From: tbyfield@panix.com (Ted Byfield)
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 95 12:45:46 PDT
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Car rentals, Driver's Licenses, Ecash, & Net Access
Message-ID: <v02120d00ac76137192e3@[166.84.253.144]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 1:21 PM 9/8/95, Duncan Frissell wrote a very interesting disquisition:

 <snip>
>An attempted cartel of that sort --- one that tries to enlist the billion or
>so people who will be easily and reliably switching funds within a few years
>--- is doomed to failure.  Too many potential 'cheaters.'  Too much money to
>be made by breaking with the cartel and offering financial services to
>others who wish to use them.
 <snip>

        One question: Most of your remarks (and you're in no way alone in
this regard) seem to assume that uniformity is a sine qua non of law
enforcement (as opposed, say, to selective enforcement. Correct me if I'm
wrong.
        I wonder, though, whether this is so; isn't it true that the
impossibility of consistent enforcement may well encourage a systemically
selective enforcement (maybe shaped by this or that, one's politics, for
example)? Presumably, then, law enforcement would take on an increasingly
"terroristic" character--"random," as IRS audits and the like can be.
        Some recent high-profile cases (Packwood, and Kenneth Starr's
efforts to indict Gov. Tucker) might indicate the shape that enforcement
could take, especially in light of some recent congressional legislative
efforts: the gov't investigates you regarding X, in the process of the
investigation turns up Y and Z, and thus finds reason maybe to look into A,
B, and C as well--in effect, turning your life into a nightmare.
        But I digress: The main point, really, is that enforcement doesn't
need to be nonselective to be "effective." I think this holds whether I
understood your remarks correctly or not.

Ted