Re: What it's like to get a subpoena (re Toto) (fwd)

Forwarded message:

> Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 21:14:41 +0100
> From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
> 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
> forgeries.

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
traffic.

> > 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.

                                                     Confucius

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Choate's sharing his experiences with the IRS is
very welcome, as with Tom Allard forwarding the Jeff
Gordon request for assistance.

Other inquiries of folks on the list will probably happen,
and information about those would be beneficial. It would be
a great help to post here any other overtures, anonymous
if preferred.

It's tough being the earliest ones contacted, having to decide
as Tom and Jim have had to do about whether to go public
or deal with the inquiries in private and hope that nothing worse
develops.

It's likely that more serious targets will be approached later,
using material obtained from those not at risk, those with
no reason to fear the friendly, courteous IRS.

At least that's what happened with Jim Bell and CJ. They, too,
said they were handled in a friendly courteous manner until ... 
the case was presented to a magistrate.

According to CJ's sister even the shrink at Springfield is
the friendliest most courteous person she's talked to, helpful, 
considerate, and said he had CJ's interest at heart. She said 
she just hoped he didn't cut off CJ's medicine, cause him to 
go berzerk, then to disappear.

It's that switch from friendly and couterous to the other that
none of want to think about, eh? "You're under arrest. Anything
you say can and will be used against you." Hmm, what was I
saying, posting, here.

BTW, the offshore archives, if they are offshore, are a problem
for getting legal access to, and to use in court. I think a human 
linkage is preferred, in deposition, in court, testifying for the record.

Makes a more convincing case to have a live body telling the
facts of the matter, explaining how things work, somewhat eager 
to instruct and please, in self-preservation, to keep the cops and
court friendly and courteous. What was told to the investigators 
in private, that's what hung Jim Bell and CJ.

But, hey, they were nuts, right? Fuck them. 

Then the friendly folks came for you and me, working a list.