Dnia sobota, 31 maja 2014 14:53:43 Cathal Garvey pisze: > The question is not whether or not you can securely disclose that you > are under NSL. The question is whether you can do so without, when the > word breaks, being in trouble for leaking that information. > > So yes, you can establish all sorts of wonderful contraptions that "get > the word out", publicly or privately, on or off-shore, so that the > people outside can disseminate warnings that you've been compromised. > But in the end, the stasi will blame you, and no matter how much > cooked-up legal convolution you wrap yourself in, they will nail you to > a cross. > > My view is that engaging in such convolutions serves two > counterproductive ends: > 1) It makes it seem as if you acknowledge that you should not be > disclosing the NSL; a Jury, if you were so lucky and were actually > allowed to testify before them in your defence (lol Grand Jury) would be > suspicious of your motives. Why all the cloak-and-dagger? It's easy for > the prosecution to make you seem shady and suspicious for acting in that > way. > > 2) It delays your disclosure and allows the stasi time and opportunity > to preempt and prevent your disclosure entirely.
Good points, thanks. -- Pozdr rysiek
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
