CDR: Re: Word.

[jim bell]

----- Original Message -----
From: <George at orwellian.org>
To: <cypherpunks at cyberpass.net>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 13:29 PM
Subject: Word.


> Of course all of us knew this. The article is
> good for explaining to non-technical friends.
>
> http://interactive.wsj.com/articles/SB972002214791170991.htm
>
> October 20, 2000
>
> Electronic Form of 'Invisible Ink'
> Inside Files May Reveal Secrets

> "Come here, you gotta see this," Mr. Hinds says he called out to fellow
> campaign workers, who gathered around his computer. They started
> searching through the previous e-mails. The first one said "Last Saved
> by: Kinko's Customer" and listed "gunhus" as the author. They found
> other names and more dates and times that the documents had been created
> and stored.
>
> The Ciresi campaign alerted local authorities to its discoveries, which
> were first reported by the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

Naturally, statists always run to the government for backup (gun-wielding
thugs) when they are in trouble.

> The campaign
> alleged that the masquerade wasn't just a political dirty trick but
> a possible misdemeanor

So why is this even called "a political dirty trick?"   Don't they call this
"opposition research"?


>. A Minnesota law, which was designed to
> discourage anonymous attacks on politicians, requires those involved
> in election campaigns to disclose that fact in any political literature
> they prepare or distribute.

Obviously a 1st-amendment violation.

[deletia flagrante]

> County investigators, however, proceeded carefully, after learning
> that anyone could easily have framed Ms. Gunhus by entering her name
> in the properties box. "I could put in that 'William Shakespeare' is
> the author," says Bryan Lindberg, the assistant attorney leading the
> inquiry.

"Plausible deniability is maintained!"

> But then, Mr. Lindberg says, his team uncovered a more substantive
> link. Subpoenaed phone and Internet-access records linked the "Katie
> Stevens" Hotmail account used to send the attack e-mails to a Kinko's

It seems there's a real problem with this.  Even if we assume the "legality"
of the anti-anonymous-attack law mentioned above, it seems to me that the
police would have no probable cause to investigate an incident when they had
no evidence that a crime had actually yet occurred.  This would be
particularly true if there was no other obvious crime being committed:  A
publication of true facts about a political candidate, even anonymously,
would not necessarily trigger the law's $300 limit.

Looks to me like the police were doing a political favor in looking into
this case.

> document-processing center and a phone line listed as belonging to
> Ms. Gunhus's home, according to an affidavit filed by the county
> attorney's office as part of its search-warrant request. "The telephone
> number back to the Gunhus residence in Ham Lake gave us the probable
> cause to look at her computers," Mr. Lindberg says.

Actually, it probably DIDN'T _really_ give them genuine "probable cause."
It gave them what should be best described as "possible cause":  It
indicated that Gunhus had POSSIBLY violated a (unconstitutional) law.  (Or
someone living with her, etc...)

("Probable cause" is one of the most seriously abused concepts in American
law these days, even more then "beyond a reasonable doubt."  IMNSHO, they
can't possibly have "probable cause" if they can't prove at least a 51%
probability that a crime has been committed and the location of the search
contained evidence of the crime.  They probably rarely have this.)

> Mr. Ciresi lost his state's Democratic primary last month.

Seems he deserved it.

> The  investigation into the e-mail messages continues.