Fwd: Re: [sklyarov-chicago] [ssteele@eff.org: Re: Why Mueller? Can You Say 'Pressure Point'?]

[Michael Cannon]

Wack a mole is fun.

Seeding division in the ranks of the enemy is fun.

The point now should be to pressure the EFF to keep
the pressure on Adobe, the DoJ and paid puppets of the
DMCA like SChroeder and Feinstein.

BTW, could someone send that girl from TechTV a 'Free
Dmitry' T-shirt?

Mike
--- "Peter A. Peterson II" <pedro@tastytronic.net>
wrote:
> Quoting Michael Cannon:
> > 2.  Mitch Kapor has been at this for YEARS with no
> > forward momentum.  He's been colllecting money and
> the
> > laws are still on the books and DMITRY IS STILL IN
> > JAIL!!!  The 'whole thing'  is the idea of a
> 'stalking
> > horse (not Sun Tzu).'  The EFF is the cover for
> the
> > bread and circuses act, to show something is being
> > done to further 'the cause,' while inertia builds
> up
> > and the laws aren't challenged.  The EFF has been
> > ineffectual.  This is our best hope to keep the
> cause
> > in the spotlight and they're 'negotiating.' 
> Tomorrow
> > is TEN days.
> 
> I don't doubt that they could probably "do more."
> But I don't believe
> that 10 days is a ridiculous amount of time for
> something like this to
> be sorted out. IF the DoJ decides to release Dmitry,
> it was contingent
> on Adobe's dropping the complaint. Regardless of
> whether Adobe had or
> had not planned to do this in advance, the EFF had
> to be there to try to
> make sure that happened.
> 
> > In short, we're being spun by the very people who
> we
> > trust to act on our behalf.  The EFF lobbied the
> > 'rejectmueller.com' folks to stop and redirect at
> an
> > ASSISTANT US Attorney, not the guy in charge! 
> 
> I sincerely believe they think it is more useful to
> attack the assistant
> attorney, as opposed to Mueller. THe example was
> given of pressure on
> Louis Freeh in the late 90s re encryption versus
> Janet Reno, who was not
> a useful target. Mueller will be confirmed if he was
> going to be
> confirmed -- there is not time to stop that now. FOr
> that matter, we do
> not know the facts wrt Mueller's involvement in this
> case. Isn't it
> possible that the Asst. Attorney thought this would
> be a great case to
> put under his belt and so he did it while Mueller
> was away? (The rookie
> trying to bring down "something big"?) Because we
> _do not know the
> facts_ regarding Mueller, protesting his
> involvement, or putting his
> name on signs is risky and _unsupportable!_ Unless
> you can provide us
> with documents that incontrovertably show that
> Mueller OKed this action,
> I'M not going to protest him. And I'm not going to
> argue this point
> anymore.
> 
> 
> > Conclusion:  Mueller is their guy, too.
> 
> Anyone who's read up on Mueller I think knows that
> he's not a friend of
> the EFF. I think that's a pretty wild and
> unsupportable claim, that
> really doesn't jive when you place it next to the
> action record of the
> EFF.
> 
> Remember the
> > Wired article (link:
> >
>
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,45522,00.html)
> > 
> > Here are some more about Mueller:
> > 
> > http://www.newsmakingnews.com/mueller2,9,00.htm
> > 
> > http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1999/July/319dag.htm
> > 
> > When it comes to the DMCA, this guy is Ashcroft
> and
> > the AAP/MPAA/BSA 's dream boy!!!
> 
> And he's *also* a friend of the EFF? No.
> 
> > NOTHING can get more press running to post to
> deadline
> > than a Cabinet confirmation (except for a Supreme
> > Court nomination) and the EFF is urging us to
> 'calm
> > down.'
> 
> See above.
> 
> > We've accomplished more in three days than they
> have
> > in three years!  Adobe caved BEFORE the EFF
> meeting,
> > because of the threat of the boycott and the
> > demonstrations.  Go look at the dateline of the PR
> > release.  It takes DAYS to get that kind of
> release
> > out of a corp like Adobe...it was pre-prepared. 
> We
> > did it ALL!!!
> 
> I believe Adobe caved because they had nothing more
> to gain from Dmitry
> being in prison. Also, it was a *joint* press
> release between the EFF
> and Adobe. If it takes DAYS to do that, then the EFF
> is *completely* full
> of bs and in cahoots with Adobe. Again, that does
> not make sense.
> 
> 
> > PLEASE remember:  Dmitry NEVER had to go to jail. 
> > Adobe could have protested his entry visa a month
> > before DefCon 9 to the State Department and he
> never
> > would have been allowed in the country.  Instead,
> > Warnock and company lobbied Mueller (actually,
> > probably started with Ashcroft, but we'll NEVER
> prove
> > that without a LOT of FOIA paperwork) for his
> arrest,
> > rather than a writ of exclusion from the State
> > Department.
> 
> I agree with you here. It was despicable that Adobe
> chose to allow him
> to come to the states in order to arrest him, rather
> than just keep him
> out of the country. But this would not support
> Adobe's desire for
> someone to squeeze (Dmitry). They let him come in,
> they didn't ask for a
> writ of exclusion, because THEY WANTED TO ARREST
> HIM! It's SIMPLE! And
> you say it yourself -- we can't prove they
> specifically and personally
> lobbied Ashcroft; do we know that they actually got
> the green light from
> Mueller? If we don't know that from a reliable
> printed source, I will
> not make accusations about him, regardless of what I
> think of his
> politics.
> 
> > I'll keep repeating that, Peter until you see the
> REAL
> > tragedy here.  What I don't understand is why YOU
> are
> > so hesitant to go after a corporation and people
> like
> > Mueller.  They amke PERFECT targets to get the
> 'Joe
> > Six-Packs' up in arms.  Rich white geeks with
> > doctorates, and the FBI...that appeals across ALL
> > demographics.
> 
> I won't "go after a corporation and people like
> Mueller" because we do
> not know the TRUTH about what happened. We DO know
> that Dmitry is in
> jail. We DO know the DMCA is a rotten piece of
> legislation. We DO know
> that we can write to our representatives and make
> people squirm just by
> being on the streets. I am not in the business of
> taking "perfect
> targets" and slandering them with information that I
> CANNOT
> SUBSTANTIATE. It's one thing to suggest that people
> boycott Adobe
> because of their pro-DMCA stance. It's another thing
> to tell the world
> about Mueller's involvement in the case based on
> speculation.
> 
> Unless you provide me with this information, I am
> not going to argue
> about this any longer. We are wasting the groups
> time, tolerance, and
> motivation. I appreciate your passion and
> enthusiasm, Mike. I don't know
> if anyone else on the list has as much as you do.
> But I'm afraid you're
> maybe jumping the gun.
> 
> Later today I'll be sending some information to the
> list regarding our
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/