Cypherpunk Ban

[Bill Stewart]

At 11:53 PM 12/16/2001 -0800, John Young wrote:
 > I don't recall the rationale used by the USPO to forbid
 > CJ from posting to cypherpunks.  Anybody know the answer to that?

For CJ to be on Cpunks is Hangin' out with his old Bad Company from the 'hood,
like that Jim Bell dude and the other guys on the Group W bench,
talking about criiiime and father-rapin' and poetic-terrorizin' and 
creatin' a disturbance.

The fact that they can't tell a web site from a mailing list
when they're writing orders forbidding him to do it
suggests it's not a deeply-thought-out policy here.

At 12:08 AM 12/17/2001 -0500, Greg Newby wrote:
>On Sun, Dec 16, 2001 at 11:53:24PM -0800, John Young wrote:
> > ...
> > Just what is it about cypherpunks that drives federal officials
> > in the elf-buggering northwest to phantasms of Inquisition,
> > Witch Burning, chasing home-brewed bin Ladens? Inshallah,
> > they act demon-possessed like christ-fetishist Robert Hanssen.
>
>a. We understand the tech, they don't.
>(Ok, some of us understand some of the tech.)
>b. Anonymity is available & used

But that was just the point, in the Jim Bell case -
the Fedz came in with their 24 8x10 color glossies with circles and arrows 
on the back,
but unfortunately the judge and jury didn't have seeing-eye dogs,
so they actually looked at the things and listened to the Fedz,
and they *didn't* understand the technology enough to know that
Assassination-Politics-Quality Anonymity *isn't* available or usable,
and in particular, AP-Quality payer-and-payee-anonymous digital cash isn't 
available,
and that if those fundamental building blocks aren't there,
then any discussion of "how could it be used?" or "like, that'd be cool, 
huh huh!",
at least by people who *do* understand the technology and state of its 
deployment,
is strictly speculative philosophical bullshitting, not active conspiracy.

Now, it's possible that the Fedz in question really understood this at the 
time,
but Jim Bell's such a mainstream sympathy-inspiring figure,
especially with his alleged history of stink-bombing IRS offices and
his alleged paperwork-based harassment of bureaucrats and politicians allegedly
with the so-called "common-law court" folks, some of whom allegedly *are* 
dangerous loons,
that in the absence of extemely competent counsel, skilled at
not only explaining really obscure technical material to hostile non-techies
but also at dealing with seriously uncooperative clients,
a conviction was a slam-dunk, so not only does it give them
Federal Brownie Points for busting a "dangerous terrorist assassin"
and preventing him from doing anything else real,
but it serves as a deterrent for future JimBell-Wanabees who *don't*
understand that the technology isn't there, and besides, he was in their face,
and kept getting in their face after they'd successfully framed him.

Is it likely that Jeff Gordon understood what was real about the tech
and was doing this out of pure malice, as opposed to not understanding it
and actually believing that Bell was a real threat?  I doubt he cared enough
about justice that, if he did come to understand that AP wasn't real,
that he'd either apologize for his mistake or let it get in the way of an 
easy win.

And CJ just kept jumping in the way yelling "Nyahh Nyahh" and looking wacko,
and even back before 9/11, furriners didn't have civil rights,
and he didn't get the "Oh, he's just Canadian" exception to that,
because he was scaring the Canadians too.


>c. I was just in Seattle.  I think it might be the
>incessant rain that drives them bugfuck, combined
>with the short winter days.  And all that caffein...

I've almost always found the weather in Seattle to be gorgeous,
except one or two times that it was also pouring rain here in San Narcisco;
maybe I'm just lucky.  And Seattlers *smoke* a lot also,
and it's always that nasty tobacco stuff, unlike down here :-)

But the bigger problems are that they're Fedz,
and that they fundamentally don't have much useful work to do,
and that there's real hostility to them up there which they respond to
in macho-tribal fashion, and face it, if you've got a choice of
keeping your job by doing a big dangerous-terrorist bust,
would *you* rather go after the real Aryan Nations types,
or would you rather go after a Jim Bell or CJ which gets you
almost as many Brownie Points without actually being
dangerous or requiring serious police work?

Sure, your coworkers might know it's a sucker play, but it looks
almost as good on the paperwork that goes to Washington,
which is good for the budget and your department's reputation,
and in return they'll be happy you got this annoyance out of their face,
and it's not like they're getting much non-cynical self-respect
out of what they're usually doing.