From: "Perry E. Metzger" <pmetzger@lehman.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Sep 93 08:15:48 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: more deranged lunatic ravings -- just delete 'em!
In-Reply-To: <9309190530.AA15035@longs.lance.colostate.edu>
Message-ID: <9309191513.AA08482@snark.lehman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



"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