1996-01-27 - Re: Guilt by Association?

Header Data

From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
To: “Timothy C. May” <tcmay@got.net>
Message Hash: 5cb3643295bf857f693a6ba9c95499eb697961bd52e2938286f84ed991449b29
Message ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960126175847.5265B-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
Reply To: <ad2c816d06021004e749@[205.199.118.202]>
UTC Datetime: 1996-01-27 00:41:10 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:41:10 +0800

Raw message

From: Brian Davis <bdavis@thepoint.net>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 1996 08:41:10 +0800
To: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: Guilt by Association?
In-Reply-To: <ad2c816d06021004e749@[205.199.118.202]>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.960126175847.5265B-100000@mercury.thepoint.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Thu, 25 Jan 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:

> At 2:49 AM 1/25/96, Alan Olsen wrote:
> 
> >This is a problem with the web of trust in general.  It is known as "Guilt
> >by Association".
> >
> >Person X commits treasonable act A.  All of the persons who are signed on to
> >his key could be considered to be co-conspirators.  The same applies to
> >nyms.  The difficulty with prosecuting nyms is finding the link to the real
> >world individual.  Anyone associated with him/her/it will be considered to
> >be guilty by reason of key signage or a way of determining who the real
> >person is...
> ....
> >I guess we are stuck with the "Web of Guilt"...
> 
> Although I disagree with many things the U.S. government has declared
> unlawful, and think we are on the wrong track in many ways, I don't see any
> evidence for a "web of guilt."
> 
> I could have signed the keys of Timothy McVeigh, O.J. Simpson, and Hilary
> Clinton, and yet this would not cause any prosecutor to indict me, per se.
> (Brian Davis, do you disagree?) Obviously if one of these persons I was
> known to have associated with, to the point of signing their keys, were
> under investigation, then some detectives might follow up some leads to
> find out who I was. This is ordinary detective work, not guilt by
> association.

I agree.  Signing the key might get you a visit from an agent with 
questions about your relationship with whoever, but you would not (at 
least to me) become a target of the investigation without a **whole lot** 
more than a mere key signing.

Speaking only for myself (as always).

EBD

> 
> Key-signing is overrated, in my view. It is just an affidavit from someone
> that they think a person is related to a key. I've signed a few keys (not
> many, and don't ask me to!), and I've never once asked for any form of
> state-sanctioned ID.
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> Boycott espionage-enabled software!
> We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed.
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> tcmay@got.net  408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1  | black markets, collapse of governments.
> "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Not a lawyer on the Net, although I play one in real life.
**********************************************************
Flame away! I get treated worse in person every day!!






Thread