only public knowledge from a legal stand point. It is often technologically or ideologically so far over most peoples heads (especially MIBs and AOLes) that it is unfair to characterize it that way. Besides, the real point isn't that they know anything, it's that they have either identified you as a possible stooge or a suspect. You helpfulness is probably going to cost someone (maybe yourself) very dearly. Innocent people get fried all the time because of bad IDs. "Well, I thought it was him...It LOOKED like him..." If you aren't sure--keep it to yourself. And if you weren't then when CJ allegedly wrote and sent those letters then it is impossible for you to be sure. So, PLEASE do everyone a favor and stop "helping".

Furthermore, just because I am nice and mannerly doesn't mean I couldn't as well be a hypocrite. James Bond is also a complete gentleman. Depending on the circumstance. (Q: so, are you a hacker? A: <g> no. I don't know Unix)

I have considered the possibility that you are in fact some sort of government "agent" and your mission is to draw out similar (unfounded) convictions of CJ from others on the list. If that is your purpose, may you burn in Hell. The bottom line is if you are not working to help build the governments case, then on your next visit with them please try a little honest doubt and forgetfulness.

Tim said:

: Blanc, I'm afraid that in your desire to be "helpful," you have only : worsened the situation for Toto. Believe me, they are not interested in : exculpatory evidence...whatever that might be in this : context. They are more likely interested in contact lists, in educating : themselves to make themselves more convincing witnesses, etc. Expect to see any : knowledge you conveighed to them coming back in Toto's trial from the

mouths

of : prosecution witnesses.

A Note to Tim, I don't think you are as sure of Toto's identity as you sound. I'm not even sure you mean to sound as if you are sure of his identity. It may just be from the urge to type less keystrokes. Whatever the case, if your not sure CJ is the one and only Toto then please refer to Toto for Toto stuff and CJ for the guy in Jail. It's more clear and since CJ is innocent until proven guilty, we should give him the benefit of the doubt.

I was not being "helpful". I relied to their inquiries; I didn't offer information. I made my own inquiries to them, as I already said, about the dividing line between free speech and when they will go seeking to arrest a person.

In terms of educating them, I don't have any objections to probing their

mind to

see what/how they think about things which we have discussed at length on the list. I also don't have any objections in referring them to read further: I told them that the cpunks often have deep discussions on this and other such subjects, where we pursue an understanding of controversial issues like free speech and privacy. I told them that there were many very smart people on the list, especially back in the earlier years, although some of these had left to pursue their other interests.

And there were a lot of smart people on McCarthy's list... All turned in by people who couldn't possibly know the truth about the person they accused. Or perhaps did it save their own butt. Hell, maybe this will the McCarthy case of the new century... It should take about two years to blow up into a full on witch hunt and blacklisting of cpunks and other "anti-social" types. With the Y2K problem sure to be pissing lots of people off, the public will certainly be willing to support ridding society of all those computer geeks that have caused all this trouble...

of heat and sometimes light. (they didn't ask, and I didn't tell them, which side of the spectrum I'm on)

It doesn't matter. Their job is NOT to find the truth. Their job is to build cases. These are not equivalent endeavors. Far too many times they are not even compatible endeavors.

I am not afraid of making my stand this way, to their face.

Fine, but until they arrest you stay out of it. Use YOUR trial as your soapbox and not CJs.

If it is anyone who could use some perspective on the controversies over government and privacy, it would be them. And above all else, beyond being symbolically defiant, I would first aim for being Real. It can be the

hardest

thing to do, stand your ground and be calm and real.

Then please, get real and get honest, stop talking about things you THINK are true. Those are opinions NOT facts, and should not be confused. Put those fuzzy warm feelings away and face the fact that these guys are not your girl friends chatting and discussing things that tick them off. These guys are out to build a case against someone so that they can destroy his life. HE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. He has a right to a FAIR trial. PLEASE, let's wait for the trial before convicting him!!! APF

At 7:04 AM -0800 12/4/98, Petro wrote:

I just disagree with your "millions who need killing". Because some beleives in a polly-annaish world were taking guns away from the "good guys" also keeps them away from the "bad guys" is no reason to kill them. It's a reason to render them impotent until such time as they wake the hell up, and if they don't manage to wake the hell up until some mugger points a chinese manufactured .25 at them in the middle of the night and just fucking pulls the trigger because murder carries the same punishment (or less) than carrying a gun (enemy of the state) then "we" didn't kill them, they killed themselves.

You are free to adopt the beliefs of what I'll call "the forgiveness libertarians." Summarized, roughly, as: "You've been stealing from me, sending my sons to die in your foreign wars, imprisoning my friends for what they smoke or eat...but let's let bygones be bygones...stop your stealing ways and we'll forget about what you did in the past." This is a dominant thread of libertarianism, though it is seldom articulated as I have just done. Look at the platform of the Libertarian Party and you'll see this "forget the past, look to the future" approach. I, on the other hand, have drifted into the camp I will dub "the vengeance libertarians." Summarized, roughly, as: "You've stolen my property, you've imprisoned my friends, you've passed laws making us all criminals, you've started wars to enrich your military-industrial complex friends, and you're corrupt bastards. You can forget about some kind of "libertarian amnesty." It's going to be payback time, with at least hundreds of thousands of statist judges, politicians, cops, soldiers, and other such persons going to the gallows. Payback time. Welfare recipients are going to have to pay back all that they have stolen, with compounded interest. Out of their pockets, or while in labor camps. Payback time." --Tim May "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, just the way the President did." ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.

From Tim May:

: "You've stolen my property, you've imprisoned my friends, you've passed : laws making us all criminals, you've started wars to enrich your : military-industrial complex friends, and you're corrupt bastards. You can : forget about some kind of "libertarian amnesty." It's going to be payback : time, with at least hundreds of thousands of statist judges, politicians, : cops, soldiers, and other such persons going to the gallows. : Payback time. Welfare recipients are going to have to pay back all that : they have stolen, with compounded interest. Out of their pockets, or while in : labor camps. Payback time." ................................................. When. .. Blanc

What are those books? igor Duncan Frissell wrote:

At 08:39 PM 12/3/98 -0800, Blanc wrote:

...

(Yes, but how do you actually respond to a real live representative standing at your door (they showed me their Batches), to a real-live situtation when you are taken to a little room and asked to strip ("asked"?) at the airport?)

I was discussing this very question with the inamorata of a member of this list recently in San Jose. We were trying to figure out why I knew instinctively what to say when confronted with government agents and she didn't (though she is an attorney). I figured out that it was because I read Heinlein. He taught a lot about how to respond to these things. Those who haven't read Heinlein (or don't learn from books) won't know what to say. And in these high stress situations, answers which you have thought about in advance or conducted mental simulations with will come out more easily.

You say - "Go away." "Write me a letter." "I only deal with government agents via my lawyer." "Where's Your Warrant." Or how about -- "My lawyer's name is X, I have officially informed you that I am represented by counsel and thus you cannot question me without counsel being present."

When they write a letter, you handle it the way Rumpole of the Baily handled those letters from the Inland Revenue. You throw it away.

Some years ago at 5000 Bonny Doone Road Santa Cruz, CA an IRS agent rang the bell outside the gate in the fence of the reinforced concrete house owned by Robert Anson Heinlein. He wanted to talk. Heinlein said "go away" "write a letter." The Agent said "you're not going to make me drive all the way back to San Jose, are you?" Heinlein said "Yes."

You don't have to talk to government agents -- even if they arrest you. Saying "No" and "Go Away" is short and easy to say.

...

And above all else, beyond being symbolically defiant, I would first aim for being Real. It can be the hardest thing to do, stand your ground and be calm and real.

Just Say No.

DCF

- Igor.

Duncan Frissell wrote:

At 11:02 AM 12/8/98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

...

What are those books?

igor

Stranger In a Strange Land

"UN Secret Police breaking down door while Jubal contacts the Secretary General via his astrologer."

Duncan, I apologize for my ignorance. I am not very well aware of this Heinlein fellow. What I am looking for is a practical guide book on how to deal with cops and other law enforcement/jackbooted thug types, in the manner that minimizes my long term damage. Something along the lines of "You and the Police!", by Boston T. Party, a book that I greatly enjoyed. The ideal book would explain my rights, typical reactions of LE, precedents, some practical matters, dealing with hostile LE, etc etc. Would be especially valuable to me as I am a foreigner. What I am NOT looking for is something about UN troops hiding in my backyard, choosing the best gun to shoot tax collectors, etc. igor

Rocket Ship Galileo

"Launching before being served by court order -- see also 'The Man Who Sold the Moon' and the movie 'Destination Moon'."

The Notebooks of Lazaraus Long

"Beware of strong drink. It might make you shoot at tax collectors -- and miss."

There's a great deal of legal commentary in Heinlein. There are more references where he comments on the need for warrants for searches. It is a very common theme in other right wing/libertarian SF as well.

DCF

"

- Igor.

At 12:07 PM 12/8/98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

What I am looking for is a practical guide book on how to deal with cops and other law enforcement/jackbooted thug types, in the manner that minimizes my long term damage. Something along the lines of "You and the Police!", by Boston T. Party, a book that I greatly enjoyed.

Well here's an article: How to Break the Law by Duncan Frissell http://eastedge.neurospace.net/cyber/xanner/lawbreak.html

Declan McCullagh wrote:

At 12:07 PM 12-8-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

...

What I am looking for is a practical guide book on how to deal with cops and other law enforcement/jackbooted thug types, in the manner that minimizes my long term damage. Something along the lines of "You and the Police!", by Boston T. Party, a book that I greatly enjoyed.

BTW BTP has just come out with a Y2K book. It's a great read.

Is it a useful book? BTP writings are always fun to read, but some of his recommendations seem suspect. - Igor.

At 2:34 PM -0800 12/8/98, Jay Holovacs wrote:

There is some general information about what to do if stopped by the police at the ACLU site:

www.aclu.org

In addition to the good advice that was given on this list to keep your mouth shut, I would like to comment on someone's earlier (several days ago) post. He had commented that the subject of spoofed messages came up in a discussion with an agent, and the agent asked about what this term meant. Don't let them draw you into such a discussion. They probably know damn well what these terms mean, they want to hear what you say they mean. You are being mind probed.

Be polite, don't let them get you to say something angry or stupid, and say nothing more than civil response requires.

Not much you can say to them while standing out in the cold, in any case. (Surely you will not invite them into your home! As we all know, anything they happen to observe while doing a "wander through," even if on the way to a seat, is usable for the purposes of obtaining a search warrant.) I agree with Jay and others that attempting to "educate" them is a lost cause...John Perry Barlow discovered this some years back when he was interviewed by FBI agents over the Steve Jackson Games case (if I recall the particulars correctly). Talking to them about particular list personalities is _especially_ dangerous, as it helps them build whatever case they've decided to build. "Anything you say can and will be used against you." If O.J. didn't have to talk, either to the police, the DA, or in court, why should anyone else? (I know this does not encompass all witnesses, but it captures the key idea of the Fifth for us here. Let them issue a subpoena. And even then one may not have to talk.) They haven't tried to talk to me...at least they haven't either gotten through on my often-busy phone line nor have they driven out from Monterey or San Jose to my semi-rural home. I _hope_ I have the presence of mind to just tell them I won't be telling them anything. Just nothing, not even jabber about a lawyer. Just nothing. Maybe not even confirming my name...after all, I'm not driving and they can't compell me to produce a driver's license. I expect that if they stay around in my driveway, on my property, I'll call out for them to leave. Beyond that they'd be trespassing. If I slip up and say more, I'll try to swallow my pride and tell you all just how badly I screwed up. --Tim May Y2K -- LMGALMAO -- Loading my guns and laughing my ass off ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments.

Declan McCullagh wrote:

Well, if you're worried about worst-case scenarios (or variants on them) it's as good as any and probably better than most. They've got everything from gun tips to goat-raising.

I enjoyed it, FWIW. It doesn't make a pretense of saying what-if like a bunch of the other books does: this says social unrest is damn near certain.

Alright, Declan, what is the title of the book, and better yet the ISBN? Thank you. igor

-Declan

At 03:13 PM 12-8-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

...

Declan McCullagh wrote:

...

At 12:07 PM 12-8-98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote:

...

What I am looking for is a practical guide book on how to deal with cops and other law enforcement/jackbooted thug types, in the manner that minimizes my long term damage. Something along the lines of "You and the Police!", by Boston T. Party, a book that I greatly enjoyed.

BTW BTP has just come out with a Y2K book. It's a great read.

Is it a useful book? BTP writings are always fun to read, but some of his recommendations seem suspect.

- Igor.

- Igor.

I have been told in email that the correct URL is http://www.hotwire.com/ (not the same as the wired digital site)