RE: I Got Mine

["Albert P. Franco, II" <apf2@apf2.com>]

At 08:39 PM 12/3/98 -0800, you wrote:
>Well, I'm glad my post has stirred up everyone into providing examples of
proper
>cpunk behavior/responses when confronted with a visit from the Friendly
>Neighborhood Investigation Corp.   It's great you're sharing your ideas on
>recalcitrance and resistance, it's more useful than all the jibberjabber
about
>how much you hate the govmt.   (Yes, but how do you actually respond to a
real
>live representative standing at your door (they showed me their Batches),
to a
>real-live situtation when you are taken to a little room and asked to strip
>("asked"?) at the airport?)   Ya'll should have done this earlier, when
the news
>of Toto first came out.  And think about it now, because if any mail from you
>was on his computer, you're likely to be next.

I specifically remember a number of clueful letters on the topic which hit
this list as the whole CJ issue came up. As I recall, there were plenty of
warnings that cpunks could expect visits. In fact, you're "I got mine"
subject line seems to indicate that you were aware of this concept. 

Secondly, since e/mail is a digital phenomenon, it can not be physically
attached to a source. Since perfect copies of it can be freely made any
computer can be made to appear as the originating computer. It is the very
easiest type of "evididence" to plant. Imagine a virus or Trojan horse that
put incriminating stuff on a computer w/o the owner knowing about it. The
technology is readily available and no doubt in use. You think that a cop
who would use a "throw down" gun or plant physical evidence wouldn't also
be capable of planting digital evidence. 

I think it will be very interesting once the true nature of computer
contents are litigated in terms of its non-physical nature. Without a
digital signature that cannot be forged any file on any computer is really
just digital nothingness that could have been placed there by anyone. There
is absolutely no way to prove anybody wrote anything unless you have a
number of reliable eyewitnesses physically present at the event.

COPS LIE!! FEDS LIE!!  Those alleged threats by Toto may (probably)
actually be the result of some MIB that couldn't get anything else on him.
So he invented the letters and later planted them on CJs computer during
the undoubtedly unsupervised session in which they supposedly read these
things off his computer.

I personally have been roughed up (no bruises, unfortunately) by cops when
I refused to allow them to search my car. Fortunately all the uproar gather
such a crowd that they were unable to plant any false evidence and since
there was nothing there in the first place they had nothing to hold me on.
I wish they had bruised me, it would have made settlement talks faster and
more productive ;)

When asked at the Dusseldorf airport to turn-on my computer, I did ask why.
When told that they wanted to make sure it was real. I clicked it on, let
whir around for a couple of seconds and turned it off. No problem. Had they
asked to see they contents I would have refused. That would be like letting
them read my personal papers, which they have no right to do. If arrested I
will fight it. But I'm a real hard-head. That's why I left the US. Got
tired of always being hassled.

However, hard-headed I am, I do admire the wonderful suggestions (a la
Clinton) by anon!

>
>But relax!  -  I said nothing which is not public knowledge, which is not
>already evident from the list archives.  As far as I'm concerned, it was true
>but essentially useless.   I confirmed things which they already knew or
would
>already know from the postings to the list -  they mentioned Tim's
attitude, for
>instance, and Declan's stories on Toto, and the info on John Young's website,
>and Toto's website, and asked me if I knew of Adam Back (who?).   

The stuff on this list is only public knowledge from a legal stand point.
It is often technologically or ideologically so far over most peoples heads
(especially MIBs and AOLes) that it is unfair to characterize it that way.
Besides, the real point isn't that they know anything, it's that they have
either identified you as a possible stooge or a suspect. You helpfulness is
probably going to cost someone (maybe yourself) very dearly.

Innocent people get fried all the time because of bad IDs. "Well, I thought
it was him...It LOOKED like him..." If you aren't sure--keep it to
yourself. And if you weren't then when CJ allegedly wrote and sent those
letters then it is impossible for you to be sure. So, PLEASE do everyone a
favor and stop "helping".

>Furthermore,
>just because I am nice and mannerly doesn't mean I couldn't as well be a
>hypocrite.   James Bond is also a complete gentleman.  Depending on the
>circumstance.
>(Q:  so, are you a hacker?   A:   <g>  no.  I don't know Unix)

I have considered the possibility that you are in fact some sort of
government "agent" and your mission is to draw out similar (unfounded)
convictions of CJ from others on the list. If that is your purpose, may you
burn in Hell. 

The bottom line is if you are not working to help build the governments
case, then on your next visit with them please try a little honest doubt
and forgetfulness.

>
>
>Tim said:
>
>: Blanc, I'm afraid that in your desire to be "helpful," you have only
>: worsened the situation for Toto. Believe me, they are not interested in
>: exculpatory evidence...whatever that might be in this
>: context. They are more likely interested in contact lists, in educating
>: themselves to make themselves more convincing witnesses, etc. Expect to see
>any
>: knowledge you conveighed to them coming back in Toto's trial from the
mouths
>of
>: prosecution witnesses.

A Note to Tim, I don't think you are as sure of Toto's identity as you
sound. I'm not even sure you mean to sound as if you are sure of his
identity. It may just be from the urge to type less keystrokes. Whatever
the case, if your not sure CJ is the one and only Toto then please refer to
Toto for Toto stuff and CJ for the guy in Jail. It's more clear and since
CJ is innocent until proven guilty, we should give him the benefit of the
doubt.

>
>I was not being "helpful".  I relied to their inquiries; I didn't offer
>information.  I made my own inquiries to them, as I already said, about the
>dividing line between free speech and when they will go seeking to arrest a
>person.
>
>In terms of educating them, I don't have any objections to probing their
mind to
>see what/how they think about things which we have discussed at length on the
>list.   I also don't have any objections in referring them to read
further:   I
>told them that the cpunks often have deep discussions on this and other such
>subjects, where we  pursue an understanding of controversial issues like free
>speech and privacy.   I told them that there were many very smart people
on the
>list, especially back in the earlier years, although some of these had
left to
>pursue their other interests.  

And there were a lot of smart people on McCarthy's list... All turned in by
people who couldn't possibly know the truth about the person they accused.
Or perhaps did it save their own butt.

Hell, maybe this will the McCarthy case of the new century... It should
take about two years to blow up into a full on witch hunt and blacklisting
of cpunks and other "anti-social" types. With the Y2K problem sure to be
pissing lots of people off, the public will certainly be willing to support
ridding society of all those computer geeks that have caused all this
trouble...

>of heat and sometimes light.  (they didn't ask, and I didn't tell them, which
>side of the spectrum I'm on)

It doesn't matter. Their job is NOT to find the truth. Their job is to
build cases. These are not equivalent endeavors. Far too many times they
are not even compatible endeavors.

>   I am not afraid of making my stand this way, to their face.

Fine, but until they arrest you stay out of it. Use YOUR trial as your
soapbox and not CJs.

>
>If it is anyone who could use some perspective on the controversies over
>government and privacy, it would be them.   And above all else, beyond being
>symbolically defiant, I would first aim for being Real.   It can be the
hardest
>thing to do, stand your ground and be calm and real.

Then please, get real and get honest, stop talking about things you THINK
are true. Those are opinions NOT facts, and should not be confused. Put
those fuzzy warm feelings away and face the fact that these guys are not
your girl friends chatting and discussing things that tick them off. These
guys are out to build a case against someone so that they can destroy his
life. HE IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. He has a right to a FAIR trial.
PLEASE, let's wait for the trial before convicting him!!!

APF