1997-05-22 - Re: “You have the right to remain silent”

Header Data

From: lucifer@dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer)
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Message Hash: 205ec9a64eab3ba25f2dec3000cda5d0a2a96067e474c0522849cc7cdebf6a5c
Message ID: <199705221229.IAA20553@dhp.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-05-22 12:44:25 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 20:44:25 +0800

Raw message

From: lucifer@dhp.com (lucifer Anonymous Remailer)
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 20:44:25 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: "You have the right to remain silent"
Message-ID: <199705221229.IAA20553@dhp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Tim May wrote:

> The latest example being the Ramsey case in Boulder ("Home of PGP"). Much
> is made of the fact that the Ramseys, not being under arrest, are not
> required to *say anything* to the police. (Left unanswered is why innocent
> parents whose daughter has been brutally murdered would choose to say
> nothing to the police...even I, a skeptic about much that modern cops are
> involved in, am suspicious of the Ramseys for their noncooperativeness.)

  The noncooperation of the Ramseys does not reflect on their guilt or
innocence, but on the fact that they have an excellent lawyer. People
who have average lawyers, or even good ones, have a much greater chance
of being convicted of a crime that they did not commit.
  When the police interview you, they have information or evidence that
you and your lawyer aren't aware of. Their job is to get you to make
statements that can be used against you in the future if you are charged
with a crime. They attempt to lead you into making an innocent statement
such as, "I eat eggs sometimes." and the next thing you know you are in
court with a prosecutor repeating it and pointing at you accusingly.

  The fact of the matter is that guilt or innocence is no longer decided
on real evidence, for the most part. *Circumstantial* evidence rules the
roost, and it has been perverted to become a battle of which lawyer can
spin the most convincing tale around indefinite evidence.
  So you go to jail because you drive a red truck, smoke camels and own
a pair of brown socks (despite the fact that all of the witnesses
described someone who was a foot taller and a hundred pounds heavier).

  How is this crypto relevant? It is yet another symptom of why we are 
losing our privacy and our freedom.
  The Ramseys should live in a world where they can put trust in their
government and tell them everything that might remotely help find their
child's murderer, instead of unjustly ending up on the chopping block 
themselves. Cypherpunks should live in a world where they can share
their logs with the government to help them catch a child murderer and
know that their cooperation will not be used to abuse themself or others
who use the remailers.
  What about the cooperation of Jim Bell's friends. The newspapers
report that his friends say they talked about this or that in a
joking manner (or somesuch innocuous way), but you can bet your
bottom dollar that this is not mentioned on the application for
an arrest warrant. When the police interview you and ask you if
you plan to kill the president, answer, "Yes. When pigs fly."
Which part of your statement will they neglect to mention when
they file the charges against you? (Take a wild guess on this

  If you have joined in the discussion of the AP Bot, then I hope
that you saved *all* of your posts, because the government will
be introducing the ones where you described a possible implementation
but not the posts where you described the system as unfeasible and
  If Jim Bell and his friends had the Ramseys' lawyer they wouldn't
have been so quick to supply information which can be twisted and
perverted to support Bell's persecution.