RE: DBS, Privacy, Money Laundering nonsense.

["Todd Boyle" <tboyle@rosehill.net>]

>Oops. Looks like you weren't watching your >'s :-). You're actually
>responding to Unicorn, not me. *He* was responding to something Todd Boyle
>said (well, probably trolled, given his past behavior :-)) on the DBS list.

I don't altogether enjoy living in the world I've created.  My
intent in posting my ideas is so that they'll either be verified,
or be neutralized or corrected by enzymes on your excellent list!  <G>

But I'm still stuck on these points:

 * Thieves exist in large numbers, throughout the world including my
     own immediate area.  Many more potential thieves in line, behind them.

 * If thieves could hide the money they stole, there would be substantial
    increase in frequency and severity of theft; mostly fraud, employee
    embezzlement, and white collar theft but also blatant scams and
    grift that is impractical today.  We're already seeing annual increases
    in embezzlement in the Seattle area from 10-50% over the last 10 years,
    getting similar to the rates around Los Angeles, for example.

 * Reducing trackability of money increases the severity and frequency
    of collusive crimes.  Large-scale political corruption, kickbacks
    and monopolies in the commercial sector, and a whole range of
    outright criminal blackmail become harder to prosecute.  With
    DBS you wouldn't be able to prove a damned thing.

 * The biggest single financial problem I have is mandatory levies
     (tax, utilities, monopolies) by the corrupt government. Your
     DBS will make this much worse by making it even easier to
     channel cash to politicians.

 * Fraud, embezzlement and corruption are in riotous equilibrium.  DBS
     reduces pressure on laundering, requiring other measures that hit
     my civil liberties somewhere else (physical IDs, cops, etc.)

 * Untraceable money *obviously* reduces tax collections.  What the IRS
     fails to collect from tax dodgers, eventually, I must pay more.

You seem to have a subconscious belief that DBS will shrink the government
sector.  This is a false assumption.  The government long ago achieved the
power to tax *as much as it wants*.  There is no natural immunity in our
culture or legal system.

The public sector has stabilized at 25% or 35% of the GNP, which is
apparently the maximum the animal can tolerate without falling over dead
(people striking, quitting work, and business moving overseas.)

Gimmicks like DBS will certainly not reduce the public sector in our
lifetimes. It will require an evolution in individual awareness and
behavior.

In mean time, managing the out-of-control government sector is your civic
duty, to your less intelligent wives, pensioners, and children and
neighbors. The preferred way to manage the governmt is the democratic
process, and public discourse and debate such as this list.

Breaking ranks and disobeying the law breeds further breakdown in
obedience of the whole legal framework.  There are lots of dumber and more
dangerous elements in the population.  The system is already *quite*
unfair to them.  When the superintelligent can steal through high-tech
money schemes, and the wealthy classes violate their own legal framework,
why shouldn't the thief just come and steal our cars, or fuck your daughter?
Frankly, we need laws, a lot more than we need DBS.

Now, what is your solution to prevent the use of DBS in large-scale
financial fraud, political payoffs, etc.?   Or is that outside your
scope, and such problems should be solved by wiretaps, surveillance or
what?

Don't tell me these problems are minor or will just disappear! Do you
know how much money is already wasted on audits and law enforcement in
this country?  Auditing is already hideously expensive, and the only
solid facts in the entire audit process are the goddamn bank statements.

You need a coherent argument on this problem.  You need measures within
the DBS technology itself, to address the need.  Opponents of DBS will
raise all these demagogic arguments.  You'll be hooted off the podium.

I fear you'll end up damaging the reputation of legitimate forms of
peer-to-peer electronic payments, which are badly needed in the economy.

Todd Boyle CPA   Kirkland WA   tboyle@rosehill.net