Re: IRS sending warning notes, violating ECPA?

[nobody@REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)]

Paul Bradley wrote:
> 
> > It certainly appears that the IRS has sent "warnings" out to all of us
> > active in the debate. 
> The way I see it there are two possible ways the motherfuckers got the
> addresses, either they found the lists Jim subscribed to and did "who
> cypherpunks" etc. to the servers, to get the list of participants, or
> they used any adresses off the mail jim has recieved in the past, I got a
> copy of it and I have privately emailed Jim several times so I can`t
> really say which is more likely.
> 
> If it is the second I am hereby giving Jim a public dresssing down for
> not encrypting the filesystem ;-)....

Paul,
  I spoke to the judge in the case and he has agreed that your
"dressing down" of Jim is a far more severe sentence than anything
he could impose, so he is turning Jim loose this afternoon.

  Seriously...
  Your comments reminded me why I read the PRZ's PGP manual/intro
every now and again to refresh my memory/paranoia about security
issues.
  Perhaps the hardest part of maintaining secure communications and
personal privacy is remembering that, no matter how tight you run your
own ship, you are, to a certain extent, "married" to the people with
whom you communicate. And, to use an AIDS analogy, you are also
"married" to everyone they have slept with.
  Perhaps you would trust "mom" with your life. However, what if the
ever-present "they" threatened to kill all of her other children 
unless she ratted you out? The answer to this question doesn't matter
if you have used cryptography and/or anonymity in a manner that doesn't
leave you vulnerable to anyone else.

  Even if mom would never 'rat you out' under any circumstances, does
she have the knowledge and discipline needed to keep "them" from being
able to access your communications with her?
  The bottom line is that one should "err" on the side of safety. Being
_too_ paranoid is less costly than not being paranoid enough.
  Tim May's rants are not done in ignorance. He understands the legal
differences between saying "The criminals in D.C. _should_ be nuked.",
and saying, "I _am_going_to_ nuke the criminals in D.C., someday."
(Friday, at 4 o'clock.)
  I am certain that Tim is well aware that, even if he is right about
his statements being Constitutionally protected free speech, there is 
always the chance that he could suffer grief or imprisonment for them(
quite simply because "the criminals" are getting more profecient at
subverting and destroying the rights protected by the Constitution).
  I am just as certain that Tim has made a conscious decision as to
what level of risk he is willing to take to speak his mind and perhaps
make a difference in the events of his time, without merely being
egoistical, stupid, and suicidal.

  Kent Crispin, when he's not being just plain ignorant, sometimes
manages to raise valid issues that serve as a counter-point to Tim's
views, but the bottom line is that, in the presence of two other
world-leaders who are privy to the mountains of information that is
kept hidden from the public by their governments, Jean Chretien,
the Prime Minister of Canada, openly stated that the politicians
in the U.S. would be imprisoned as criminals in most countries.
  It's true. Currently, Saskatchewan politicians are being
prosecuted for what would be considered "nickle and dime" matters
in the U.S. (e.g. <$1,000 wrongful use of expense accounts). In the
U.S., the S&L scandal involved _billions_ of dollars in fraud and
thievery and only a few of the really stupid bit-players got thrown
to the wolves.

  In short, when you communicate with anyone, it is your own
responsibility to limit the level of your future vulnerability.
If you think that it's OK to post a message to the list saying,
"I'm going to nuke D.C. on Friday, at 4 p.m. Shhh! Don't tell
anybody.", then go for it. (But keep in mind that some people
just can't keep a secret.)

TruthMonger