Declan McCullagh and prosecutions

[Seth Finkelstein]

Tim May wrote:
> And why is Declan's recounting of what Bell has been talking about
> any more "subpoenable" than what any number of list members responded to?

	Because it allegedly came from Bell's own mouth. Note some of
Bell's messages are part of the Federal Complaint.

	Be of good cheer. I suspect that if you conducted an interview
with Jim Bell, where you claimed he made incriminating admissions,
then wrote-up and posted the results, the prosecution would in general
be just as willing to have you testify as a witness as they would an
"official" journalist. You could test this :-).

> My hunch is that if he has to testify in a fishing expedition, his
> contacts with Cypherpunks will evaporate. 

	Umm, why? Remember they didn't evaporate the first time
around, from the Carl Johnson trial. And there's no government
"fishing expedition" here. The prosecution has set out exactly the
evidence it's seeking. Or were you referring to this part of the motion?

  "Put simply, Bell's likely cross-examination of McCullagh will be a
   fishing expedition in its purest form. The "mere hope" of obtaining
   exculpatory evidence is not sufficient for enforcement of a Rule 17
   subpoena."

> Which may actually be one of the main reasons he is being called,
> actually. What a great way for Big Brother to silence a leading
> Cypherpunk-friendly journalist.

	I think I'm finally getting the answer to my question ...

__
Seth Finkelstein  Consulting Programmer  sethf at mit.edu  http://sethf.com