Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity)
At 10:24 PM 8/15/01 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: Liar, check the archives. I never said anybody was dangerous. What I did say was that I felt the C-A-C-L philosophy was dangerous. I stand by that. I believe that were the C-A-C-L philosophy to take hold the results would make the death counts from Nazism and Communism in this century pail in comparison. You have to be wired a little funny to think that a free society would suffer the murder rate of those slave societies with their organized mechanisms of extinction. Killing the 170 Megs of people that socialists of all stripes murdered in the 20th century is hard work. Takes a big killing organization. For fun I tried to guestimate the number of murders private individuals committed in the 20th century and even making assumptions that inflated the final figure, I was only able to come up with a max of 30 megs of people. (Derived by applying the peak US murder rate of 10 per 100,000 to a somewhat arbitrary average world population of 3 billion during this century) DCF In normal operation, a 1000 MGW coal-fired power plant releases more radioactivity than a 1000 MGW nuclear power plant.
Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity)
On Thursday, August 16, 2001, at 04:13 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess that I wonder why there was anything more to say than : I only know what I've read on the net and cannot testify to its accuracy or completeness and any conclusions I've drawn from this reading would be my opinion not facts. with some I don't recall s thrown in where appropriate. Gary Condit was not required to talk to either the police or the FBI, absent a subpoena to testify before a grand jury or in an actual trial. And even then he may have certain Fifth Amendment protections (less in front of a grand jury, apparently). I cite Condit becuase it reminds us that talking to the police is not required. Not only are there issues of self-incrimination, but also issues of takings (compelling an expert to talk without some agreed-upon contract and rate is of course compelling him to donate his time; and we are all experts, of course). There is no obligation to give interviews with cops or investigators, either before or after an arrest. Absent the appropriate subpoenas and court-ordered testimony, modulo the Fifth Amendment. There's a strange bit of fluff floating around on the t.v. talk shows, based on my recent viewings, along the lines of Once you've been read your rights, you don't have to talk to the police. Does this mean that one is required to talk to the police, to give potentially incriminating statements, to donate one's time, _before_ one's Miranda rights have been read? Nope, not so. One may remain silent long before an arrest and formal Mirandizing. While telling a cop to Fuck off may not be the most tactful thing to say, and may even violate some laws about obscene speech to public officials, saying I have nothing to say or No comment is not prosecutable...unless the speech has been compelled (grand jury, petit jury/trial) and the necessary general or use immunities granted. Choate was under no obligation to pontificate to cops about whether someone like me plans to do something. He chose to cooperate with the Feds and speculated freely on what he thought I would do. He's a rodent. --Tim May
Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity)
On Fri, 17 Aug 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote: Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote : As to you, the only thing I told them was you worked for Intel, made some money, retired, live out in the boonies with a bunch of guns, and talked a lot of crap. When even tell them that? I've answered this question before. I'm not a C-A-C-L. I don't see them as the 'enemy'. If CJ had really been running around putting bombs in courthouses (in Canada or not) or was a credible threat to anybody (whether they are agents are not is irrelelvant, and the distinction is really unconstitutional) then I WANT him in jail and will happily help put him there. I met CJ in person, under some rather strange cirumstances. He also went out of his way to involve me (eg the bomb description posts to the list he had on his person when he was captured) and the Austin Cypherpunks. I will say this, the AC were not impressed by him in general and the general consensus was he was at least a couple bricks short. If you want information, you sometimes have to give some. I operate a remailer for the express purpose of discussing alternatives to the current approaches to our society. Part of that is the willingness to involve myself with people, even if the odds of success are very low. I asked myself how credible I'd be if I ran around deciding I'd talk to this group but not that group. I felt, not very. Everything I said came from voluntary and reasonably public comments made by the appropriate parties over several years of interaction (I joined the original list in late '92 or early '93). Nothing I said can't be backed up by reams of posts. Finally, I'm more worried about my butt than yours or Timmy's. It was a personal judgement call, one that I believe I resolved equitably. If you don't agree, tough. It wasn't your call. (the fact that you want respect for your actions but can't seem to give it to others is only another indication of your real world view) Basically, I don't see it in the same immature black/white:us/them view that you and your cronnies hold. It ain't a football game, goober. -- natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity)
At one point Seth was capable of sane arguments and discussions without insults. This was, of course, many years ago, and now he's just nutty and should not be taken particularly seriously. -Declan On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 04:55:09PM -0700, Tim May wrote: On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 04:34 PM, Seth Finkelstein wrote: [cypherpunky cryptobabble libertopians should take note!] Hit and run insults to our list, oh my! I have decremented his reputation counter by the standard amount, and have added his name to the Silicon Valley don't hire this guy data base. So long as he stays on the East Coast, shouldn't be a problem for him. --Tim May
BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity)
[cypherpunky cryptobabble libertopians should take note!] Available at: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity) Abstract: This report examines a secret category in N2H2's censorware, a product often sold under the name BESS, The Internet Retriever. This category turns out to be for sites which must be uniformly prohibited, because they constitute a LOOPHOLE in the necessary control of censorware. The category contains sites which provide services of anonymity, privacy, language translation, humorous text transformations, even web page feature testing, and more. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sethf.com http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php
Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity)
On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 04:34 PM, Seth Finkelstein wrote: [cypherpunky cryptobabble libertopians should take note!] Hit and run insults to our list, oh my! I have decremented his reputation counter by the standard amount, and have added his name to the Silicon Valley don't hire this guy data base. So long as he stays on the East Coast, shouldn't be a problem for him. --Tim May
Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity)
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 08:17:02PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: At one point Seth was capable of sane arguments and discussions without insults. This was, of course, many years ago, and now he's just nutty and should not be taken particularly seriously. I'm sorry Declan, I just can't take the cypherpunks list seriously anymore. After you testified for Federal government prosecutors, helping to put members in jail - not once, but twice - and anyone still respected you, I just lost all ability to regard that zeitgeist as other than a joke. There was indeed a time I could deal with Liberbabble. That was before a certain journalist, who I helped a lot, did many things to raise my legal risks, and justified some of it in the name of Libertarianism (other parts were just his character). I said this to you at CFP 2001, and I'll say it again: This is not a game we're playing. People are going to jail. I'd be overjoyed if you didn't take me seriously. It's the backstabbing I worry about. I don't ever want to find you playing Federal Witness #1 against me too. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sethf.com http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php
Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity)
On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 06:21 PM, Seth Finkelstein wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 08:17:02PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: At one point Seth was capable of sane arguments and discussions without insults. This was, of course, many years ago, and now he's just nutty and should not be taken particularly seriously. I'm sorry Declan, I just can't take the cypherpunks list seriously anymore. After you testified for Federal government prosecutors, helping to put members in jail - not once, but twice - and anyone still respected you, I just lost all ability to regard that zeitgeist as other than a joke. From what I know of the situations, based on journalistic reports (from reports _other_ than from Declan), Declan took the obvious and legal steps to limit his testimony to statements of the form: Yes, I am a reporter for Wired News. Yes, I wrote the story you are referring to. He was subpoenaed to testify, he and/or his employer hired lawyers to deal with the subpoena and to seek ways to state only things like the above, and, so far as I have ever heard, he did not offer helpful suggestions or speculations. By contrast, Jim Choate was visited by the FBI for one of the show trials and offered speculations that I (Tim) am a dangerous person with lots of guns and money. The court records show these depositions from Choate. No such malicious help came from Declan, at least none in court records. Declan has been to my house several times. (Choate has never been to my house and will never be welcome.) If he writes a story about me, or you, or anyone, and the court demands for evidentiary reasons that he confirm or deny that he authored a particular chunk of text, he would presumably do so. However, if FBI agents on a fishing expedition ask him for incriminating speculations, I assume he would tell them to leave. As for you, you are not to be taken seriously by anyone, narcs or others. --Tim May
Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity)
Pot. Kettle. Chip. Shoulder. You boys are getting a little silly. MacN On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 06:21 PM, Seth Finkelstein wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 08:17:02PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: At one point Seth was capable of sane arguments and discussions without insults. This was, of course, many years ago, and now he's just nutty and should not be taken particularly seriously. I'm sorry Declan, I just can't take the cypherpunks list seriously anymore. After you testified for Federal government prosecutors, helping to put members in jail - not once, but twice - and anyone still respected you, I just lost all ability to regard that zeitgeist as other than a joke. From what I know of the situations, based on journalistic reports (from reports _other_ than from Declan), Declan took the obvious and legal steps to limit his testimony to statements of the form: Yes, I am a reporter for Wired News. Yes, I wrote the story you are referring to. He was subpoenaed to testify, he and/or his employer hired lawyers to deal with the subpoena and to seek ways to state only things like the above, and, so far as I have ever heard, he did not offer helpful suggestions or speculations. By contrast, Jim Choate was visited by the FBI for one of the show trials and offered speculations that I (Tim) am a dangerous person with lots of guns and money. The court records show these depositions from Choate. No such malicious help came from Declan, at least none in court records. Declan has been to my house several times. (Choate has never been to my house and will never be welcome.) If he writes a story about me, or you, or anyone, and the court demands for evidentiary reasons that he confirm or deny that he authored a particular chunk of text, he would presumably do so. However, if FBI agents on a fishing expedition ask him for incriminating speculations, I assume he would tell them to leave. As for you, you are not to be taken seriously by anyone, narcs or others. --Tim May
Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity)
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 07:01:32PM -0700, Tim May wrote: ... Declan took the obvious and legal steps to limit his testimony to statements of the form: Yes, I am a reporter for Wired News. Yes, I wrote the story you are referring to. Yes, I affirm under oath that the article is true Once he says that, it's basically equivalent to testifying to the contents of the article in court. Making such an affirmation is not inevitable. People can disown articles. This not to recommend such disowning. However, the prosecution is well aware of the risks that it can happen. But if the US was a police state, Declan would not be griping about his plane ticket as his biggest concern in such a situation. He certainly would not be welcomed back to gather information on people he might help put in jail in a future trial. I can't convey how ludicrous it seems to me. Declan is the Fed's best friend. That's not an insult, that's a fact. He's provided important evidence that helped obtain two convictions. He shows every sign of repeating the performance. And nobody even seems to notice. Everybody goes by what he posts, the politically correct (for here) liberpunk anarcrypt cyberbilge. Not what he *does*. It's utterly unreal. But hey, he's a Libertarian(-type), and I'm not. So don't take me seriously. I have my own legal risks to worry about. -- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://sethf.com http://archive.nytimes.com/2001/07/19/technology/circuits/19HACK.html BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE: http://sethf.com/anticensorware/bess/loophole.php P.S. Regarding Jim Choate's speculations, as far as I know, you *do* have lots of guns and money. Why aren't you also giving him a pass for restating what are presumably your own true statements? As far as being a dangerous person, well, that depends who one thinks is your target.
Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity)
On Wed, 15 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote: By contrast, Jim Choate was visited by the FBI for one of the show trials and offered speculations that I (Tim) am a dangerous person with lots of guns and money. The court records show these depositions from Choate. No such malicious help came from Declan, at least none in court records. Liar, check the archives. I never said anybody was dangerous. What I did say was that I felt the C-A-C-L philosophy was dangerous. I stand by that. I believe that were the C-A-C-L philosophy to take hold the results would make the death counts from Nazism and Communism in this century pail in comparison. As to you, the only thing I told them was you worked for Intel, made some money, retired, live out in the boonies with a bunch of guns, and talked a lot of crap. Stand by that too. -- natsugusa ya...tsuwamonodomo ga...yume no ato summer grass...those mighty warriors'...dream-tracks Matsuo Basho The Armadillo Group ,::;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'/ ``::/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com.', `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity)
-- On 15 Aug 2001, at 23:12, Seth Finkelstein wrote: I can't convey how ludicrous it seems to me. Declan is the Fed's best friend. That's not an insult, that's a fact. Thats baloney. Declan has been routinely harassed by the feds. He's provided important evidence that helped obtain two convictions. Bullshit. They only called him in order to intimidate reporters from covering the trial. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG r/KEjYFJ8qd6sh4aNB/cT3smEFD3iLfOxedKC8SX 4HLEA5rF83RLJ8KGsjjyLNhBgEpEpFc8jRElwby5C
Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity)
On Wednesday, August 15, 2001, at 08:12 PM, Seth Finkelstein wrote: On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 07:01:32PM -0700, Tim May wrote: ... Declan took the obvious and legal steps to limit his testimony to statements of the form: Yes, I am a reporter for Wired News. Yes, I wrote the story you are referring to. Yes, I affirm under oath that the article is true Objection. The witness cannot attest to the truth of the article. The cross-examiner may ask whether the witness _believes_ his article to be based on fact, but his opinion as to its truthfulness or not does not establish facts in a case. A reporters _tape recorded notes_ or _contemporaneous notes_ are more probative, which is a major reason some important cases have involved courts ordering reporters to produce their notes and reporters then refusing. Was Declan asked about the truth of the article? Did he testify with the words above? (Yes, I tried to find this quote with Google. Either the transcript hasn't been released, hasn't been posted, hasn't been Google, or that phrase was not used...even the article is true as a phrasal fragment.) Declan can tell us what he recalls of the proceedings. Has the transcript ever been released? Regardless, you seem to have some personal vendetta against DM. --Tim May
Re: BESS's Secret LOOPHOLE (censorware vs. privacy anonymity)
On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 07:01:32PM -0700, Tim May wrote: From what I know of the situations, based on journalistic reports (from reports _other_ than from Declan), Declan took the obvious and legal steps to limit his testimony to statements of the form: Yes, I am a reporter for Wired News. Yes, I wrote the story you are referring to. He was subpoenaed to testify, he and/or his employer hired lawyers to deal with the subpoena and to seek ways to state only things like the above, and, so far as I have ever heard, he did not offer helpful suggestions or speculations. That is correct. I refused to do anything except confirm I wrote the article (first I hired a lawyer tried to quash the subpoena, but the judge did not grant our motion). That's why AUSA London asked the judge to declare me a hostile witness. My writeup is here: http://www.politechbot.com/p-01883.html Naturally I will not reveal conversations I have as part of my newsgathering role that are confidential, private, on background, off-the-record, etc. Because my job requires that I be on call 24 hours and many conversations can be potentially related to topics I cover, I believe it is prudent to take a broad view of what I consider to be protected from prosecutorial inquiries. I don't think the transcript is online. I've been planning to buy it, and I'll get around to it next month. Anyway, Seth is becoming increasingly deranged; I'm not sure it's worth taking him seriously even to write a few paragraphs in reply. -Declan
