From: lex@mindvox.phantom.com (Lex Luthor)
Date: Sun, 3 Oct 93 15:54:33 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: The right to remain silent
Message-ID: <H38uac10w165w@mindvox.phantom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


Quoting a previous message:

>Date: 03 Oct 93 14:42:57 EDT
>From: Sandy <72114.1712@CompuServe.COM>
>To: <cypherpunks@toad.com>
>Subject: POISON PILL WIMPS
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  SANDY SANDFORT               Reply to:  ssandfort@attmail.com
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
>Punksters,
>
>I've just about had it with posts like Matthew Gream's:
>
>    . . . attempting to play 'smart-ass' to your
>    investigators is only going to result in more problems
>    for you. Its a non-ideal world, and they definitely have
>    the ability to cause you substantial problems.
>
>    . . . I feel it is essential to show them everything
>    that they think is there, and convince them (as they
>    will not be as competent in cryptographic analysis as
>    yourself [at least you hope]) that there is nothing
>    hidden.
>
>Didn't any of you appeasers and apologists read and *understand*
>HACKER CRACKDOWN?  Once you are the focus of an investigation,
>they are already causing you substantial problems.  Cooperation
>only gives your tormentors more ammunition.  You are not going
>to convince them of anything.  You cannot talk your way out of
>anything.  What you can--and will--do is dig yourself in deeper.
>After that, you will probably try to get off the hook by rolling
>over--like a bitch in heat--on your friends and associates.
>
>The ONLY thing that works is (a) stonewall, stonewall, stonewall
>until you get competent legal representation, then (b) do what
>your lawyer's says.  Period.
>
>Consider this your wimp wakeup call.
>
> S a n d y
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A wise mindvox user said recently on the round-table forum:
"If you have nothing to hide and did nothing wrong then you have absolutely
 nothing to lose by keeping quiet"

Having seen many a hacker (and non-hacker) get into trouble over the years,
I'd have to say that Sandy's assesment is correct in the majority of cases.

as for "rolling over--like a bitch in heat-- on your friends and associates"
this too I have seen all too often and many times to little benefit to the
rat who is talking. Dragging other people down with you serves little 
purpose IMHO and is a particularly dispicable and all too common trend among
hackers of recent years.

oh and sandy, I did read the Hacker Crackdown :-)



Let me quote a second recent post:

>Date: Sun, 03 Oct 1993 15:51:55 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Mike Ingle <MIKEINGLE@delphi.com>
>Subject: Excessive Crap & Flamage
>To: cypherpunks@toad.com
>
>This list is becoming completely unreadable! First the POISON PILL and now
>PGP IN FIDO just seem to go on and on. And how many before that?
>(Troglodyte mind-rapists, etc) I've got about a meg of utter crap in my
>email file, most of it unread or skimmed. If people want to fight, why not
>do it in private mail, back up your positions, and then post your
>conclusions if you manage to come up with any. Please don't CC all your
>flames to the list. And please don't echo a three-page post to add one
>line of comments to it.
>
>What happened to all the idealism? Total privacy, cryptophones, digital
>cash, zero-knowledge cooperation, bringing down governments and setting the
>world free? That's what the list is for, not mindless flaming.
>
>Aargggh! MikeIngle@delphi.com
>

although no one is asking me, I'll admit that perhaps this message itself
is guilty of the above. And I am on the verge of unsubscribing after a
couple of months being on the list because the daily time requirement to
keep on top of the messages is exceeding an hour. Perhaps splintering the
list into the following 2 main areas is an option: 

1) A fairly lean-bandwidth list containing technical facts, news articles,
bibliographic info, short source code, etc.

2) A more fluffy-content list containing general comments, opinions, flames,
etc.

Subscription to list 2 would probably necessitate subscription to list 1.
But for those who want the meat without the potatoes, subscription to list 1
is all that would be required.

I recall this coming up about a month and a half ago, more calls for
keeping the messages "pertinent" to the cypherpunk agenda. The problem has
only grown worse.  

Lex