Jim Bell sentenced to 10 years in prison

[Declan McCullagh]

John, calm down. I replied to all on a message you wrote; I asked
you for a different file format. It had nothing to do with the
substance of the case.

Also, your "if my name does not show up on the To: line I'm OK" is
terribly naive. A prosecutor would show to the jury the "In-Reply-To:"
header that shows I'm replying to your message, the quoted text below
which demonstrates the same thing, or even the fact that I started
this message with your name, as you did to me.

The problem with your analysis is that it's impressionist, and perhaps
a little terrified. You chose to testify without hiring a lawyer, a
bad move that left you at the mercy of the prosecutor. What you should
have done (if you have the resources; I know cryptome is hardly a
for-profit venture) is said you were a journalist and refused to
answer questions beyond did-you-publish-this-article. (At the time,
you told me representing yourself on the stand gave you more leeway
and protection, a belief that turned out not to be correct.)

Instead, you ended up chatting as much as that local reporter.

Just because the "homeland war" -- which you seem overly fixated on --
will likely lead to an erosion of some liberties, it does not
logically follow that it will lead to an erosion of all of them.  I
urge you and any other publisher/reporter/commentator types reading
this not to stand up for your First Amendment rights and not assume
that you must divulge unpublished information about sources if you
happen to receive a subpoena. See documents at:
http://www.mccullagh.org/subpoena/

I don't remember telling you that what you (John Young) told me would
be "someday revealed in court" and I suspect you
misunderstood. (Unless I was talking about wiretaps or electronic
surveillance.) I did not reveal what, if anything, Jim Bell told me,
during my brief courtroom appearance, which prompted the prosecutor to
say I was a "hostile witness." As I've said here quite, my general
policy is that I treat information that I collect during newsgathering
and reporting purposes in confidence. Most other reporters do the same,
and complaining about "homeland wars" does not change that fact.

-Declan


On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 03:44:25PM -0700, John Young wrote:
> Declan, you are still tarring me with messages addressed to
> me and cc'ed to cpunks. So I state: I want no direct e-mail
> to me about cybercriminals convicted or likely to be that. 
> Anybody does that after I ask them not to I will consider 
> working with the authorities, wittingly or unwittingly.
> 
> Let me say that again, any reporter, priest, doctor, lawyer,
> or any other likely undercover agent which meets with me,
> sends me e-mail, telephones me, or faxes me without 
> making that simultaneously public I will interpret as an 
> attempt to entrap either for professional reasons or to
> help the authorities or both.
> 
> Declan, I say to you, that means you. I think you are being
> used as a lure just as much as Jim Bell, CJ and a several
> more. Your journalistic conceit appears to be blinding you
> to the threat you pose. Recall our talk about this in Seattle 
> when you warned me that our conversations could be 
> someday revealed in court, and that you considered your 
> telling me that as fair warning to be careful what I told you.
> 
> This is not to single you out, I told the 60 Minutes reporters
> and other journalists what I'm saying to you here. None
> of you fuckers are free of being forced to tell what you
> have been told in confidence, and no fair warning relieves
> you of the obligation to tell those who confided in you just
> what you are telling others to save your own ass.
> 
> All the privileged receivers of confidential information got
> to get used to going public before they are forced to testify
> in secret. That is happening now and will happen more as
> the homeland war heats up and nuts and tits get squeezed.
> 
> Where am I going with this? I believe Jim Bell and CJ
> were shopped to the feds, and others are probably being
> shopped right now, whether on purpose or by inadvertency. 
> I don't know who all  is involved with this shit but it is damn 
> well is going to come out.
> 
> Best to just not pretend anymore that these privileged parties
> can or will keep information confidential. That means nobody.