Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?

[jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>]

At 05:06 PM 3/29/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
>
>> At 05:32 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
>> >On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
>> >
>> >> At 03:46 PM 3/28/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
>> 
>> >You clearly don't understand.  You are an ass making an assumption that a 
>> >court cares or believes that the witness can actually produce the 
>> >requested information or not.  Fines tend to be imposed regardless.
>> 
>> Bullets don't care that a judge was justified in his decisions, either.  
>
>God I hope you keep talking like this.  The list might not have to endure 
>you anymore unless you get a cushy prison cell with internet hookups.

As far as I know, the 1st amendment to the US Constitution is there to 
protect unpopular, as well as popular, speech.  And while it may be a 
surprise to you, my kind of speech is getting far more popular and has been 
for the last few years.  Much of the reason for this has been the 
abusiveness that you describe but don't seem to try to do anything about.

In any case, the "clear and present danger" standard to speech such as mine 
is not satisfied.  Nobody is under the illusion that anybody else is going 
to rush right out and kill someone as a consequence of my comments.  It is, 
therefore, protected speech.  (Not that I really have much respect for the 
distinction, anyway.  The issue is, is there some OFFICIAL distinction, and 
there apparently is.)

>> Ultimately, your repeated argument is simply, "The legal system can be 
>> abused by those who work in it."
>
>I wouldn't call fines imposed on a third party who clearly was complicit 
>in the destruction of material evidence to a proceeding "abuse."


Since you keep inventing these straw men and knocking them down, it is 
really questionable whether you have any kind of good judgment as to who is 
"clearly complicit in the destruction of material evidence."

It would be far more effective and credible if you would at least admit that 
not every action by a third party which has the effect of frustrating some 
court is actionable.  The simple action of FAILING to store information that 
may later be wanted by the officials is an excellent example, for instance.

Naturally, you won't like this either.  And you certainly won't want to rise to my challenge and draw a distinct line, because that would put you to your proof, and you have none.


>  I don't challenge this claim, in fact my 
>> position depends on its truth; my assertion  is that the current legal 
situation is 
>> out of the control of people faithful to the meaning of the Constitution, 
>> and has been so for a long time.  One of the main reasons I promote a 
>> de-facto (and unofficial) death penalty for recalcitrant politicians and 
>> other government employees is because the traditional "checks and balances" 
>> system seems to no longer be working for the interests of the average 
citizen.
>
>Yadda yadda yadda.

What?!?  you don't have a better response to this?


>> >> And in any case, I consider it highly doubtful that anybody would 
contract 
>> >> with an escrow agent and identify himself by name
>> >
>> >The same way no one creates Panamanian companies with their own name.  So 
>> >what?  Third parties are still fined heavily.
>> 
>> Any specific examples?
>
>Sure, several.  See my large note on the subject of asset protection.

Well, you're trying to change the subject.  It's "escrow agents."  And the 
question is, "must an escrow agent always know the identity of the people 
for whom the information is kept."  The simple answer, invoking existing 
software technology, is, "no."  

So now you need to explain why courts are going to be able to force a 
third-party to give what he doesn't know he has, and in fact nobody else 
knows either.  You'll fail at this task, of course, because the answer is 
not politically correct by your standards.

>> >And simpler for courts to fine them out of existance (which happened to 
>> >several banks, trust companies and agents in Cayman and Panama.
>> 
>> I guess you really don't realize that every claim you make demolishes the 
>> justification for your obvious hostility to a system which prevents exactly 
>> the kind of abuses you list.  (Although it really isn't clear whether you 
>> would classify them as "abuses.")
>
>My hostility is for a system that allows mob mentality and murder run the 
>streets like a bad day in Beruit.

A position which fails to do anything about the current problems in society. 
 Show me that my solution is worse than the status quo, and you'll have a 
point.  Until then, you're just a complainer.

>
>> >They need only suspect or have reason to suspect it might be exculpatory.
>> _                                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Sloppy word usage.  I think you meant, "incriminating."  Typical for you.
>
>Actually I should have said "material."

Still sloppy.  Classic Unicorn.


>> In this day and in this country, "going to law school" is basically 
>> synonymous with "learn to get along with the current legal system."  It 
>> should have been obvious long ago that I don't consider the current legal 
>> system to be worth living with.
>
>Suicide is always an option.

I take great pains and give them to others.  

Anyway the reason suicide is a 
silly option is that it assumes that the problem lies with me, not others.  
Obviously, other people are complaining about the same situation, so the 
problem is not my fault.  But I'm hoping to be part of the solution.

You REALLY won't like this!

>I don't much like the system in the United States either.  But there are 
>two ways around it.  Ways that work, and ways that don't.

There are not ONLY "two ways around it."  There are also clearly "ways that 
Unicorn likes" and "ways Unicorn doesn't like."  It is possible that if they 
were studied carefully a person would discover that (warning!  Set theory 
terms coming up!) intersection between the two groups, "Ways that work" and 
"ways that Unicorn likes" is zero.  As if by design.


>Encouraging random murder and mob justice is, in my view, in the second 
>field.

I've never encouraged "random murder."  Quite the opposite:  It would be far 
more accurate to say that I encourage VERY SELECTIVE killing.  It is not, 
however, GOVERNMENT SPONSORED killing, which is why you won't like it.

Jim Bell
jimbell@pacifier.com