From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 1996 15:02:28 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
In-Reply-To: <m0u2oJE-0008yhC@pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960329193830.15388J-100000@polaris.mindport.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



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