Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?

At 05:06 PM 3/29/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
>
>> At 05:32 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
>> >On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
>> >
>> >> At 03:46 PM 3/28/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
>> 
>> >You clearly don't understand.  You are an ass making an assumption that a 
>> >court cares or believes that the witness can actually produce the 
>> >requested information or not.  Fines tend to be imposed regardless.
>> 
>> Bullets don't care that a judge was justified in his decisions, either.  
>
>God I hope you keep talking like this.  The list might not have to endure 
>you anymore unless you get a cushy prison cell with internet hookups.

As far as I know, the 1st amendment to the US Constitution is there to 
protect unpopular, as well as popular, speech.  And while it may be a 
surprise to you, my kind of speech is getting far more popular and has been 
for the last few years.  Much of the reason for this has been the 
abusiveness that you describe but don't seem to try to do anything about.

In any case, the "clear and present danger" standard to speech such as mine 
is not satisfied.  Nobody is under the illusion that anybody else is going 
to rush right out and kill someone as a consequence of my comments.  It is, 
therefore, protected speech.  (Not that I really have much respect for the 
distinction, anyway.  The issue is, is there some OFFICIAL distinction, and 
there apparently is.)

>> Ultimately, your repeated argument is simply, "The legal system can be 
>> abused by those who work in it."
>
>I wouldn't call fines imposed on a third party who clearly was complicit 
>in the destruction of material evidence to a proceeding "abuse."


Since you keep inventing these straw men and knocking them down, it is 
really questionable whether you have any kind of good judgment as to who is 
"clearly complicit in the destruction of material evidence."

It would be far more effective and credible if you would at least admit that 
not every action by a third party which has the effect of frustrating some 
court is actionable.  The simple action of FAILING to store information that 
may later be wanted by the officials is an excellent example, for instance.

Naturally, you won't like this either.  And you certainly won't want to rise to my challenge and draw a distinct line, because that would put you to your proof, and you have none.


>  I don't challenge this claim, in fact my 
>> position depends on its truth; my assertion  is that the current legal 
situation is 
>> out of the control of people faithful to the meaning of the Constitution, 
>> and has been so for a long time.  One of the main reasons I promote a 
>> de-facto (and unofficial) death penalty for recalcitrant politicians and 
>> other government employees is because the traditional "checks and balances" 
>> system seems to no longer be working for the interests of the average 
citizen.
>
>Yadda yadda yadda.

What?!?  you don't have a better response to this?


>> >> And in any case, I consider it highly doubtful that anybody would 
contract 
>> >> with an escrow agent and identify himself by name
>> >
>> >The same way no one creates Panamanian companies with their own name.  So 
>> >what?  Third parties are still fined heavily.
>> 
>> Any specific examples?
>
>Sure, several.  See my large note on the subject of asset protection.

Well, you're trying to change the subject.  It's "escrow agents."  And the 
question is, "must an escrow agent always know the identity of the people 
for whom the information is kept."  The simple answer, invoking existing 
software technology, is, "no."  

So now you need to explain why courts are going to be able to force a 
third-party to give what he doesn't know he has, and in fact nobody else 
knows either.  You'll fail at this task, of course, because the answer is 
not politically correct by your standards.

>> >And simpler for courts to fine them out of existance (which happened to 
>> >several banks, trust companies and agents in Cayman and Panama.
>> 
>> I guess you really don't realize that every claim you make demolishes the 
>> justification for your obvious hostility to a system which prevents exactly 
>> the kind of abuses you list.  (Although it really isn't clear whether you 
>> would classify them as "abuses.")
>
>My hostility is for a system that allows mob mentality and murder run the 
>streets like a bad day in Beruit.

A position which fails to do anything about the current problems in society. 
 Show me that my solution is worse than the status quo, and you'll have a 
point.  Until then, you're just a complainer.

>
>> >They need only suspect or have reason to suspect it might be exculpatory.
>> _                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Sloppy word usage.  I think you meant, "incriminating."  Typical for you.
>
>Actually I should have said "material."

Still sloppy.  Classic Unicorn.


>> In this day and in this country, "going to law school" is basically 
>> synonymous with "learn to get along with the current legal system."  It 
>> should have been obvious long ago that I don't consider the current legal 
>> system to be worth living with.
>
>Suicide is always an option.

I take great pains and give them to others.  

Anyway the reason suicide is a 
silly option is that it assumes that the problem lies with me, not others.  
Obviously, other people are complaining about the same situation, so the 
problem is not my fault.  But I'm hoping to be part of the solution.

You REALLY won't like this!

>I don't much like the system in the United States either.  But there are 
>two ways around it.  Ways that work, and ways that don't.

There are not ONLY "two ways around it."  There are also clearly "ways that 
Unicorn likes" and "ways Unicorn doesn't like."  It is possible that if they 
were studied carefully a person would discover that (warning!  Set theory 
terms coming up!) intersection between the two groups, "Ways that work" and 
"ways that Unicorn likes" is zero.  As if by design.


>Encouraging random murder and mob justice is, in my view, in the second 
>field.

I've never encouraged "random murder."  Quite the opposite:  It would be far 
more accurate to say that I encourage VERY SELECTIVE killing.  It is not, 
however, GOVERNMENT SPONSORED killing, which is why you won't like it.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

This will be my last comment on this thread.  Mr. Bell is beginning to 
lapse into the "yadda yadda yadda" phase.  Constructive progress becomes 
nil at this point typically.



On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 05:06 PM 3/29/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:

> >> Ultimately, your repeated argument is simply, "The legal system can be 
> >> abused by those who work in it."
> >
> >I wouldn't call fines imposed on a third party who clearly was complicit 
> >in the destruction of material evidence to a proceeding "abuse."
> 
> Since you keep inventing these straw men and knocking them down, it is 
> really questionable whether you have any kind of good judgment as to who is 
> "clearly complicit in the destruction of material evidence."

My judgment is not important.  What I have seen courts do is.

> It would be far more effective and credible if you would at least admit that 
> not every action by a third party which has the effect of frustrating some 
> court is actionable.  The simple action of FAILING to store information that 
> may later be wanted by the officials is an excellent example, for instance.

I never claimed anything so broad.  I pointed out that the examples you 
gave (tipping off the offender that he was being investigated, creating 
provisions to destroy or otherwise make unavailable evidence material to 
a criminal or civil investigation), were going to have to confront these 
problems.

> 
> Naturally, you won't like this either.  And you certainly won't want 
> to rise to my challenge and draw a distinct line, because that would put 
> you to your proof, and you have none.

Mostly because there is no distinct line.  You make your argument to the 
judge, he makes his ruling based on his perceptions and bias.  Sometimes 
you win, sometimes you lose.  When "offshore holding agent" or "trustee" 
is mentioned in the context of "unavailable" evidence, judges are not 
very patient.  Of course, your only response to this is "so kill them."  
Unfortunately, in the absence of your system, that's not much of an option.

> >Yadda yadda yadda.
> 
> What?!?  you don't have a better response to this?

I don't talk to feces on the sidewalk either.

> >Sure, several.  See my large note on the subject of asset protection.
> 
> Well, you're trying to change the subject.  It's "escrow agents."  And the 
> question is, "must an escrow agent always know the identity of the people 
> for whom the information is kept."  The simple answer, invoking existing 
> software technology, is, "no."  

No, that's not the question.  This question you just invented.  The 
question was, and specifically in reference to your "rosebud" tip-off 
scheme, can an escrow agent warn the principal of an impending 
investigation with the intent of facilitating the destruction or 
diversion of material evidence.

Of course, having this scheme debunked forced you to alter the facts, yet 
again, to favor you.

> So now you need to explain why courts are going to be able to force a 
> third-party to give what he doesn't know he has, and in fact nobody else 
> knows either.  You'll fail at this task, of course, because the answer is 
> not politically correct by your standards.

Again, you have to convince the judge of all this, and even if it is 
true, he doesn't have to buy it, can still impose fines, and can still 
jail the third party until he is convinced he/she is either telling the 
truth, or is very determined no to release the information at any cost to 
self.

Even if you can show that the third party is faultless, the principal is 
probably going to suffer the same fate.

> >My hostility is for a system that allows mob mentality and murder run the 
> >streets like a bad day in Beruit.
> 
> A position which fails to do anything about the current problems in society. 

The only way to do anyhting about the "current problems" in society is to 
kill and threaten?  Move to East Turkey.

>  Show me that my solution is worse than the status quo, and you'll have a 
> point.  Until then, you're just a complainer.

Considering it combines the tyranny of the majority with the tyrrany of 
the minority and provides both with sovereign powers to sentence 
individuals to death arbitrarily....

I'll leave the rest to the reader.

> >Actually I should have said "material."
> 
> Still sloppy.  Classic Unicorn.

Pay me my hourly rate and I will be happy to copy-edit everything I post.

For legal work involving international transactions or compulsary 
jurisdiction issues that tends to run $200-$300/hr.

> >I don't much like the system in the United States either.  But there are 
> >two ways around it.  Ways that work, and ways that don't.
> 
> There are not ONLY "two ways around it."  There are also clearly "ways that 
> Unicorn likes" and "ways Unicorn doesn't like."

I admit that ways that I don't like may work.  Your's wont.

> >Encouraging random murder and mob justice is, in my view, in the second 
> >field.
> 
> I've never encouraged "random murder."  Quite the opposite:  It would be far 
> more accurate to say that I encourage VERY SELECTIVE killing.  It is not, 
> however, GOVERNMENT SPONSORED killing, which is why you won't like it.

Encouraging selective murder and mob justice is, in my view, in the second 
field.

You know, if Mr. Bell turned out to be L.D., he'd be violating our 
settlement agreement.

> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com

---
My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information