Bell Case Subpoena

[Tim May]

At 12:33 PM -0800 1/9/01, Bill Stewart wrote:
>  >On Monday 08 January 2001 16:09, John Young wrote:
>  >>   You are also commanded to bring with you the following
>>>    document(s) or object(s):
>>>
>>>    Please provide any and all documents, papers, letters, computer
>>>    disks, photographs, notes, objects, information, or other items
>>>    in your possession or under your control, including electronically
>>>    stored or computer records, which:
>>>
>  >>     1. Name, mention, describe, discuss, involve or relate to James
>  >>     Dalton Bell, a/k/a Jim Bell, or
>>>
>>>      2.  Were previously possessed, owned, created, sent by, transported,
>>>      or oftherwise affiliated with James Dalton Bell, a/k/a Jim Bell, or
>>
>>How would you know if it was sent by him unless it had a digital signature
>>that you are willing to testify in court was know to belong to him and
>>had not been comprimised?
>
>I'd think there'd be serious problems with most of the evidence
>in this case being hearsay, except stuff specifically
>posted by Jim Bell.

ven a "From: Jim Bell" doesn't prove anything. Besides knowing this 
from first principles (about spoofing, signatures, etc.), we have 
seen this demonstrated on this very list. Recall that various posters 
were claiming to be "Toto" during the unfolding of that situation.

Recall that Detweiler (presumably) used to issue posts with my name 
attached, with Nick Szabo's name attached, with Eric Hughes' name 
attached, etc.

These points were never tested in the court cases of Bell or Parker.

John Young could quite easily show up in Seattle with _none_ of the 
items the subpoena calls for. If questioned, he could say he had no 
means of knowing if the articles, posts, etc. were in fact from Bell 
or were generated by Infowar cointelpro operatives in law enforcement 
or even by Detweiler or May or whomever.

Also, even if he chooses to comply and grep through his mail archives 
for "any and all documents...mention...discuss....Jim Bell," this 
would presumably turn up many hundreds of such documents. And the 
provenance will be unknown (an ordinary mail spool, or Eudora folder, 
or Outlook Express whatever, etc., being editable and alterable).

John Young (or anyone else) could have edited his mail spool to put 
words into "Bell"'s alleged mail.

I expect this upcoming trial will not be the case which hinges on 
these kinds of issues, but some court will someday have to contend 
with this utter malleability of received mail files. Unlike paper 
letters which can be forensically analyzed, e-mail is nearly 
meaningless.


--Tim May
-- 
Timothy C. May         tcmay at got.net        Corralitos, California
Political: Co-founder Cypherpunks/crypto anarchy/Cyphernomicon
Technical: physics/soft errors/Smalltalk/Squeak/agents/games/Go
Personal: b.1951/UCSB/Intel '74-'86/retired/investor/motorcycles/guns