She wasn't a lawyer; your PR clone suspicion is correct.
She was not a technologist. Her function was only to testify that
an IP address matched an account.
Bell's lawyer on cross-examination never raised the point that a message
posted to cpunx goes through multiple servers (including the majordomo
ones), all of which have the opportunity to add false headers to the
message.
-Declan
On Fri, Apr 06, 2001 at 10:30:25AM +0100, Ken Brown wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second Day: Jim Bell trial
[...]
The next witness was Hilda Wong Muramoto who is a subpoena manager for @Home
Corporation. In direct testimony she stated that Bell had a cable modem
account, that the "DNS designation and sub-domain" as well as the IP address
were hard-wired, and that the account did not cover dial-up connections.
She said that the IP address was 24.16.209.166 and that the DNS number
was C1099371-A. The DNS name that was captured in the e-mail that Bell
allegedly sent to cypherpunks was encrv1.wa.home.com. She claimed that
those "numbers" could not appear on anyone else's e-mail.
"subpoena manager"? What in Tacoma is a "subpoena manager"? Do subpoenas
need managing?
It sounds like they employ someone just to get sued. Presumably that
means she is a PR clone or a lawyer. Why should a PR type know anything
about DNS SMTP, any more than I (or Choate) should be an expert on
the law?
If I was a grumpy judge and a company sent me a "subpoena manager" I
would be very tempted to send them right back get someone who knew
what they are talking about.
Ken
