more deranged lunatic ravings -- just delete 'em!

From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
>Why all this silly speculation? We will all know the complete answers
>soon enough. There is no need for us to reach out and "investigate".

ah yes, just like everyone 'soon enough' knew the 'complete answers' behind
the Steve Jackson Games investigation. All we have to do is sit around and
wait for it to be handed to us by everyone involved, including The Enemy.

Look at that E911 investigation -- this was an example of *community* 
involvement. Laywers on *both* sides were unaware of the fact that E911
documents were publicly available, that they could even be *ordered* from
Mountain Bell with no restriction, until someone 'out there' made the link
and pointed it out -- and this was a *very* significant aspect of the
defense case.

>"We" need no information. We are not the attorneys. EFF and the rest
>are involved and have fine lawyers and investigators. Anything "We"
>uncover will be useful only for personal amusement. 

the situation *directly affects* us *now*. what is the scope of the grand
jury investigation? could it potentially be *expanded* beyond this initial
inquiry? what about sites that are currently distributing PGP outside the
U.S.? what about the fact that cypherpunks have *always* been closely
involved with PGP and its international distribution?

>"We" don't even
>have our facts right -- the "NSA" has not been directly harassing
>ANYONE. 

say *what*?! Grady Ward has been posting for over a week on a bazillion
Usenet groups that Agent X from the NSA has contacted him, with a phone
number, fax, and identification standard for NSA employees (I forwarded one
of his early messages here). A representative from Austin Code Works informed 
a Cypherpunk (who wasn't afraid to do a little poking around himself) 
they have been prodded by the NSA months prior over DES export. And 
"the NSA has not been directly harassing ANYONE." well, yes, I guess 
they haven't stuck anybody on the rack, if that's what you mean.

>I'd calm down, Mr. Detweiler. Write some code -- its a productive
>persuit.

ah yes, I'm 'persuing' the sequels to PGP and Moby Crypt right now <g>

you seem to be fundamentally averse to excitement. this is the Cryptographic
Case of a decade, and we're all to just wait patiently for the bleached 
official reports prior to a proper, dainty discussion? not I.

but in deference to you, Mr. Metzger, and others, I will not post any more 
speculation ...  without some new juicy articles to speculate on :)

"L. Detweiler" says:
> 
>  From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
> >Why all this silly speculation? We will all know the complete answers
> >soon enough. There is no need for us to reach out and "investigate".
> 
> ah yes, just like everyone 'soon enough' knew the 'complete answers' behind
> the Steve Jackson Games investigation.

We did, yes. You see, the ATTORNEYS, who were being PAID, because they
were PROFESSIONALS, handled things.

As I've noted in private mail to you, *WE* are not conducting this
investigation. *WE* are not involved. *WE* haven't been summoned to
provide evidence in court.

> Look at that E911 investigation -- this was an example of *community* 
> involvement. Laywers on *both* sides were unaware of the fact that E911
> documents were publicly available, that they could even be *ordered* from
> Mountain Bell with no restriction, until someone 'out there' made the link
> and pointed it out -- and this was a *very* significant aspect of the
> defense case.

Well, yes -- so what?  If you wanted to go out and make a systematic
list of encryption software available overseas for the defense, that
would indeed be a useful act. It seems, however, that you are intent
on yammering. Its one thing if you were looking for useful evidence,
but it seems that you are simply going around screaming about how the
NSA is out to get us. Well, the yammering is not an "investigation".
If you do want to help, find something productive.

> >"We" need no information. We are not the attorneys. EFF and the rest
> >are involved and have fine lawyers and investigators. Anything "We"
> >uncover will be useful only for personal amusement. 
> 
> the situation *directly affects* us *now*. what is the scope of the grand
> jury investigation?

Thats a secret. Even if you found out, which would require subborning
a juror (a crime) or otherwise bribing an official (a crime), you
would be put in jail for contempt of court if you told anyone.

> could it potentially be *expanded* beyond this initial inquiry?

Of course. Anything can be expanded. It could also fail to bring
indictments -- but thats unlikely. It is said, not without truth, that
a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor asks.

> what about sites that are currently distributing PGP outside the
> U.S.?

They are beyond the scope of U.S. law. 

None of these are hard questions. They are all, in fact, trivial.

You know, many of the decafinated brands taste just as good as the
real thing nowadays. I'd try them.

> you seem to be fundamentally averse to excitement.

Well, yes. I don't get easily excited about court cases. The case is
IMPORTANT, but having had long experience with courts, I know that
things are going to take years to resolve. I was once involved in a
civil suit that required five years to resolve -- and there are
probate cases around that have required decades.

Look at the process here. The Grand Jury investigation gets followed,
possibly, with indictments, which are followed, some very long period
of time later, by a trial, which also takes a long period. It could be
a year or even several before we even finish the trial phase on this,
and by the time it goes through all the levels of appeal to the
Supreme Court (assuming fundamental questions of constitutional law
come up_ it could be many years before its all over.

I have a great deal of trouble getting excited over something that
will take years to resolve, yes. This is not like watching the D-Day
invasion, or even like watching trench warfare in WWI. This is very
much like watching people playing chess while immersed in ice cold
molasses. Hard to get thrilled by the pace, Mr. Detweiler.

Perry

> As I've noted in private mail to you, *WE* are not conducting this
> investigation. *WE* are not involved. *WE* haven't been summoned to
> provide evidence in court.

First off, 'we' ARE involved.  This case is IMPORTANT, and can have far-
reaching consequences for us.  This reminds me of the old story that starts
out 'they came and got the Jews, and I said nothing because I wasn't a Jew...'.

> Well, yes. I don't get easily excited about court cases. The case is
> IMPORTANT, but having had long experience with courts, I know that

Agreed, it IS important!

> I have a great deal of trouble getting excited over something that
> will take years to resolve, yes. This is not like watching the D-Day
> invasion, or even like watching trench warfare in WWI. This is very
> much like watching people playing chess while immersed in ice cold
> molasses. Hard to get thrilled by the pace, Mr. Detweiler.

The attorneys and other experts looking at this case apparantly don't share
your lack of enthuasism.  Even in the very early stages, the groundwork that
is laid in a case like this is of TREMENDOUS importance to the outcome of
the case, regardless of how long it takes to be resolved.  Frankly, I'm
surprised at your lackadaisical attitude - if you had been involved in the
justice system in this country for any length of time, you'd have realized
that EVERY step taken along the way is IMPORTANT, regardless of how trivial
or unimportant those steps appear now.  Cases involving billions of dollars
have been decided by trivial details.
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG			erc@apple.com			510/659-9560
                            anon-0001@khijol.uucp
If you want magic, let go of your armor.  Magic is so much stronger than
steel!        -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"

Ed Carp says:
> > As I've noted in private mail to you, *WE* are not conducting this
> > investigation. *WE* are not involved. *WE* haven't been summoned to
> > provide evidence in court.
> 
> First off, 'we' ARE involved.

Oh? Have you been hired as an attorney for either side?

> This case is IMPORTANT, and can have far-
> reaching consequences for us.

Yes, thats fine and well, but this is very different from saying that
"*WE* have to conduct an investigation and get to the bottom of this"
as if "we" are even a group or in possession of resources to do any
such thing. Indeed, what Mr. Detweiler has largely been proposing is
yammering.

Cypherpunks CODE. Quit yammering and start coding. I'm coding. Its
fine to keep up to date. Its fine to send big checks to EFF. Its fine
to do some legwork if you think it can help. However, what is the
point in saying inane things like "we have to find out what the grand
jury is investigating" when its a bloody secret and we don't get to
find out until they unseal their indictments?

> > I have a great deal of trouble getting excited over something that
> > will take years to resolve, yes. This is not like watching the D-Day
> > invasion, or even like watching trench warfare in WWI. This is very
> > much like watching people playing chess while immersed in ice cold
> > molasses. Hard to get thrilled by the pace, Mr. Detweiler.
> 
> The attorneys and other experts looking at this case apparantly don't share
> your lack of enthuasism.  Even in the very early stages, the groundwork that
> is laid in a case like this is of TREMENDOUS importance to the outcome of
> the case, regardless of how long it takes to be resolved.  Frankly, I'm
> surprised at your lackadaisical attitude

Not lackadaisical. Simply not in a state of hyperactive disarray. WE
are not doing the groundwork. The attorneys are. WE are not about to
be charged with a crime. WE have no reason to go into a frenzy of
activity -- I see nothing that WE can do. It isn't up to us.

You sound like someone upset that the supreme court is about to rule
about abortion and screaming "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING". Well what,
precisely, do you propose to do? Take over the legal work when you
aren't a lawyer? Complain? Scratch your crotch and look important?
This isn't in our hands. If you think you have information of use to
the lawyers, give it to them and be done with it -- there is nothing
else you can do.

> Cases involving billions of dollars have been decided by trivial details.

Oh? How many cases involving billion dollar settlements can you name?
Care to give us a list?

Perry

> Ed Carp says:
> > > As I've noted in private mail to you, *WE* are not conducting this
> > > investigation. *WE* are not involved. *WE* haven't been summoned to
> > > provide evidence in court.
> > 
> > First off, 'we' ARE involved.
> 
> Oh? Have you been hired as an attorney for either side?

Nope.  That's not the point, and you know it.  The point being (and I'm not
even sure why I'm bothering to explain this to you - you're intelligent)
this case has the potential to affect ALL of us, not just the participants
in the case.

> > This case is IMPORTANT, and can have far-
> > reaching consequences for us.
> 
> Yes, thats fine and well, but this is very different from saying that
> "*WE* have to conduct an investigation and get to the bottom of this"
> as if "we" are even a group or in possession of resources to do any
> such thing. Indeed, what Mr. Detweiler has largely been proposing is
> yammering.

*I* proposed no such thing.  Get your facts straight.

> Cypherpunks CODE. Quit yammering and start coding. I'm coding. Its

Yeah, and women are supposed to stay home, barefoot and preggers.  Yeah,
right.

> fine to keep up to date. Its fine to send big checks to EFF. Its fine
> to do some legwork if you think it can help. However, what is the
> point in saying inane things like "we have to find out what the grand
> jury is investigating" when its a bloody secret and we don't get to
> find out until they unseal their indictments?

I think it's pretty clear what they're investigating.

> > > I have a great deal of trouble getting excited over something that
> > > will take years to resolve, yes. This is not like watching the D-Day
> > > invasion, or even like watching trench warfare in WWI. This is very
> > > much like watching people playing chess while immersed in ice cold
> > > molasses. Hard to get thrilled by the pace, Mr. Detweiler.
> > 
> > The attorneys and other experts looking at this case apparantly don't share
> > your lack of enthuasism.  Even in the very early stages, the groundwork that
> > is laid in a case like this is of TREMENDOUS importance to the outcome of
> > the case, regardless of how long it takes to be resolved.  Frankly, I'm
> > surprised at your lackadaisical attitude
> 
> Not lackadaisical. Simply not in a state of hyperactive disarray. WE
> are not doing the groundwork. The attorneys are. WE are not about to
> be charged with a crime. WE have no reason to go into a frenzy of
> activity -- I see nothing that WE can do. It isn't up to us.

Oh, Jesus-Christ-on-a-crutch...It *IS* up to us!  WE are THE PEOPLE ... or
do you believe that the words "We, the People" on the Declaration of
Independence have no meaning?  WE are going to decide the outcome of this
case.  WE are going to be sitting on the jury, WE are going to be writing
letters to the local newspapers, WE are going to be watching the trial (if
one ever comes about).

> You sound like someone upset that the supreme court is about to rule
> about abortion and screaming "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING". Well what,
> precisely, do you propose to do? Take over the legal work when you
> aren't a lawyer? Complain? Scratch your crotch and look important?

Well, scratching my crotch and looking important HAD crossed my mind. :)

What do you think, that even the Supreme Court works in a social and
political vacumm?  If you believe that, you are pretty naive.  Public
opinion shapes everything we do, everything we see.  If we aren't out there
helping to shape puyblic opinion, SOMEONE is going to be doing it, and
they might not be so supportive of individual rights.

> This isn't in our hands. If you think you have information of use to
> the lawyers, give it to them and be done with it -- there is nothing
> else you can do.
> 
> > Cases involving billions of dollars have been decided by trivial details.
> 
> Oh? How many cases involving billion dollar settlements can you name?
> Care to give us a list?

Many.  The Getty Oil deal of several years back comes to mind, as does the
Texaco vs. Pennzoil deal.  You don't think that Roe v. Wade didn't have an
economic impact?
-- 
Ed Carp, N7EKG			erc@apple.com			510/659-9560
                            anon-0001@khijol.uucp
If you want magic, let go of your armor.  Magic is so much stronger than
steel!        -- Richard Bach, "The Bridge Across Forever"

[much bickering between Perry and Detweiler deleted]

OK, why don't you guys bounce flaming email back and forth
between yourselves after the first volley...  So that everyone
knows, Perry wants us to shut up and write code, and Detweiler
wants us to get up and fight...

Well, do both...  Perry, you write some really awesome code,
and Detweiler and some others will go off and investigate what
they feel to be important...  If Perry does not want to listent to
Detweiler's calls to action, don't - just delete the message and
move on.

We need to recognize that some of us are prone to get agitated
more easily than others are, but that's OK...  we all want basically
the same thing.  What we want done will never get done if all of us
write code, and it won't get done if we all rant and rave, either.

Just don't fucking bicker about wether we should investigate things
or write code.  It's getting annoying!

-nate



-- 
+--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Nate Sammons   email: nate@VIS.ColoState.Edu
|      Colorado State University Computer Visualization Laboratory
|      Finger nate@monet.VIS.ColoState.Edu for my PGP key
|      #include <std.disclaimer>
|                                    Always remember "Brazil"
+----------------------+

nate@vis.colostate.edu says:
> Well, do both...  Perry, you write some really awesome code,
> and Detweiler and some others will go off and investigate what
> they feel to be important...  If Perry does not want to listent to
> Detweiler's calls to action, don't - just delete the message and
> move on.

Its not as simple as that. Phil Zimmermann has explicitly asked, on
advice of his attorneys, that people stay calm on this and not start
spewing accusations out or agitating so as not to cause harm to his
case.  Detweiler thinks he's "helping" even though Phil and others
don't want his help and feel that they could end up in jail as a
result of it.

Perry