[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What it's like to get a subpoena (re Toto) (fwd)
> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:14:41 +0100
> From: Adam Back <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: What it's like to get a subpoena (re Toto)
> Perhaps they lack proof that the message in question was sent to the
> list, very little is signed, and Toto surrounded himself with
True, there is also the issue of SMTP forgeries. Since there is no host
authentication your security is as strong as your trust. His signing the
message raises some interesting issues, especialy with the subsequent
developments related to signature strength.
> Not that it makes much difference that I can see -- the issue is
> surely whether CJ wrote the post, and whether the post and the AP
> mockup constitutes a credible threat. (That they apparently think
> Toto's AP mockup was credible shows a lack of understanding).
The officers I talked to in person admitted to not knowing about Bell or AP.
Their interest seemed to be related solely to issues about threats to
specific individuals or locations within the IRS infrastructure.
My impression was that from their perspective this was just another subpeona
delivery and interview. They each had a list of questions/notes and they
basicly looked to be going down the list and filling in blanks.
> I don't see why they're bothering you, I wonder if the other majordomo
> operators have received, or shortly will receive similar visits.
I raised the same issue with the agent in Seattle via phone. He seemed to
comprehend the mundane role a mailing list operator leads, especialy since
I don't keep archives nor moderate the traffic. He was at least willing to
discuss depositions and such. If luck is on my side they'll let me explain
how SSZ works in regards the CDR as well as what Toto/CJ/aka said to me
directly via phone and in person.
> Perhaps we could send archive URLs to Jeff Gordon.
I made sure to explain how to get Cypherpunks archives via Yahoo with the
two agents this morning. I also explained the very ad hoc nature of
participation in the CDR and why users come and go.
I even got to explain how the remailer works by using an example involving a
spammer. They were quite clear on what a spammer was and how they distribute
> > Please don't call or send private email requesting further
> > details. They didn't ask me to keep any of our discussion
> > confidential but until I better understand what is going on I'm
> > taking the conservative course (I had a big fight with myself about
> > whether to even post this).
> Well thanks for making it. I say make it all public, FWIW.
I agree in principle. Now whether particular circumstances will allay their
wills to mine is another issue entirely. In particular since I'm going to be
testifying before a grand jury in Washington state versus Texas is something
that tells me I don't know all the ground rules possibly. Especialy since I
can't have a lawyer present during questioning (and I thought the only
stipulation with council was a value exceeding $20), that bothers my
Constitutional constitution more than I care to admit.
To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice.
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [email protected]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087