Re: The GAK Momentum is Building...

At 01:58 PM 9/20/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
>On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
>> My comment: Once the big Corp.'s get used to the new game, they'll put 
>> the non-critical stuff out there for Mr. Freeh, and for the really 
>> secret data, if the cops confiscate anything they can't read, the Corp. 
>> security will put it off on a fall-guy, even as high as the CEO if 
>> necessary. I just wanna see one case where a federal judge will try to 
>> bleed a big company for contempt for "refusing" to decode and hand over 
>> some ostensibly encrypted data. Matter of fact, there are probably cases 
>> similar to this that have already been through the appeals courts.
>
>Several.  Most involve foreign banks refusing to turn over records to U.S.
>courts.  Most result in powerfully large fines imposed on banks, often on
>a per diem basis.


But as usual, you ignore the obvious solution to the problem.  Let's suppose 
the amount of the fine is set at $1000 per day.  Actuarially, this works out 
to be the interest (at 5% per year) on $7.3 million dollars in principle.  
In other words, if you can eliminate the fine for less than $7.3 million, 
you're better off doing it.

Naturally, you won't even consider the possibility of going outside the 
system to solve a problem.  The rest of us notice that there are probably 
thousands of terminally-ill people who would gladly act as a human kamikaze 
and get rid of any judge inclined to impose such a fine, for a payment of 1% 
of this principle amount to a family member or loved one, leaving 99% 
available for the few other judges foolish enough to basically commit 
suicide by taking up a futile gesture.

This kind of operation is best arranged by what might be described as an 
"insurance company," which will divide the risk among client companies until 
everyone learns what the score really is.   It wouldn't take long before no 
such fines are ever imposed.

But nah, this is much too complex for you.


Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com

On Sat, 21 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote:

> At 01:58 PM 9/20/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >On Wed, 18 Sep 1996, Dale Thorn wrote:
> >> My comment: Once the big Corp.'s get used to the new game, they'll put 
> >> the non-critical stuff out there for Mr. Freeh, and for the really 
> >> secret data, if the cops confiscate anything they can't read, the Corp. 
> >> security will put it off on a fall-guy, even as high as the CEO if 
> >> necessary. I just wanna see one case where a federal judge will try to 
> >> bleed a big company for contempt for "refusing" to decode and hand over 
> >> some ostensibly encrypted data. Matter of fact, there are probably cases 
> >> similar to this that have already been through the appeals courts.
> >
> >Several.  Most involve foreign banks refusing to turn over records to U.S.
> >courts.  Most result in powerfully large fines imposed on banks, often on
> >a per diem basis.
> 
> 
> But as usual, you ignore the obvious solution to the problem.  Let's suppose 
> the amount of the fine is set at $1000 per day.  Actuarially, this works out 
> to be the interest (at 5% per year) on $7.3 million dollars in principle.  
> In other words, if you can eliminate the fine for less than $7.3 million, 
> you're better off doing it.

Fines tend to run in the ten thousands per diem.

> 
> Naturally, you won't even consider the possibility of going outside the 
> system to solve a problem.

I hardly want to get back into this debate.  I live outside the system.  I
do not murder people.

. The rest of us notice that there are probably 
> thousands of terminally-ill people who would gladly act as a human kamikaze 
> and get rid of any judge inclined to impose such a fine, for a payment of 1% 
> of this principle amount to a family member or loved one, leaving 99% 
> available for the few other judges foolish enough to basically commit 
> suicide by taking up a futile gesture.
> 
> This kind of operation is best arranged by what might be described as an 
> "insurance company," which will divide the risk among client companies until 
> everyone learns what the score really is.   It wouldn't take long before no 
> such fines are ever imposed.
> 
> But nah, this is much too complex for you.

Coming from someone willing to prey on the despair of termanally ill
individuals this stands as a compliment.

Again, I propose that Mr. Bell would be the first to go in "his" system.
 
> 
> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com
> 

--
I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist
unicorn@schloss.li