"R. A. Hettinga" wrote:
At 10:16 AM -0800 on 11/29/00, obvious@beta.freedom.net wrote:
In fact if anything this kind of prosecution is an argument *against* getting into the ecash/ecredential business, especially if it is focused on porn as some have proposed. All you need is for someone to use it to sell or authorize access to kiddie porn, and you're going to jail.
It would be interesting to see this tested in court. There is sizeable legal precedent for the issuers of bearer cash, say a nation-state, not being held liable for purchases using that cash. The same could be said for issuers of bearer credentials.
Not a good comparison. The nation-states which issue the currency are also the nation-states which make the laws and have (or attempt to have) a monopoly on guns. How well are or were private currencies insulated from legal action? Say, in 19th-century United States? -- Steve Furlong, Computer Condottiere Have GNU, will travel 617-670-3793 sfurlong@acmenet.net