Phil Zimmermann/Amnesty International?

Phil Zimmermann/Amnesty International?

   I was wondering if the Zimmermann case would be a proper concern of
Amnesty International. Phil is obviously a political dissident. His
persecution is obviously political. If Phil got support from Amnesty
Int'l, then his persecution could be a big embarrassment to the Federal
gov't. He has a lot of supporters and taking up his cause could be a
big promotional for Amnesty International. The Feds might feel forced
to drop the matter early. Any ideas?

                                             Gary Jeffers


> 
>    I was wondering if the Zimmermann case would be a proper concern of
> Amnesty International. Phil is obviously a political dissident. His
> persecution is obviously political. If Phil got support from Amnesty
> Int'l, then his persecution could be a big embarrassment to the Federal
> gov't. He has a lot of supporters and taking up his cause could be a
> big promotional for Amnesty International. The Feds might feel forced
> to drop the matter early. Any ideas?
> 
I've heard that A.I. does not discuss political persecution as much in
the countries that are doing it, since they do not want to offend the
powers-that-be in that country, though they will note a case in another
country.  (In other words, if A.I. did note the PRZ case they'd only
discuss it outside the United States.)

This is just speculation though...

I think he would have to be charged first.  Have I missed something?
PS when does the statute of limitations run out?

A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law | mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu
U. Miami School of Law     | 
P.O. Box 248087            | It's hot there.  And humid.  
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA |                  But I'm elsewhere....
See (experimentally & erratically) http://viper.law.miami.edu/~mfroomki

On Fri, 01 Sep 1995, Michael Froomkin <mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu> wrote:

> I think he would have to be charged first.  Have I missed something?
> PS when does the statute of limitations run out?

June '96.  Zimmermann and Dubois appeared on a local talk radio show
recently; a friend happened to catch the program, taped it, and played
excerpts at a Cypherpunks meeting.  This date was mentioned by Phil Dubois.


Alan Westrope                  <awestrop@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
__________/|-,                 <adwestro@ouray.cudenver.edu>
   (_)    \|-'                  2.6.2 public key: finger / servers
PGP 0xB8359639:  D6 89 74 03 77 C8 2D 43   7C CA 6D 57 29 25 69 23

Alan Westrope writes:
> On Fri, 01 Sep 1995, Michael Froomkin <mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I think he would have to be charged first.  Have I missed something?
> > PS when does the statute of limitations run out?
> 
> June '96.  Zimmermann and Dubois appeared on a local talk radio show
> recently; a friend happened to catch the program, taped it, and played
> excerpts at a Cypherpunks meeting.  This date was mentioned by Phil Dubois.

That's not possible. The offense in question took place on or before
September 8, 1992, and the statute of limitations is, to my knowledge,
three years. Even if it were four years, it would have to be September
8th of that year.  Branko Lankester announced availability of PGP 2.0
on Mon, 7 Sep 1992 at about 20:22 GMT, so since the allegation is that
he exported PGP Version 1.0 to the team that developed PGP 2.0
overseas, any export that Phil performed would have of necessity to
have taken place before then.

Michael, you are one of our local lawyers. Could you please confirm
the length of the statute of limitations?

Perry

Regarding the stature of limitations date on PRZ,

> "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:
>                      The offense in question took place on or before
> September 8, 1992, and the statute of limitations is, to my knowledge,
> three years. Even if it were four years, it would have to be September
> 8th of that year.  Branko Lankester announced availability of PGP 2.0
> on Mon, 7 Sep 1992 at about 20:22 GMT, so since the allegation is that
> he exported PGP Version 1.0 to the team that developed PGP 2.0
> overseas, any export that Phil performed would have of necessity to
> have taken place before then.

PGP 1.0 was available in at least Finland and Australia by 28 Aug 91,
according to an ftp list John Gilmore posted on that date.  However, the
first available date is presumably not as important as the most recent
offense, and I haven't seen which specific allegations the gov't is
investigating.

	Jim Gillogly
	11 Halimath S.R. 1995, 17:35

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 02 Sep 1995, "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> wrote:
> Alan Westrope writes:
> >   Michael Froomkin wrote:
> >   > PS when does the statute of limitations run out?
> > June '96.  Zimmermann and Dubois appeared on a local talk radio show
> > recently; a friend happened to catch the program, taped it, and played
> > excerpts at a Cypherpunks meeting.  This date was mentioned by Phil Dubois.

> That's not possible. The offense in question took place on or before
> September 8, 1992, and the statute of limitations is, to my knowledge,
> three years. Even if it were four years, it would have to be September
> 8th of that year.  Branko Lankester announced availability of PGP 2.0
> on Mon, 7 Sep 1992 at about 20:22 GMT, so since the allegation is that
> he exported PGP Version 1.0 to the team that developed PGP 2.0
> overseas, any export that Phil performed would have of necessity to
> have taken place before then.

Point taken.  Dubois was referring specifically to the current California
grand jury investigation in association with U.S. Customs.  He said that
this grand jury has until June '96 to issue an indictment or...uhhh...get
off the pot.

I suppose Phil could be charged by some other entity with ITAR/DTR
violations relating to the "export" of PGP, and I'm not sure what would
be the date of this putative violation:  the date Phil gave the program
to others, allegedly "knowing" that doing so would result in its export;
or the date PGP actually appeared at overseas sites.  I suspect I'm not
the only one confused by this, considering the convoluted, baroque and
outdated laws involved.  Mebbe somebody oughta ask Sternlight...:-)

Alan Westrope                  <awestrop@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
__________/|-,                 <adwestro@ouray.cudenver.edu>
   (_)    \|-'                  2.6.2 public key: finger / servers
PGP 0xB8359639:  D6 89 74 03 77 C8 2D 43   7C CA 6D 57 29 25 69 23

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMEieZVRRFMq4NZY5AQF8aAP+MoWcVxn5tVTJ2+SM5HTGFEQqwVnOae2L
cNUaiq2gnogX3lNBV4Deou9WOauzde13FO9SRlHsqHw8D9YnQI14JburLwn4HCnf
GdKs48DWzrG7HR4n1u2cmhqdm3TI7/ylyBbK2DhlUS98JOO0Q0m9+E6uSUcy+NNM
Mq8y7jSD8f8=
=K8td
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Sat, 2 Sep 1995, Perry E. Metzger cleverly sought to get legal 
advice from me by writing:: > 

> Michael, you are one of our local lawyers. Could you please confirm
> the length of the statute of limitations?
> 
harumphf.  (1) I'm not "local" -- as I plan to argue in my cameo at the 
next Sun User's Group confernece "cyberspace is not a jurisdiction" 
[apologies if you meant local == USA];  (2) as it happens, I'm nowhere 
near my law books at the moment, being telnetted from abut 1800 miles 
(I'd guess) away....so I'm unable to oblige right now.


A. Michael Froomkin        | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law | mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu
U. Miami School of Law     | 
P.O. Box 248087            | It's hot here.  And humid.
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA |
See (experimentally & erratically) http://viper.law.miami.edu/~mfroomki

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 02 Sep 1995, "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> wrote:
> Alan Westrope writes:
      [replying to M. Froomkin about statute of limitations for prz]
> > June '96.  Zimmermann and Dubois appeared on a local talk radio show
> > recently; a friend happened to catch the program, taped it, and played
> > excerpts at a Cypherpunks meeting.  This date was mentioned by Phil Dubois.

> That's not possible. The offense in question took place on or before
> September 8, 1992, and the statute of limitations is, to my knowledge,
> three years. Even if it were four years, it would have to be September
> 8th of that year.  Branko Lankester announced availability of PGP 2.0
> on Mon, 7 Sep 1992 at about 20:22 GMT, so since the allegation is that
> he exported PGP Version 1.0 to the team that developed PGP 2.0
> overseas, any export that Phil performed would have of necessity to
> have taken place before then.

Perry's response and Brian Davis' remarks about prosecutorial "creativity"
prompted me to ask Phil Dubois for clarification.  (I told him I would
probably pass his reply along to the list, so I'm not violating email
confidentiality here.)  Here's the relevant snippet:

========================================================================

I believe that the statute expires in June of '96, because there is a
five-year statute on the export-violation allegation and because PGP was
released in June of '91, and whoever exported it did so shortly after the
release.  It is true, however, that prosecutors have been very creative in
extending the statute when they've felt the need to do so.  We can only
hope that DOJ will not feel the need in this case.

========================================================================

I also feel Phil will be largely off the hook by June.  It would be
damn silly to prolong the matter, especially since the complete source
code has been published internationally in OCR format now.  Also, I
expect the Feds would rather focus their "creative" energies on the
Bernstein/EFF export issue.

But who knows what anti-crime hysteria might be whipped up in an
election year, or who it might become handy to demonize, etc.


Alan Westrope                  <awestrop@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
__________/|-,                 <adwestro@ouray.cudenver.edu>
   (_)    \|-'                  2.6.2 public key: finger / servers
PGP 0xB8359639:  D6 89 74 03 77 C8 2D 43   7C CA 6D 57 29 25 69 23

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: I *swear* I have not used the term 'big-endian' in the last 10 years.

iQCVAwUBMFWsMlRRFMq4NZY5AQHTgQP8DFDKtcK3JfFffURlwwXP+o+PMkk57dO2
baWIaBBSRxp0pUivP+vVDSP1NwMhpRDt+apW10qCgemJWgGlg8f2NRW6rq2LgpfJ
1fuJJL/mLQo2W+UfGqQS8PFv3CwvFLdE1hEMQfysFGo3UY2nYOeuMe8vJdednFP2
MSm7B2e9JcM=
=SOsn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Fri, 1 Sep 1995, Alan Westrope wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Sep 1995, Michael Froomkin <mfroomki@umiami.ir.miami.edu> wrote:
> 
> > I think he would have to be charged first.  Have I missed something?
> > PS when does the statute of limitations run out?
> 
> June '96.  Zimmermann and Dubois appeared on a local talk radio show
> recently; a friend happened to catch the program, taped it, and played
> excerpts at a Cypherpunks meeting.  This date was mentioned by Phil Dubois.

I wouldn't be so sure.  There are lots of "creative" ways to, in effect, 
extend the statute.  My personal sense is that DOJ eventually wants to 
get this over with, so presumably would not attempt to be so "creative."

The "usual" statute of limitations for federal crimes is 5 years, but 
conspiracy, RICO, bank fraud, tax offenses, and no doubt others that 
don't occur to me right now, muddy the 5 year statute.  Bank fraud, for 
example, has a 10 year statute.

EBD

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 1 Sep 1995, Michael Froomkin wrote:

> I think he would have to be charged first.  Have I missed something?
> PS when does the statute of limitations run out?

I'm assuming that the statute of limitations has run out on most of these 
things ( I don't know CA law, except to know it's weird :-)
What I'm concerned about, and nobody seems to have picked up on it, is 
that one of the transcripts said that he and a partner beat up a bunch of 
perps after they tried to surrender and that one of them died(!!).  
That's murder in my book, and there is non statute of limitations on 
that, even in California...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: PGP Signed with PineSign 2.2

iQCVAwUBMEeOOzokqlyVGmCFAQHB1gP/bGIG1BqSiM7Fmc1H4fEU3Osg/wwBz31T
5sjms6JX9Z5ekW/oL4I3QDnqrW5GiMfWHdJDRNhYU2cQx0+8V6V8muiah/GO/q+P
8v1Hg0nqYW0yBCROrD/S3kfjLViqCfHWo7S5/T9pjDnF3Dq8KT5tRrAKZrTQVfKL
B9ZhTLqqwXk=
=eFZv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
____           Robert A. Hayden      <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__     Finger for Geek Code Info <=>    Finger for PGP Public Key
 \/  /           -=-=-=-=-=-                      -=-=-=-=-=-
   \/        http://krypton.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden/Welcome.html

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GED/J d-- s:++>: a-- C++(++++)$ ULUO++ P+>+++ L++ !E---- W+(---) N+++ o+
K+++ w+(---) O- M+$>++ V-- PS++(+++)>$ PE++>(+)$ Y++ PGP++ t- 5+++ X++
R+++>$ tv+ b+ DI+++ D+++ G+++++>$ e++$>++++ h r-- y++**
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Fri, 1 Sep 1995, Michael Froomkin wrote:

> I think he would have to be charged first.  Have I missed something?
> PS when does the statute of limitations run out?

ARGH!  Shit.  I got my threads confused, thought this about about furman 
and the OJ Circus.  It's been a long week.  Sorry folx.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
Comment: PGP Signed with PineSign 2.2

iQCVAwUBMEeOcjokqlyVGmCFAQGz2QP+IVwINZmPIQ14Kx4GpMJqjLNTWZba87cc
3QhQxbDQMD5CCSbqGsMyQ899jm/lUxdglBmMvjGIz85uSyg9b5gIinyfKs3lZKFd
ilICPOJ49r/C/wH2CaokuDCFtSOGLdOL2M7tpV+zNKiUtIk4vbm34T4COvnjy+g1
z3MZsDpSugY=
=M7M5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
____           Robert A. Hayden      <=> hayden@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
\  /__     Finger for Geek Code Info <=>    Finger for PGP Public Key
 \/  /           -=-=-=-=-=-                      -=-=-=-=-=-
   \/        http://krypton.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden/Welcome.html

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GED/J d-- s:++>: a-- C++(++++)$ ULUO++ P+>+++ L++ !E---- W+(---) N+++ o+
K+++ w+(---) O- M+$>++ V-- PS++(+++)>$ PE++>(+)$ Y++ PGP++ t- 5+++ X++
R+++>$ tv+ b+ DI+++ D+++ G+++++>$ e++$>++++ h r-- y++**
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

I think that two Amnesty policies are being confused. Amnesty does protest on 
behalf of prisoners of concience in all countries. It also has a rule which means 
that a group making a protest should come from outside the country concerned, 
this is a sensible means of preventing Amnesty becomming a vehicle for partisan 
protests. They have similar rules for when they send observers etc.

I don't think that Phil necessarily has to be arrested though. Amnesty might well 
wish to send someone to the trial to act as an observer.

		Phill