At 4:22 PM +0000 7/21/00, Gil Hamilton wrote:
>Tom Roach writes:
>>First, we know about Carnivore, or think we do. What earthly good is it
>>to put the agent's names in the public domain? Unless you planned to do
>>something cruel, evil or harmful to people "doing their job" it would
>>serve no useful purpose.
>
>I disagree. What part of "doing their job" is it for FBI agents'
>to be shaking down a US citizen for doing nothing that is illegal
>in this country? (And yes, that's what they were trying to do:
>does anyone question that most people would feel an implied threat
>simply by virtue of being contacted by the FBI?)
>
>When Japan comes to the FBI asking them to please get that site
>containing the names taken down, the appropriate response from the
>FBI is "I'm sorry about the embarrassment this must be causing you,
>but Mr. Young does not appear to be breaking any US law. Hence, we
>in the FBI will be unable to assist you in this matter. However,
>you're welcome to contact him directly yourself and ask him to
>please remove the list." Japan was simply trying to get the FBI to
>do their dirty work for them since they knew John would (probably)
>not comply if contacted directly.
>
>Had the FBI done this, they would never have had to worry about their
>names being published on John's web site. And if they're simply doing
>their jobs as told to them by higher-ups, then maybe publishing
>their names will result in a little push-back when illegal or improper
>orders are being given. Also, if they weren't doing something
>borderline-illegal, John would have no incentive to publish their
>names in the first place.
Well put. (This is the second fine essay from Gil Hamilton this
morning...I hope this signals more signal in the S/N ratio is coming.)
Recall the case around October or November of last year when the FBI
applied pressure to an ISP to get a "Y2K training tape" yanked off
the site. The training tape, which was available for download as an
MPEG or somesuch, purported to show how on New Year's Eve the army
would move in to either suppress or foment disorder. An entertaining
little video, but pretty clearly a work of performance art.
(I don't have URLs handy for the swirl of stories written about it at
the time. I think Declan did a piece on it.)
The FBI did not seek a court order, which is the legal way to
(sometimes) quash speech. Rather, it applied extra-legal pressures.
And the ISP caved in.
IIRC, the ACLU was talking at one point about a lawsuit against the
Feds for applying this kind of extra-legal pressure. Haven't heard
any follow-up. Perhaps lost in the Y2K fizzle.
Sadly, this kind of extra-legal threatening is not punished.
"You'll be in big trouble if you print those words, and you'll be in
even bigger trouble if you reveal our names."
They have the catch-all charge, "making terroristic threats."
We have the catch-all charge, "acting under color of authority."
Seems clear-cut to me that John has a case here, if he chooses to pursue it.
--Tim May
--
---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
"Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
