Seth Finkelstein, reluctant cypherpunk?

[Greg Broiles]

At 04:22 AM 4/4/2001 -0400, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
>         I occasionally read articles on list, from the web through
>http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks. I've been following the Jim Bell
>case off and on, and more closely since you were subpoenaed. Amusing
>anecdote: At the start of CFP 2001, I was telling someone not to trust you,
>that you "use" people, and they should avoid you at all costs. I said:
>"Declan writes stories encouraging people to be sued, and then he writes
>about the lawsuit". I could see they were dubious of my account. After
>the subpoena, I said with a grin: "Remember what I told you? *BINGO*".

Is there any indication that the things that Jim said to Declan weren't 
meant for publication? Your outrage would seem reasonable if Jim and Declan 
were friends, and Declan had published things told to him apparently in 
confidence - but he's a reporter, and that's why Jim talked to him. Jim 
likes publicity and attention. Jim wanted to see his name and his ideas and 
his allegations about the federal government in Wired, or on the Wired 
website. Jim got what he wanted. I doubt he's angry. Have you asked him 
yourself?

>  I didn't/don't understand why people who apparently feel
>themselves at risk of serious Federal criminal prosecution, tolerate
>someone who in the end sings like a canary every time he's called to
>be a prosecution witness.

Because he's got a big sign on his hat saying "CANARY", and because people 
who talk to him (or post their ideas publicly) are looking for widespread 
attention.

Cypherpunks isn't about "tolerating" people, it's a collection of mailing 
lists which some people use to discuss politics, technology, and privacy. 
Just as it's not possible to exclude you, the feds, or any of the annoying 
Jims, it's not possible to exclude Declan even if that seemed like a good 
idea.  But that would be counterproductive - cypherpunks isn't a list for 
hatching great conspiracies, where secrecy is important or expected. It is 
a list for identifying and sharpening good ideas, and a variety of 
participants is helpful towards that goal.

People who expect privacy vis-a-vis grand jury or trial subpoenas need to 
learn to speak only to people or in environments which are privileged 
against subpoena and monitoring. Or, don't expect privacy, and don't say 
anything which would be damaging if it were repeated in court. It's not 
nearly good enough to avoid people who consider themselves likely to be 
defendants in criminal cases - anybody can end up as a witness, or as a 
party to a civil case.


--
Greg Broiles
gbroiles at well.com
"Organized crime is the price we pay for organization." -- Raymond Chandler