December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by Brian A. LaMacchia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:54 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >"Man wins $27,000. He will eventually be required to report and pay taxes >on the amount, but not quite yet. Stupid I/R/S people alert him BEFORE he >files his taxes. He reports the payment, as is ostensibly legally required. > He paid the taxes owed. Period." > >THEN you said, "we settled the matter." Huh? What, exactly, was there to >"settle"? Why, of course, the fact that the guy attempted to structure the transaction to evade the reporting requirements in the first place. 31 U.S.C. 5324(a). Structuring (or attempting to structure) a financial transaction to evade the reporting requirements is a violation of this subsection, and 31 U.S.C. 5322(a) says that a willful violation is a five-year felony. Oh, and willful violation while violating another U.S. law is a ten-year felony until 5322(b). I'd suspect the guy was looking at a 5322(b) charge (with "transmission of wagering information in interstate commerce" as the "other U.S. law" being violated), but IANAL and I don't know the case law. EBD: Please correct me if I'm wrong. Oh, and did you go after the guy who wrote the three $9K checks for conspiracy or aiding-and-abetting? --bal

2 2

RE: Untraceable Payments, Extortion, and Other Bad Things
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Vlad the Conqueror anyone heard of "memes"? cryptoanarchy is a virus of weak minds without any defense mechanisms. the cpunk list is the principal vector.. ..................................................... So, Nuri-logical, are you one of those NSA tentacles on the list, discouraging people from following certain ideas - like Tim's, for example? <g> Are you feeling a bit in-Timmy-dated by the possibility of a crypto reign of terror; do you feel a bit like you're part of that stuff floating at the top about to be skimmed off? What do you think would be a good antidote for this cryptoanarchy virus? How do you imagine that it might be introduced into the Brave New World of anarchocapitalism; how could it effectively counter the growth of libertarian ideals, which you despise? Tim sort of evaded my question by asserting that the methods of which he spoke were implicit in his writings. I hope you don't claim the same, but are more blatant and explicit about your ideas to the contrary (though typically you are blatant, although not necessarily explicit). .. Blanc

1 0

Hooked on Ebonics
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now that the new Afrocentric Ebonic language is officially recognized, we have a lot of work to do. Having textbooks published in English and Hip Hop is going to be daunting. New educational tapes, "Hooked on Ebonics" will have to be produced. Answers to test questions will have to be analyzed and converted, and an entire new dictionary will need to be established. You know what I'm sayin'? In some ways life will get much simpler. No longer will we be burdened with the cumbersome task of searching our minds for the proper adjective, pronoun, or participle. An expletive invoking another's mother will be the only adjective, pronoun, or metaphor in the new Ebonics dictionary. Bernard Shaw and Alan Keyes could get rid of that bothersome eloquence and perfect diction and rap it back Black, lay it on me bro. I'm curious about the "N word." Will that be allowed? I do hear it a lot in movies centered around life in the ethnic neighborhoods of L.A. or Oakland. The reason I ask is because where I work you'll be severely fired if you toss out the "N word." We'll need to have clarification. It would be kind of strange to have an official language that only one ethnic group is allowed to use. Maybe if we could get Texaconics declared an official language of the corporate elite we could give those guys at Texaco their jobs back. Ross Perot could say, "You people" with impunity. As a matter of fact we can have an official language for however you want to talk. Bigotonics, Stupidonics, Stoneronics, Skatersonics, Preppyonics and last but not least, I can't get a decent job anywhere in the world because I was educated in the Oakland School Districtonics.

1 0

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:39 PM 12/24/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >At 05:54 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>"Man wins $27,000. He will eventually be required to report and pay taxes >>on the amount, but not quite yet. Stupid I/R/S people alert him BEFORE he >>files his taxes. He reports the payment, as is ostensibly legally required. >> He paid the taxes owed. Period." >> >>THEN you said, "we settled the matter." Huh? What, exactly, was there to >>"settle"? > >Why, of course, the fact that the guy attempted to structure the >transaction to evade the reporting requirements in the first place. 31 >U.S.C. 5324(a). Who says? He eventually reported it within the legally-defined time. The evidence of intent to COMPLY with the law is far stronger than the evidence of the opposite. >Structuring (or attempting to structure) a financial >transaction to evade the reporting requirements is a violation of this >subsection, and 31 U.S.C. 5322(a) says that a willful violation is a >five-year felony. Again, he clearly DID NOT "evade the reporting requirement." Brian Davis admitted this. (Whether he ever intended to do this is sheer speculation on the part of anyone else. We'll never know; as Davis pointed out, the IRS screwed up.) Even if the standard of evidence was as low as "preponderance of evidence" (which it, of course, is not in a criminal case) he SHOULD have won. By waiting until the return was filed and the tax was paid, the IRS was allowing him to resolve whatever ambiguity remained. Actually, if there were any justice, he should have been able to sue the bank for reporting him and NOT INFORMING HIM of that fact. (I presume the law requires the bank to report suspicious transactions. I also presume that the law _doesn't_ prohibit the bank from telling the customer that it will have to report that transaction.) The bank, presumably being experts in the matter, recognizes that lay individuals can't be expected to be experts in specialized areas, and should be considered obligated to warn customers away from suspicious-looking transactions. I'm sure the REAL LAWYERS (tm) on this list will be able to cite examples of where experts of all kinds were sued by non-experts for failing to warn them of unexpected dangers that could have been averted had the appropriate advice been given promptly. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by Brian A. LaMacchia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:17 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >At 09:39 PM 12/24/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >>Why, of course, the fact that the guy attempted to structure the >>transaction to evade the reporting requirements in the first place. 31 >>U.S.C. 5324(a). > >Who says? He eventually reported it within the legally-defined time. The >evidence of intent to COMPLY with the law is far stronger than the evidence >of the opposite. Bzzt, wrong answer, thanks for playing. "Reporting" here doesn't mean "report the income to the IRS on your tax return." It refers to the report the bank is required to file by law on every transaction in excess of $10,000. If the guy didn't report the $27K as gambling winnings on his 1040 then he'd be guilty of tax evasion in addition to the structuring charges, but that's an independent issue. Go read 31 U.S.C. 5324 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/) >Again, he clearly DID NOT "evade the reporting requirement." Brian Davis >admitted this. (Whether he ever intended to do this is sheer speculation on >the part of anyone else. We'll never know; as Davis pointed out, the IRS >screwed up.) Even if the standard of evidence was as low as "preponderance >of evidence" (which it, of course, is not in a criminal case) he SHOULD have >won. By waiting until the return was filed and the tax was paid, the IRS >was allowing him to resolve whatever ambiguity remained. Of course he attempted to evade: three checks, deposits the first in bank 1, the second in bank 2, and the third in bank 1 again. Trying to not cause either bank to file the form that says "we just got a deposit in excess of $10K." That's structuring to evade. Welcome to Allenwood. --bal

1 0

Re: clipper plans 4 sale
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:18 PM 12/24/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: > Many people will believe it. Its easy to construct the case >that the ITARs, as they apply to things in the public domain, thing >implemented outside the US, things designed outside the US, are just >silly. Its much harder to make that argument about Skipjack, >especially as you can't legally export the chips. When Clipper was first proposed, in April of 1993, as I recall one of the government-types promoting it claimed that it would be exportable "except to terrorist-sponsoring countries like Libya." This made me laugh: It seemed to me that if Clipper codes were kept and available to the US government, you'd expect that they'd WANT Libya to get those phones! In fact, they'd air-drop them in the thousands, right? After all, this would make other countries more dependant on the US for cooperation, and they'd be more pliable as a result, right? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Reflections on the Bernstein ruling
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:01 PM 12/23/96 -0500, Marc Horowitz wrote: >Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> writes: >>> It's also unclear that Judge Patel's ruling is enough to make export of >>> crypto source legal by people/organizations located even in the Northern >>> District of CA. Venue is proper, in an ITAR case, in any jurisdiction which >>> the defense articles have moved through. (18 USC 3237(a); _US v. Durrani_ >>> 659 F.Supp 1177, 1182 (D. Conn, 1987); an easy analogy is to the _US v. >>> Thomas_ "Amateur Action" case, where Tennessee venue was proper for >>> prosecution of California defendants who sent porn into Tennessee.) So it's >>> at least arguable that the feds could simply bring an ITAR prosecution in >>> another district, if exported crypto flowed through that district. (But I >>> don't think they can do so against Dan Bernstein because of "res judicata", >>> a doctrine which says that once two parties have fully litigated an issue, >>> they cannot come back to the same court - or a different one - and ask to >>> relitigate the same issue.) > >It happens to be the case that the Northern District of California >borders on the Pacific Ocean, and includes (at least) two airports >with direct flights to more crypto-friendly jurisdictions to the west. >I do not know if there are any satellite or oceanic cables similarly >situated, but I wouldn't be surprised. In law, there's a concept known as "mens rea," or "guilty mind." (A Real Lawyer (tm) should be able to explain this to CP) Presumably, if the legal system followed its own rules, it would be impossible to have a "guilty mind" about exporting crypto subsequent to the Patel ruling, until such time as that ruling was specifically overturned. After all, the lay public is not expected to be experts here, and if a judge (!) says that crypto export regulations are a violation of the US Constitution, we should be entitled to believe her and to believe that we're entitled to disobey the (unconstitutional) law with a clear conscience. Further, IMO, It shouldn't even matter if contrary legal decisions exist, as long as they are not directly above that court so as to overrule Judge Patel. Our consciences can still be clear: If courts can't, themselves, agree, presumably we aren't obligated to second-guess which one is correct and which one is not. However, a REAL LAWYER would also have to tell you that the system doesn't obey its own rules! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:12 AM 12/25/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >At 07:17 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>At 09:39 PM 12/24/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >>>Why, of course, the fact that the guy attempted to structure the >>>transaction to evade the reporting requirements in the first place. 31 >>>U.S.C. 5324(a). >> >>Who says? He eventually reported it within the legally-defined time. The >>evidence of intent to COMPLY with the law is far stronger than the evidence >>of the opposite. > >Bzzt, wrong answer, thanks for playing. "Reporting" here doesn't mean >"report the income to the IRS on your tax return." It refers to the report >the bank is required to file by law on every transaction in excess of >$10,000. Bzzt, wrong answer! By definition, if the report was filed as a consequence of the transaction, then the transaction was reported IN FACT and the person didn't evade it! (whether he wanted to evade it is, of course, pure speculation on your part. It is, obviously, questionable whether the government can make a person's mere _desires_ criminal.) Let's suppose, hypothetically, that there is a rule which states "If anybody comes in and does three separate $9,000 transactions, they get reported." In that case, anybody who does those transactions is already aware that doing them does NOT "evade the reporting requirements." Okay, maybe no such explicit rule exists. However, can you prove that anyone really believes that he is "evading reporting requirements"? Having read of this incident, it is quite obvious that the government doesn't obey its own rules and doesn't limit itself to logic and reasonable positions. It is also obvious that banks can't be trusted to follow reliable rules. Once aware of this, how can you show that a person really thought he was getting away with anything? (which is, after all, an essential element of the crime of "structuring", I suppose.) Gotcha! Catch-22 situation. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by Brian A. LaMacchia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:35 PM 12/24/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >At 12:12 AM 12/25/96 -0500, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >>Bzzt, wrong answer, thanks for playing. "Reporting" here doesn't mean >>"report the income to the IRS on your tax return." It refers to the report >>the bank is required to file by law on every transaction in excess of >>$10,000. > >Bzzt, wrong answer! By definition, if the report was filed as a consequence of >the transaction, then the transaction was reported IN FACT and the person didn't >evade it! (whether he wanted to evade it is, of course, pure speculation on your >part. It is, obviously, questionable whether the government can make a person's >mere _desires_ criminal.) Please, Jim, *go read the law*. Do it now, before you even think about replying to this message, else you'll say something else stupid and irrelevant. Look, I'll even give you the complete, specific URL for the section of the U.S. Code in question; all you have to do is cut-and-paste it into your favorite Web browser: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/31/5324.html See in clause (1) where it says, "cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report required under section 5313(a)"? See the words "attempt to cause"? Now go back to EBD's original post. See where he said "Report of Suspicious Transaction"? See the errors in your argument above? Good. Your homework assignment is to go read _Ratzlaf v. US_, 510 U.S. 135, 114 S.Ct. 655, and summarize for the list. --bal

4 4

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards? (fwd)
by gimonca＠skypoint.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 23 Dec 1996 11:14:00 -0500 (EST) > From: Michael Gurski <mgursk1(a)umbc.edu> > Subject: Re: Legality of requiring credit cards? (fwd) > > Yes, and if I'd *ever* written a bad check, it would be a different > story. The weasel there basically said that because I'd made > purchases there in the past few days, they tried to contact my bank on > a Sunday afternoon.... (No, I don't get it either) > > But that still doesn't answer whether or not a credit card can be > requested when paying by check. > They can do whatever the hell they want. Whether it makes any difference to the store's bottom line is another question. What some places will do is call the card number down to the credit offices, who will run an authorization (*not a charge) for one dollar on that card number, figuring that if the Visa/MC system won't even authorize a dollar, they'd better not take the check. Personally, I don't think the process helps much. It's all a part of Corporate Cover-Your-Own-Ass Culture. "Yes, the check bounced, but we followed the procedures in the employee manual!" "We're committed to taking definite steps to fight shrinkage!" People on the list could probably come up with much better ways to authenticate a reputation. Until then, for personal checks, you can call any bank in the U.S., ask for bookkeeping, and ask them if there are funds in the bank to cover the check you're holding. Any bank should give you a yes or no on this. Some banks, like the First Banks here in Minnesota, will do this through their automated telephone banking services, 24 hours. Now, for the rest of you who are calling for the government, of all people, to protect your privacy, please......take that personal check, picture ID and MasterCard, go down to the after-Christmas sales, and buy a clue. --CG

1 0

MerryMerry, and All That
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

{} |||| *(X)* `'*(X)* `~'~*(X)* `'x'~'x'~*(X)* (X)'*x~`x`~`x`~x\ /x'~'*(X)'*x`~`x`~`x`~x\ ((O'^'^'^'^'^M*(X)e'R"r%y^^'^'^'^'^O)) *(((^^^^'~'C\h"r,i%s*(X)'T*m&aS'~'~'^^^^^)))* {((<^^^^^^^^="c*y^P+h'eR*(X)*Pu#n`K"s^^^^^^^^^^^>))} *(((^^^'&"T"i`m$m^Y_&_*(X)*L.D,+T'oo!^^^)))* ((O'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~'*(X)*'~'~'~'O)) `'`'*(X)*"~"x"~"x"~"x*(X)*'`` `'`'*(X)*"x"~"x"~"x"~"`` ``*(X)*"x"~"x"~"`` ``*(X)*x"x~"`` `*(X)*x"`` *(X)* *|||* "^" V .. Blanc

1 0

Bubbaonics [Ebonics]
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

12/25/96 The Atlanta Journal/The Atlanta Constitution "The Vent--The Whine Line," page C2 "It's time for our schools to recognize redneck English. It's called Bubbaonics." with no attribution. Alec

1 0

Iranian clergic attacks Internet as 'poison' to the masses (fwd)
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*** Iranian clergic attacks Internet as 'poison' to the masses A senior Iranian cleric called Friday for restricting Internet access because the global computer network fed "poison" to the masses. Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati said the Internet should be restricted to research and scientific centers and he criticized "unalert and uncalculating" officials who allowed unrestricted access. He said the Internet "poisoned thought, morale and attitude" and "was much worse than food poisoning since 100 doctors put together could not cure such a case in a short time." For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=836683-59b -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul(a)pobox.com | - Internet & Intranets 91 11 2233328 | - Web Development & PERL 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - (Networked) Multimedia

2 1

[URGENT] Meet-in-the-middle attack
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here, Tim C. Maya descends into total inanity. He should have a cold shower and/or a Turkish coffee. _ / ' | /><oo><\ Tim C. Maya //[ `' ]\\

1 0

The 'Thot Police'
by Carl Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The best defence against the Thot Police is to say something intelligent, and make your break for it while they are scratching their head, and saying, "Huh?"

6 6

Thank You, CypherPunks
by Carl Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't care if conference does contain the weirdest bunch of bozos it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. Thank you, each and every one, for not posting 58,287,489 messages saying "Merry Xmas", "Happy Holidays", and "Season's Greetings". All I want for 'Xmas' is for just 'one' of these 58,287,489 people to give me a 500 Gigabyte hard drive to store all these Xmas greeting messages on. Toto

1 0

Re: RE: Scalpers (SJPD does crack down)
by Tim Simmons 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A >for $60 (face = $69, and I would have taken anything over $50 without a >haggle), about 5 minutes before game time, on the far side of Guadalupe >Expressway (e.g. @ Almaden Blvd.), which the Arena-patrolling uniformed >officers have repeatedly said is "outside the no-vending zone"... >>> > >Correct me if I'm wrong. Did the Police arrest you because you were selling >em or because you were in a no vending zone? If they did arrest you for >selling them, why'd they areest you for selling them under face value? In >other parts of the country it's a crime to sell them above face value, but >not below. According to my contact in the ticket office it is NOT illegal to re-sell tickets, even if you are selling them ABOVE face value. San Jose Box office makes a legal business out of this practice. It is only illegal to sell them within a certain proximity of the venue. You must have been within the "no vending zone" if you were outside of the zone, you should be able to get the charges dismissed. Tim S. Manufacturing Engineering x 2162

1 0

Canuckonics
by Carl Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Gubmint-sponsored online gambling
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In about 2 weeks Off-track Betting Corporation (the quasi-state agency in NYS that's in charge of horse betting) is planning to open a Web site where gamblers will be able to place bets. One will have to fork over real $$ to OTB before being able to bet it on the Web site. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Re: Internet Message
by BJORN2LUZE＠prodigy.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry I wasn't able obtain the original SUBJECT here. Through-out the moral existance of the internet I find no reason to stop the comunications. There are factors like no AT&T, MCI, or SPRINT (those dime-a-minute rates are baffling). GOOD. Then there are more ideas exchanged. This can be a PLUS for businesses that are RETAILERS (in the long run). The internet can be used to UNITE the world with a single language. The internet can be used to share ideas, learn, and a good place to visit when you are feeling down. Now if you believe anything I said, than the idea that the iternet brings is UNITY. Isn't it strange that within the last 3 years, (taken from a local news channel) people have agreed that the U.S. is moving in a positive direction? Not really, within these last three years is the exact time the internet had become most publicly available. With PRODIGY, AOL, and COMPUSERVE making it happen. Who is the original credit due to? Tell me. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- my favorite site: http://pages.prodigy.com/VT/hackersguide on the internet today. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- --Nathan

2 1

booklet-bus-97
by health711＠cyberpromo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fuck_You_Nerds, I just thought I would write you a short note,to tell you about a free booklet I discovered.I ordered and I can not believe the fun and money I am making.All you need to do is send them a self addressed stamped envelope to homebusiness 870 market street #450 San Francisco,Calif. 94102.Find it out for yourself.Available in 34 countries warmest regards & Happy Holidays Ellen

2 1

Cash - Covenience and privacy over the threat of being mugged
by varange＠crl.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> It's that wonderful season again, when all the assholes > are out in force, and people feel obligated to purchase > merchandise to give to each other. For various reasons, > I don't believe in credit cards, and yet, trying to pay for > something by personal check at the local Hecht's, they either > *require* a credit card, or go through the Nazi check-warranty > company Equifax. Why not just carry sufficient cash for your purchasing needs? Irrational fear of muggers I guess is the primary reason not to carry around, say, $500.00 cash. But if you were mugged for that much, wouldn't you feel worse about the mugging itself than the actual loss of the money? I doubt the mere carrying of greater amounts of cash makes someone more likely to be mugged than someone carrying nothing. So it boils down to whether you think it's better to use the inconvenience and invasion of privacy of credit cards and/or checks and getting them stolen over convenience and privacy of cash and getting an anonymous $500.00 cash stolen. (You also can *sign* your cash to help trace thefts. I used to do this when hanging around disreputable charactors. Hell, drug dealers will accept your money if you wrote down his identification and "Crack Bill of Sale" in magic marker on every bill.) > Is it legal to require credit cards? Yes. BTW, my uncle was mugged at Provo Park for thirty five cents and my front windshield of my car was smashed in for the fifty cents in open view between the passenger seats. You know those ancient mono AM only radios that are almost always broken down in old cars? Yep, had a window smashed and the worthless radio stolen. In another vehicle that was even shittier looking I never locked the doors and nothing was ever stolen; the radio and cassette player actually worked! Merry bloody crassmus. -- Cheers!

1 0

RE: [NOT NOISE] Microsoft Crypto Service Provider API
by Blake Coverett 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Not quite. The API comes with a program SIGN.EXE that will create a > "debugging signature" for your CSP, and a new ADVAPI32.DLL, described as > a "Modified advapi32.dll to load providers that are signed with > sign.exe." So the patch point is a bit more accessable than inside the > kernel. Maybe the "Modified advapi32.dll" should find its way offshore? Even better than exporting the hacked advapi32.dll, compare the it with the original one. I'd bet good money that the only difference is the contents of the RC_DATA/#102 resource attached to the image. (It's useful to note that the advapi32.dll from versions of NT before CryptoAPI doesn't have any RC_DATA resources.) And to think MS was good enough to provide an UpdateResource API that I haven't yet had a good reason to use. > Interestingly enough, CSP signatures are held in the registry instead of > the binary, necessitating some install procedure for a given CSP. Not > to start rumors, but NT 4.0 does use threads to watch some registry > entries that control the version (workstation/server). Not much of a > stretch to imagine a thread that tracks (reports?) changes to Nope, a little experimentation shows you can change those entries while the system is running to your hearts contents. Try temporarily renaming the signature key of the base provider. regards, -Blake

1 0

Re: Legality of requiring credit cards? (fwd)
by Peter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:51 PM 12/23/96 -0500, you wrote: > Equifax does business by tracking reputations, as do all credit > reporting companies. That's how a free market handles bad checks. Even worse is an outfit called Telecheck. All they do is see if you have a listed telephone number. Since I do not give out my telephone number, and it is unlisted, an autobody shop refused to accept my check, and I ended up having to use a credit card. The idiot teller refused to call the bank to check my balance. What does a listed telephone number have to do with ability to pay?

1 0

Vandalism in New York City
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Xmas day vandals overturned 75 headstones in the Calvary Cemetry in Long Island City, near the residence of Earthweb's associate network administator Ray "Arsenic" Arachelian. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1