Threats of Legal Action and C2Net/Stronghold Issue

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups:
alt.cypherpunks,  alt.privacy, comp.org.eff.talk)


At 6:07 PM -0800 2/16/97, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

>Curiously, in a subsequent telephone conversation, Tim May 
>proposed almost that exact suggestion as an alternative form of
>moderation that he said would have been acceptable to him.  Go
>figure.

The only phone conversation I had was with Doug Barnes, at the request of
Doug that I urgently phone either him or Sameer. I called Doug as soon as I
got the message. (Doug also said he was the only one in the room at the
time, and that the call was *not* being recorded, so I have to surmise that
Sandy got his version of things via a recap by Doug.)

 
>> 21. Tim received a warning from C2Net's lawyers that if he did not
>> desist from mentioning that Dimitri had posted an article criticising
>> a C2Net product that he would be sued!
>
>Absolutely false.
> 

What Doug told me was that Dimitri Vulis had already been served with a
legal notice about his warnings about a security flaw in Stronghold, and
that any repetition of Dimitri's claims by me or anyone else would result
in similar legal action.

Doug said that any repetition of the claims, even as part of a quote, would
be seen as actionable by C2Net. "We'll vigorously defend our rights." (as
best I can recall) He said he thought my messages, to the extent they
merely _alluded_ to the claims were probably OK and that they would
certainly go through to the list, as Sandy has already resigned from his
role as moderator.

(For the record, these messages DID NOT GO THROUGH, and have not gone
through as of tonight, 8-9 days later. However, I have forwarded them to
several people who requested them.)

(I also did not have a recorder running, so I can't claim this is a
verbatim summary of what was said. As to what I said about how the
moderation thing might have been done differently, Doug and I chatted for a
while about various alternatives. I raised the point I've made before, that
having a "members only" policy, with some special provision for some amount
of remailed messages, would probably best suit the notion of keeping the
"community" running. What I told Doug was that my main objection was having
Sandy sit in judgement to essays folks might have spent a long time
composing, and I cited physical parties, where a host invites those he
wants in attendance, but does not micromanage or screen conversations being
held at the party. My sense was that Doug agreed, and agreed that the whole
thing had been handled in a bad way...but Doug should comment to tell his
view of things.)

The next day, at the physical Cyperpunks meeting at Stanford, I briefly
talked to Greg Broiles, working as a legal aide at C2Net. I told Greg he
could "take his best shot," in terms of filing suit against me about my
messages, as I'm prepared to fight C2Net in court on this matter, and have
the financial resources to hire some pretty good lawyers. (I don't recall
if Greg replied, or what his reply was.)

In a message to Cypherpunks, I outlined my understanding of the Vulis
report on security flaws in Stronghold, and put the claims  in the context
of messages not appearing on either of the two main lists,  but none of my
messages were sent to either the Main list or the Flames list. 

(I also had communication with several members of the list, some known to
me and some only pseudonyms. I have taken the precaution of erasing these
messages and copying files to the disk on which they resided to head off
any attempts by C2Net seize my computer and disks as part of some
"discovery" process.)

I find it unfortunate that C2Net is behaving in such a manner, and their
actions are generating far more publicity about the claimed security flaws
in Stronghold than the original Vulis message ever would have generated. 

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as a Supreme Court justice averred. And
suppression is a breeding ground for all sorts of bacteria, fungi, and ugly
growth, as a less articulate person said.

Reporters interested in this story have already contacted me. They're
interested in the situation surrounding the claims of a flaw. I told one
reporter I had no expertise in Stronghold, SSL, etc., and could not say,
but that I suspected strongly that the claim was made just as a "tweak" of
C2Net. 

"Truth is an absolute defence against libel claims."

(P.S. To repeat, I doubt there is a flaw in Stronghold, either introduced
by RSA (Republic of South Africa, of course) or by the NSA, or by C2Net, or
by anyone else. I said as much in my messages which never made it to the
list.)

--Tim May

-- 
Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software!
We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."