17 August 2004


The Associated Press report yesterday by Tom Hays quoted Cryptome on the "chilling" effect of the FBI visit in November 2003. What we should have made clear was not that Cryptome was chilled but that telling about the visit chilled others from having dealings with Cryptome. It's that secondary chilling which probably accounts for why many people do not reveal being approached by authorities.

After we reported the FBI visit several persons who were corresponding with Cryptome broke off contact, expressing fear that the FBI had approached Cryptome in order to learn about them. Our assurance that the FBI asked about nobody but Cryptome was not soothing.

One of those most fearful works for the New York Times which we thought would be sufficient protection, but not so. Another was an international writer who, based on aggressive publications, we also thought would have not been bothered, again, not so. Each of these said: did the FBI ask about me. We said no. Each asked: did you tell them about me. We said no. Each asked: did you tell what we were working on. We said no. The NY Times person asked that dealing with Cryptome never be disclosed, and that all email be destroyed. Sure, we said.

We thought of asking those two showing greatest fear of the FBI if either had been the one who reported Cryptome as a threat to the nation, but why call the bluff.