[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mark Twain Bank (was: Anonymity: A Modest Proposal)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
An entity calling itself "Phil <[email protected]>" allegedly wrote:
> Perhaps someone with US legal experience might care to comment
> on the enforceability of such a clause.
That's not me, but I have some things to say anyway. If I could
figure out how to make DigiCash's SunOS client write money into
ASCII files I would attach 2 cybercents to the end of this.
> Surely the nature of
> the relationship is defined by its character and not soley by
> a contract disclaimer.
I prefer to think that contractual relationships are defined by
the explicit stipulations the contract, and the implicit understandings
between the two parties (which are unavoidable, since they begin at
the semantic or even cognitive level and cannot be described
explicitly with our current science/tech, but which should be made
explicit wherever possible), and are completely *un*-influenced by
the arbitrary opinion of some third organization which happens to
own lots of big guns in their geographical regions.
> >3. The bank accepts no liability for anything going wrong,
> > although it may, at its sole option, attempt to make
> > ammends.
> Wouldn't it be convenient if such clauses were enforcable?
Wouldn't be nice if whatever clauses two competent entities agreed
to were enforceable? (non-repudiation, reputations, Nick
> >4. Parties agree to wave a jury trial.
> >5. Parties agree to binding arbitration.
> These seem pretty dangerous to me if enforcable. They would
> effectively usurp the power of the courts as arbiter.
Indeed they do usurp that power, don't they? :-) <I smile happily.>
And it's only going to get worse(/better). ((anon)nymity, e-cash, tax
evasion, black markets...)
> I have less confidence in the competence of a jury than that
> of judges I'm pretty sure that the UK courts would consider
> such contract clauses in a dim light.
And I, by way of contrast, consider such clauses, which remove
business relationships from the realm of violence and into the realm
of mutually consensual, organizationally emergent social structures,
in a very positive light.
> Consumers have votes, they are not afraid of regulation. Forget
> the pap you see spouted by politicians about deregulation, they
> simply mean remove the regulations that negatively affect our
> interests, their supporters are likewise.
And I'm of the opinion that any "regulation" (i.e. threat of force
against peaceful parties) negatively affects my interests (all of
ours) in the long run. And I too have a vote.
Crypto relevance? Much! The overview is that crypto tech will
ultimately enable my view of ideal social structure rather than
yours. Non-repudiation, e-cash, Nick Szabo's "liens", tax evasion,
black markets, (anon)nymity, reputations and (hopefully hopefully)
the education/enlightenment of the populace because of powerful
non-censorable information access all point this way.
Of course, it will be a long, twisted road from here to there (we
live in interesting times), but I am ultimately hopeful.
I hope this rant is not wholely without value. I do it rarely, so
you are safe for another few months now that I have it out of my
"To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield."
[email protected] </a>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: Auto-signed under Unix with 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.01
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
rom owner-cypherpunks Wed Oct 25 12:30:03 1995
Received: by toad.com id AA28197; Wed, 25 Oct 95 12:30:03 PDT
Received: from larry.infi.net by toad.com id AA28174; Wed, 25 Oct 95 12:29:42 PDT
Received: by larry.infi.net (Infinet-S-3.3)
id PAA04999; Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:29:21 -0400
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 15:29:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Horowitz <[email protected]>
To: Duncan Frissell <[email protected]>
Cc: Ian Goldberg <[email protected]>, [email protected]
Subject: Re: Mandatory ID in California?
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: [email protected]
"States may not authorize arrest...for failing to produce identification..."
Kolender v. Lawson 461 U.S. 352 (1983)
"...may not compel an answer and they must allow the person to leave
after a reasonable brief period of time...." - - ibid
California is the Ninth Circuit, no? See, inter alia, Martinelli v.
City of Beaumont, 820 F.2nd 1491 (1987).