December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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