From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 1996 13:30:07 +0800
To: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Subject: Re: The GAK Momentum is Building...
In-Reply-To: <199609220058.RAA10810@mail.pacifier.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960921230009.24100B-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


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