Re: Note: Problems Confronting the Asset Concealer [Part 1 of 2 of Volume I]

At 10:40 AM 3/30/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote:
>Black Unicorn wrote:
>
>| While direct crypto relevance is limited, I thought that this work 
>| might interest many on the list and so I decided to post it in any 
>| event.  The sections on fourth and fifth amendment protections, or 
>| lack thereof, for banking documents might shed some light on the 
>| eventual disposition of crypto keys under the same circumstances.
>
>	Actually, this is not all all irrelevant.  The question of how
>a non-American living in the US can benefit from writign crypto code
>has been a topic of discussion the last few days.  A real
>understanding of laundering is needed for the time between now and
>when the bad guys stop trying to tax the non-physical.

While your interest in Unicorn's essay is understandable, I think you've 
missed the problems with his point of view.  He's apparently suffering from 
a disease which is supposed to be common among first year law students, 
specifically:  Citing legal precedents as if they are some sort of justification 
for themselves.  You correctly referred to "the bad guys" above as taxing 
the non-physical, so you're obviously on the right track.  Unicorn, however, 
does not REALLY think of them as being "the bad guys," in fact his gravy 
train _depends_ on them!  

It is this conflict of interest which drives him to cite precedent after 
precedent as somehow supporting his nebulous positions.  What he misses is 
that citing these precedents merely destroys whatever confidence we could 
have in the legal system.  And since the legal system will be charged with 
interpreting whatever bills are passed by Congress, by extension these 
precedents show that all the all the potential benefits promised by bills 
such as Leahy's are conditional.  Similarly, even a negative which appears 
minimal today could easily turn into a "killer" problem tomorrow.

Peter Junger's analysis of the Leahy bill was far more useful, primarily 
because it focussed on the areas that this bill could be abused.  Unicorn 
cites cases of abuse frequently, but does not identify them as such, leading 
me to conclude that all he can do is to cite precedent.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

On Sat, 30 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 10:40 AM 3/30/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote:
> >Black Unicorn wrote:

> >	Actually, this is not all all irrelevant.  The question of how
> >a non-American living in the US can benefit from writign crypto code
> >has been a topic of discussion the last few days.  A real
> >understanding of laundering is needed for the time between now and
> >when the bad guys stop trying to tax the non-physical.
> 
> While your interest in Unicorn's essay is understandable, I think you've 
> missed the problems with his point of view.  He's apparently suffering from 
> a disease which is supposed to be common among first year law students, 
> specifically:  Citing legal precedents as if they are some sort of justification 
> for themselves.  You correctly referred to "the bad guys" above as taxing 
> the non-physical, so you're obviously on the right track.  Unicorn, however, 
> does not REALLY think of them as being "the bad guys," in fact his gravy 
> train _depends_ on them!  

That's Herr Reichsmarschall Unicorn to you.

I'd be happy to find other work.  High tax jurisdictions, welfare 
states, and overbearing jurisdiction are, however, unlikely to go away.

I also happen to be independently wealthy, and have been since far before 
I ever took up law.  All that stolen art from my Nazi associates you 
understand.
 
> It is this conflict of interest which drives him to cite precedent after 
> precedent as somehow supporting his nebulous positions.

When my position is:  "Courts are likely to do this."  A cite is entirely 
appropriate.  I don't make public value judgements on the policies of the 
United States in the same way that I don't want the United States to 
impose it's view of "right" on Liechtenstein.

Don't, if you can at all help it, Mr. Bell, confuse recitation of current 
fact with philisophical support for a novel, or as the case may be, 
raving position.

Of course, I'm just a Nazi, so....

> What he misses is 
> that citing these precedents merely destroys whatever confidence we could 
> have in the legal system.

Which is why I provide more practical detours around the problems.

Readers will note that I do this without calling people Nazi's.

> Peter Junger's analysis of the Leahy bill was far more useful, primarily 
> because it focussed on the areas that this bill could be abused.  Unicorn 
> cites cases of abuse frequently, but does not identify them as such, leading 
> me to conclude that all he can do is to cite precedent.

Abuse is in the eye of the beholder.  You are beginning to blur your 
useage of the word "abuse" as badly as you were complaining about the 
court's use of the word "malice."  But perhaps its just the 
national-socialist need for order in me that makes me say so.

> 
> 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