Fwd: Re: Tim May and anonymous flames.

[Gary Jeffers]

My fellow Cypherpunks,

   Some time ago Tim May flamed me and I responded with the post:
Tim May goes bush shooting.
http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2000.09.25-2000.10.01/msg00388.html
   .
Note: The 3rd reference was bad. The corrected reference is:
http://www.inet-one.com/cypherpunks/dir.2000.09.18-2000.09.24/msg00167.html
   .

   This has gotten me thinking and I have the following
observations
and conjectures:

1. It is predictable that Tim May will be flammed. The FBI has a
  history of covertly sowing internal dissent in dissident groups.
  As a leading Cypherpunk, May is an obvious target.

2. Anonymous flames are dirt cheap and safe for the FBI.

3. The FBI will do them well. By definition, the flames will be
  professional :-)

4. The flames will be worded so as to distress the target.

5. The flames will be seeded with clues to imply that a particular
  Cypherpunk did them: distinctive syntax, mispellings, phrases,
etc..
  This will help make the group ineffective.

6. Other leading Cypherpunks will also be targeted.

7. The anonymous flames will be hard to falsify in their pointing
  to a particular Cypherpunk.

8. Does anybody have reason to believe that the above is not true?

9. Anybody have any good defenses against this attack.

10. Has this topic been brought up before? Yes, I know! -countless
  times and I have not done my homework. :-)

Yours Truly,
Gary Jeffers

BEAT STATE!!!!





_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp