Fuhrman needed a digital pseudonym!

Before you folks jump on the "racist" Mark Fuhrman, think about the
"surveillance state" issues. While it was not any government organization
that taped Fuhrman's comments, there are some real issues involved in how
deeply and how far back we want to "mine" comments made by people. Some
real issues of privacy.

The Mark Fuhrmans of the future may be interested in using technologies to
protect their privacy, to give them "plausible deniability" should their
recorded words come back to haunt them.

Brief comments:

* This post is primarily about the role of pseudonyms, not the OJ trial or
the testimony/tapes involving Mark Fuhrman.

* And the issue of "mining" of ancient records, especially as technology
makes the recording of sounds, the taping of sights, and the archiving of
electronic messages so much easier.

* Those who think this is off-topic because it has nothing to do with
coding in C are hereby invited to hit the "D" key, or whatever passes for
it, right now.


Caveat: I've watched entirely too much of the OJ trial on CNN, as I sit
here at home and surf the Net every morning. It's easy to have the
television on, and the OJ trial has had many interesting twists. When the
stuff gets boring, I switch to music or perhaps to the financial network
CNBC. So, I've see nearly everything being talked about here.

Opinion on OJ: ***elided by Tim to head off debates about OJ's guilt or
innoncence***.

(I state this to show my prejudices, not to start an "OJ debate" on this
list. Actually, I just elided (deleted) the opinion I had expressed, so as
not to inflame anyone here.)

What really bothers me, as it relates to the pro-privacy themes of this
list, is the reaching back many years to comments made by a witness--Mark
Fuhrman--to a screenplay writer. Because she kept audiotapes, going back 10
years, these comments may likely strongly influence the verdict in this
"trial of the century."

Anyone in favor of heading off the "surveillance society" should be alarmed
at this development. As tape recorders and video cameras proliferate,
comments may be compiled, taken out of context, and used as evidence.

(Who amongst us has not said "nigger"? Does it count if I am asking why the
rap group "Niggas with Attitude" chooses to label themselves as niggers? I
figure that if blacks routinely call themselves niggers and call folks like
me "honkies," then it's fair to call _them_ niggers. Not that I do this,
but I don't see the term as so horrifying as to cause a killer like OJ to
get off as this spectacle unfolds. Besides, it's become "permissable" for
black leaders to refer to New York City as "Hymietown" in a way that would
result in public stoning for a white to refer to a city as "Niggertown."
The old double standard.)

The point: Fuhrman should have used a pseudonym, should have taken steps to
protect his identity. Of course, in 1985 this would have been harder.

But have people given up the right to speak "for themselves" in private? If
there is no solid evidence that Fuhrman actually committed any crimes, but
only appeared to be puffing himself up, a la a Wambaugh wannabee, then why
are his "racist" and "sexist" comments deemed so important as to have
derailed the trial for the last couple of weeks?

I have said an awful lot of inflammatory things at Cypherpunks meetings, at
parties, in political discussions, and so forth. I don't claim that there
should be a law against people bringing these issues up, or even a law
against tape-recording various kinds of meetings. I just argue that we are
devolving into a surveillanc

To be sure, there are valid trial issues:

-- Did he misspeak, misremember, or lie when he said he had "never" used
the word "nigger" in the past 10 years? (I recall at the time, circa
Feb-March, thinking to myself "Oh, sure!," when he said he had not used the
word nigger in the past 10 years.)

-- If this is perjury, how does it affect other evidence? (I'm not a
lawyer, but I grok from the comments on CNN that this has to do with
whether his testimony was supportive of other evidence, "cumulative," and
related issues.)

-- Does this possible misspeaking, misremembering, or lying have anything
to do with whether he planted the bloody glove?

-- etc. There are various valid issues. Spending a few weeks on these
issues is another matter, though, IMHO. In my view, if I were the judge I'd
have forced this issue to be resolved in hours, not weeks.


Anyway, I am greatly disturbed by this "mining" of ancient comments, made
to a screenwriter.

Whether Fuhrman is a "racist" or not, this witch trial is a diversion from
the real issues.

And some real privacy issues are raised.

--Tim May


---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
Corralitos, CA              | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
Higher Power: 2^756839      | black markets, collapse of governments.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

Timothy C. May writes:

I almost always agree with Tim.  This time I have to differ -- I think
his outrage at the course of the OJ trial has fogged his head.

> * This post is primarily about the role of pseudonyms, not the OJ trial or
> the testimony/tapes involving Mark Fuhrman.

Well, it's hard to see that from reading the rest of it.


> Before you folks jump on the "racist" Mark Fuhrman, think about the
> "surveillance state" issues. While it was not any government organization
> that taped Fuhrman's comments, there are some real issues involved in how
> deeply and how far back we want to "mine" comments made by people. Some
> real issues of privacy.

I don't see any "surveillance state" issue.  Fuhrman openly agreed to
speak to the screenwriter.  AFAIK, he had no reason to believe the
screenwriter wouldn't tell anyone else.  Nor should he have counted on
that anyway.  Any loss of credibility (or other penalty) he receives
is entirely deserved, IMO.

If he didn't want his words coming back to "haunt" him, he shouldn't
have spoken them, in this setting at least, whether they were sincere
or merely an attempt to puff himself up in her eyes.  Speaking as a
"consultant" (or whatever he imagined his relationship with the
screenwriter to be) isn't the same as speaking in confidence to your
best friend in a private setting anyway.


> Anyone in favor of heading off the "surveillance society" should be alarmed
> at this development. As tape recorders and video cameras proliferate,
> comments may be compiled, taken out of context, and used as evidence.

I am not alarmed in the least (by this development, anyway).  There's
no evidence that Fuhrman's comments are being taken out of context.
Fuhrman freely entered into the arrangement wherein his comments were
recorded.  Let's face it, the most likely explanation here is that
Fuhrman is a lying scumbag.

The fact that Fuhrman may be a lying scumbag doesn't make OJ any less
guilty.  However, it does throw a lot of suspicion on Fuhrman's
testimony.  OJ's entire defense has been based on the claim that
Fuhrman and other LAPD members lied and otherwise conspired in order
to frame him.  These tapes are clearly appropriate to that defense
whether you believe the defense a valid one or not.


> But have people given up the right to speak "for themselves" in private? If
> there is no solid evidence that Fuhrman actually committed any crimes, but
> only appeared to be puffing himself up, a la a Wambaugh wannabee, then why
> are his "racist" and "sexist" comments deemed so important as to have
> derailed the trial for the last couple of weeks?

The fact that Fuhrman's comments are racist or sexist are not the
point.  What is important is that he lied in court about having made
those statements.  If he or the prosecution believes that a case can
be made that Fuhrman was just puffing himself up, then they should try
to convince the jury of that.


> To be sure, there are valid trial issues:
> 
> -- Did he misspeak, misremember, or lie when he said he had "never" used
> the word "nigger" in the past 10 years?

Yes, IMO, this is the important issue.  Anyone who dispenses racial
epithets with the ease he apparently displayed in the tapes is an
idiot to have made such a claim whether the tapes were puffery or not.


> -- If this is perjury, how does it affect other evidence? (I'm not a
> lawyer, but I grok from the comments on CNN that this has to do with
> whether his testimony was supportive of other evidence, "cumulative," and
> related issues.)

IANAL, but let me just say that if I were on the jury, I don't think
I'd believe a single word he'd said during the trial.  I think that
I would probably still believe him to be guilty, anyway, but it's hard
to be sure without having heard only what the jury has heard.


> -- Does this possible misspeaking, misremembering, or lying have anything
> to do with whether he planted the bloody glove?

I don't know.  I'm kinda amazed that Ito has said that other portions
of his taped words won't be used, such as those parts where he describes
manufacturing evidence against the accused.  That seems to me to be
clearly relevant, at least as relevant as his use of the n-word.


> Anyway, I am greatly disturbed by this "mining" of ancient comments, made
> to a screenwriter.

Not me.  A few weeks there was a thread concerning the use of
information by private "reputation" bureaus.  I can't find the thread
in the archives but I seem to recall you defending the right of
private entities to keep and distribute such information (my apologies
if this was someone else).  Anyway, to me, these tapes fall clearly in
the same domain.  This screenwriter isn't a government agency, the
information was freely given, and the screenwriter has every right to
offer it for whatever purpose she deems appropriate, for free or
for money (barring any agreements to the contrary, of which I have
heard nothing).


-- Jeff