"R. A. Hettinga" wrote:
>
> At 10:16 AM -0800 on 11/29/00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
