From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 1996 11:54:33 +0800
To: Adam Shostack <unicorn@schloss.li (Black Unicorn)
Subject: Re: Note: Problems Confronting the Asset Concealer [Part 1 of 2 of Volume I]
Message-ID: <m0u35gT-0008xzC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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