From: “Phillip M. Hallam-Baker” <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
To: “‘Sean Roach’” <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Message Hash: cbfb3dee186d365694d1d4bc6754e68f51cd60e58b58141f861b3b18f74abad6
Message ID: <199701212027.MAA11297@toad.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1997-01-21 20:27:03 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:27:03 -0800 (PST)
From: "Phillip M. Hallam-Baker" <hallam@ai.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:27:03 -0800 (PST)
To: "'Sean Roach'" <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: RE: Newt's phone calls
Message-ID: <199701212027.MAA11297@toad.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
get everything needed on a signed cheque.
>
>A check is no good, most checks are now printed on paper with special lines
>that are supposed to become obvious after copying. A signed letter or even
>a mailing envelope would probably be better.
Actually for the purposes of fax you can trace the signature
off the check and then photocopy the traced outline. If you
use Mellonex film you can get a very good impression.
> Also, scotch tape makes those
>pexky shadows disapear like magic. My dad uses it to make multiple versions
>of make-up math tests that trivially look like the origional in order to
>goad persons who were sick on test day so that they could get the answers
>from someone else into printing down those answers and getting less than
>random probability. (multiple choice)
When I used to do layout of artwork for a magazine we used to
use white out to get rid of the shadow lines. There is a
particularly good version available in the UK which comes in
a red bottle with a flow cap on it. Much better than the crappy
pot 'n brush system which is always going hard as the
solvent evaporates.
Phill
PS: I hasten to add that my experience of fraud techniques comes
from trying to stop them.
PPS: In the days of electronic mail why do people need PS's?
Return to January 1997
Return to ““Phillip M. Hallam-Baker” <hallam@ai.mit.edu>”
1997-01-21 (Tue, 21 Jan 1997 12:27:03 -0800 (PST)) - RE: Newt’s phone calls - “Phillip M. Hallam-Baker” <hallam@ai.mit.edu>