Re: Blinded Identities [was Re: exporting signatures only/CAPI]
At 04:28 PM 10/13/96 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
It is unpublished, but he kindly allowed to me describe it in a paper I wrote that discussed whether a bank would ever want to take the risk of allowing bank accounts where it did not know the identity of the customer.
Why should that be a problem? It's the customer's money, isn't it? It's not like the bank is making a loan. It's the customer who should be worried...about the bank's identity. Remember "plausible denial." Shouldn't we believe that if a bank cannot know its customer, likewise it isn't responsible for who that customer is? A bank's legitimate interests should not include acting as enforcer for the government, so any system that prevents this from happening is helpful. And I don't think that a bank can ever be embarrassed (assuming bank accounts are anonymous) by it being revealed that some particular bad guy kept his money there, any more than other cash-based (anonymous) businesses are embarrassed if it is revealed that some bad guy used their services. Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote:
At 04:28 PM 10/13/96 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
It is unpublished, but he kindly allowed to me describe it in a paper I wrote that discussed whether a bank would ever want to take the risk of allowing bank accounts where it did not know the identity of the customer.
And I don't think that a bank can ever be embarrassed (assuming bank accounts are anonymous) by it being revealed that some particular bad guy kept his money there, any more than other cash-based (anonymous) businesses are embarrassed if it is revealed that some bad guy used their services.
I would refer you to Union Bank of Switzerland in the late 80's (kidnapping), BCCI (drug and intelligence money), BMI (drug money/offshore insurance fraud), PNC Bank (accounting fraud), and a host of others I won't bother to list. Banks do suffer from these disclosures, in many cases quite severely. (PNC bank was nearly ruined by their fraud harboring disclosures). Why exactly is it that you think frauds, seizures, compelled customer referrals and the like go unreported to the authorities in something like 75% of the cases? Why exactly is it that you think banks seek to open offshore branches with autonomy and distance from the home branches? Answer: Banking is as much about confidence as any business can be. Anonymous or not, the presence of funds which infringe on regulations in one area or another are frightening to normal banking customers. I know it's a lot to ask, but please stick to areas you know please, rather than making up facts to support your arguments.
Jim Bell jimbell@pacifier.com
-- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn@schloss.li
In <Pine.SUN.3.94.961014035114.28315K-100000@polaris>, on 10/14/96 at 04:01 AM, Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> said: .On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote: . [drivel deleted] .> .> Jim Bell .> jimbell@pacifier.com .> . [meat deleted...] . .I know it's a lot to ask, but please stick to areas you know please, rather .than making up facts to support your arguments. yes, Jim, there is a Santa Claus, but not every situation can be solved by AP, not even the long arm of a corrupt law. -- "We don't want to get our butts kicked by a bunch of long-haired 26-year-olds with earrings." --General John Sheehan on their reasons for InfoWar involvement
In <Pine.SUN.3.94.961014035114.28315K-100000@polaris>, on 10/14/96 at 04:01 AM, Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> said:
On Sun, 13 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote:
At 04:28 PM 10/13/96 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
It is unpublished, but he kindly allowed to me describe it in a paper I wrote that discussed whether a bank would ever want to take the risk of allowing bank accounts where it did not know the identity of the customer.
And I don't think that a bank can ever be embarrassed (assuming bank accounts are anonymous) by it being revealed that some particular bad guy kept his money there, any more than other cash-based (anonymous) businesses are embarrassed if it is revealed that some bad guy used their services.
I would refer you to Union Bank of Switzerland in the late 80's (kidnapping), BCCI (drug and intelligence money), BMI (drug money/offshore insurance fraud), PNC Bank (accounting fraud), and a host of others I won't bother to list. Banks do suffer from these disclosures, in many cases quite severely. (PNC bank was nearly ruined by their fraud harboring disclosures). Why exactly is it that you think frauds, seizures, compelled customer referrals and the like go unreported to the authorities in something like 75% of the cases? Why exactly is it that you think banks seek to open offshore branches with autonomy and distance from the home branches? Answer: Banking is as much about confidence as any business can be. Anonymous or not, the presence of funds which infringe on regulations in one area or another are frightening to normal banking customers.
BULL!!!! There are only two things the banking customers care about: 1. Will my money be there in the morning? 2. What is my rate of return? The rest of it is a bunch of Govenment & Media hype & bull shit!! -- ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting WebExplorer & Java Enhanced!!! Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of PGPMR2 - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice Look for MR/2 Tips & Rexx Scripts Get Work Place Shell for Windows!! PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info ----------------------------------------------------------- *MR/2 ICE: Windows? Homey don't play that!
On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, William H. Geiger III wrote:
In <Pine.SUN.3.94.961014035114.28315K-100000@polaris>, on 10/14/96 at 04:01 AM, Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> said:
Banking is as much about confidence as any business can be. Anonymous or not, the presence of funds which infringe on regulations in one area or another are frightening to normal banking customers.
BULL!!!!
There are only two things the banking customers care about:
1. Will my money be there in the morning?
2. What is my rate of return?
Both of these are affected by large scandals at banks. In the case of the first example, runs on banks are hardly unheard of in relation to major and even somewhat minor revelations about the source of deposit funds where that source is criminal. (Again, I cite Union Bank of Switzerland which saw a three day run of almost $200 million after disclosures about UBS accounts which were used for kidnapping randsom. DeBeers was one depositor which explicitly attributed their account closures to the news). The rate of return is directly affected by costs to the bank. Legal costs (even in Switzerland) of defending against government and private party discovery and compelled disclosure are severe. Need I even discuss the cost to the "legitimate" BCCI account holder? And if customers are unconcerned about elements ther than #1 and #2, why are such pains taken to invest in offshore institutions where the costs (in sweat alone) can be higher?
The rest of it is a bunch of Govenment & Media hype & bull shit!!
The above incidents are easily found with a quick trip to the library. The bottom line is that until anonyminity is not seen as some kind of invariably criminal act with respect to banking, legitimate and illegitimate money will be as like charged particles. Next time, stick to web consulting.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting WebExplorer & Java Enhanced!!! Cooking With Warp 4.0
-- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn@schloss.li
In <Pine.SUN.3.94.961015211026.16787C-100000@polaris>, on 10/15/96 at 09:20 PM, Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> said:
On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, William H. Geiger III wrote:
In <Pine.SUN.3.94.961014035114.28315K-100000@polaris>, on 10/14/96 at 04:01 AM, Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> said:
Banking is as much about confidence as any business can be. Anonymous or not, the presence of funds which infringe on regulations in one area or another are frightening to normal banking customers.
BULL!!!!
There are only two things the banking customers care about:
1. Will my money be there in the morning?
2. What is my rate of return?
Both of these are affected by large scandals at banks.
scandals=unwarranted media hype. True scandals of interest to the investment & banking community are along the lines of fraud, theft, embezzlement, poor or risky investment. Items that directly relate to 1 & 2. The S&L debacle in the US during the 80's is a good example. The rest is just crap to either: A: Sell more newspapers, and/or B: Increase government power.
In the case of the first example, runs on banks are hardly unheard of in relation to major and even somewhat minor revelations about the source of deposit funds where that source is criminal. (Again, I cite Union Bank of Switzerland which saw a three day run of almost $200 million after disclosures about UBS accounts which were used for kidnapping randsom. DeBeers was one depositor which explicitly attributed their account closures to the news).
The rate of return is directly affected by costs to the bank. Legal costs (even in Switzerland) of defending against government and private party discovery and compelled disclosure are severe. Need I even discuss the cost to the "legitimate" BCCI account holder?
What about the cost to Switzerland's banking industry due to the fact that they nolonger uphold their investors anonyminity?? Their industry has lost Billions due to their cow-towing to US and other governments snooping into investors accounts. What "cost" does that have to the account holders of their banks??
And if customers are unconcerned about elements ther than #1 and #2, why are such pains taken to invest in offshore institutions where the costs (in sweat alone) can be higher?
Because it is justified by avoiding government interference in their financial activities which in the long run increases their rate of return well above the added cost of doing so.
The rest of it is a bunch of Govenment & Media hype & bull shit!!
The above incidents are easily found with a quick trip to the library.
<sigh> Why so I can re-read the unwarranted media & government attacks on banking institutions because, god forbid, they actually took someone's money without running them over the coals first. Dam those nasty banks all to hell, they don't report every transaction of their investors to every government that may be interested.
The bottom line is that until anonyminity is not seen as some kind of invariably criminal act with respect to banking, legitimate and illegitimate money will be as like charged particles.
No the bottom line is money is money. Their is no such thing as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" money. Banks should not be forced to play policemen, their job is processing money. Next time, get a CLUE.
Next time, stick to web consulting. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Who died an made you god of the banking industry?? Last time I looked Walter Wriston was still alive and well. :) (Incase you are too clueless to know who that is I am sure a trip to your local library should help.) -- ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting WebExplorer & Java Enhanced!!! Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of PGPMR2 - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice Look for MR/2 Tips & Rexx Scripts Get Work Place Shell for Windows!! PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. Finger whgiii@amaranth.com for PGP Key and other info ----------------------------------------------------------- *MR/2 ICE: What I like about MS is its loyalty to customers!
On Wed, 16 Oct 1996, William H. Geiger III wrote:
In <Pine.SUN.3.94.961015211026.16787C-100000@polaris>, on 10/15/96 at 09:20 PM, Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> said:
On Mon, 14 Oct 1996, William H. Geiger III wrote:
In <Pine.SUN.3.94.961014035114.28315K-100000@polaris>, on 10/14/96 at 04:01 AM, Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li> said:
Banking is as much about confidence as any business can be. Anonymous or not, the presence of funds which infringe on regulations in one area or another are frightening to normal banking customers.
BULL!!!!
There are only two things the banking customers care about:
1. Will my money be there in the morning?
2. What is my rate of return?
Both of these are affected by large scandals at banks.
scandals=unwarranted media hype.
True scandals of interest to the investment & banking community are along the lines of fraud, theft, embezzlement, poor or risky investment. Items that directly relate to 1 & 2. The S&L debacle in the US during thethththe80's is a good example.
The rest is just crap to either:
A: Sell more newspapers, and/or
B: Increase government power.
Your point what that customers do not care. I gave examples showing they clearly do care. The fact that disclosures of questionable banking l practices cause customers to move their money is the active issue. While these may result in A and B above, that is entirely irrelevant.
In the case of the first example, runs on banks are hardly unheard of in relation to major and even somewhat minor revelations about the source of deposit funds where that source is criminal. (Again, I cite Union Bank of Switzerland which saw a three day run of almost $200 million after disclosures about UBS accounts which were used for kidnapping randsom. DeBeers was one depositor which explicitly attributed their account closures to the news).
The rate of return is directly affected by costs to the bank. Legal costs (even in Switzerland) of defending against government and private party discovery and compelled disclosure are severe. Need I even discuss the cost to the "legitimate" BCCI account holder?
What about the cost to Switzerland's banking industry due to the fact that they nolonger uphold their investors anonyminity?? Their industry has lost Billions due to their cow-towing to US and other governments snooping into investors accounts. What "cost" does that have to the account holders of their banks??
I'm not sure why this has anything to do with my assertion that anonymous money, when connected to regulation infringing conduct, tends to repell banking customers with "legitimate" sources, except perhaps that you felt you had to do a little grandstanding. For the record I agree that Switzerland's curtailing of banking secrecy has driven out some money, but bear in mind that it has also brough a lot of money in. To state, by the way, that Switzerland no longer upholds investor anonyminity (or depositor anonyminity) is an innaccuracy and an oversimplification. This is not to say that I like the trend, just pointing out that you have managed to skew the facts.
And if customers are unconcerned about elements ther than #1 and #2, why are such pains taken to invest in offshore institutions where the costs (in sweat alone) can be higher?
Because it is justified by avoiding government interference in their financial activities which in the long run increases their rate of return well above the added cost of doing so.
What connection might this have to the threat of increased regulation by the banking authorities or the SBA due to large scale public disclosures of questionable banking practices? The answer is left as an exercise to the student.
The rest of it is a bunch of Govenment & Media hype & bull shit!!
The above incidents are easily found with a quick trip to the library.
<sigh> Why so I can re-read the unwarranted media & government attacks on banking institutions because, god forbid, they actually took someone's money without running them over the coals first. Dam those nasty banks all to hell, they don't report every transaction of their investors to every government that may be interested.
The bottom ne is that until anonyminity is not seen as some kind of invariably criminal act with respect to banking, legitimate and illegitimate money will be as like charged particles.
No the bottom line is money is money. Their is no such thing as "legitimate" or "illegitimate" money. Banks should not be forced to play
No, so you can verify that banks suffer losses following the disclosure of questionable banking practices like randsom payoffs. policemen, their job is processing money. Where, by the way, did I indicated otherwise? And, incidently, the terms legitimate and illegitimate money are related, in my view, only to the presence of regulation, not the moral or ethical standing of the funds themselves.
Next time, get a CLUE.
Given the woeful lack of facts and misconceptions you expose in your own knowledge, I think you might wish to reconsider your own position and then revisit the above line.
Next time, stick to web consulting. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Who died an made you god of the banking industry?? Last time I looked Walter Wriston was still alive and well. :) (Incase you are too clueless to know who that is I am sure a trip to your local library should help.)
Walter Wriston [sic] is in much disfavor in the banking industry just now. Attempts at name dropping aside, my invitation for you to do a bit more research on banking and the actual nature of anonymous banking is renewed.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii
-- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn@schloss.li
participants (4)
-
attila -
Black Unicorn -
jim bell -
William H. Geiger III