Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

If selling 99 stamps is legal, I'm not inciting them to crime, I'm selling them the maximum allowable amount that isn't a crime. Similar with conspiracy and organized crime.

And yeah, these loopholes don't work because people tried them and now counterfeiting one stamp is illegal. That's my point.




They're hiring a unique person per batch, who gets paid tens of dollars at most, and none of them are willing to say who hired them?


My other post makes my actual point, this is just for fun.

Imagine I own a setup that allows me to produce counterfeit stamps. Every fifteen minutes I make 99 and then place them for sale. I sell them, then make 99 new counterfeit stamps and repeat the process.

All the risk is offloaded to anyone that buys more than 99 stamps, while the person capable of making them is safe barring some sort of mistake. All their money comes from a legal sale, meaning they're under no obligation to make sure their customer isn't reselling the stamps. So if the middle men gets arrested, the operation can continue immediately.

Yes, I can think of issues too, like eventually they stake out your location (though they'd probably need warrants of some sort.) I still think it shows that allowing someone to counterfeit 99 stamps opens loopholes the current law stops.

Oh, and from your other post, there are $9 and $30 stamps, meaning this method could counterfeit over $10,000 an hour.


So ignoring that you're the only one that suggested smaller batches would be entirely legal:

All a prosecutor needs to do is show that you made two batches. If you make a batch every 15 minutes, how do you expect not to get caught?

If they catch the middleman delivering two batches, and the middleman snitches, you're done. Or even if they have one batch, but they get offered a reward to say where they got it. Then the authorities only need to get evidence you made 1 more stamp.

And don't tell me you're going to sell to a brand new middleman every 15 minutes.


No, my entire thing has always been based on possession being the crime. The current law is written to outlaw creation too, but I don't see how that could stay if creating 99 counterfeits is legal, as proving this was the 100th counterfeit you made would be a challenge.

Even if the middleman flipped, unless you made them in front of them you could say you got them from someone else.

Yes, they may eventually be able to pin it on you, but under the current system they can instantly charge anyone that is a serious counterfeiter and ignore someone who counterfeit one stamp. They don't need to bother making someone flip then somehow proving you've made at least 100 stamps.

I will say, this explains most of our disagreement, with a bit more coming from my opinion that making this a misdemeanor would still allow some abuse, depending on the punishments.

And I'm done, I no longer find this fun. I don't think the current law is being used to unjustly punish people, and that's good enough for me.


> No, my entire thing has always been based on possession being the crime.

Then why did you say "if the law only forbid counterfeiting 100 stamps"??

I'm done too, because my entire argument was based on what you actually said, not what you secretly meant and never clarified.

Also the "unless you made them in front of them" excuse about proof could be applied to making even 1. You're grasping at straws to make conviction sound more difficult than it is.


This may shock you, but I spent about twenty seconds on my original comment. I certainly didn't have an editor go over it to ensure my actual point of view was getting across. Hell, you can see the edit I made showing when I realized we may be talking past eachother with possess/create.


> I spent about twenty seconds on my original comment.

You then kept defending it.

> you can see the edit I made

Even after that, you were still insisting there were loopholes.


>Even after that, you were still insisting there were loopholes.

After clarifying my position, I figured you'd either reply with "yes, we were on different wavelengths" or you'd accept we were talking about possession. So when you continued, I assumed you were talking about possession too. My mistake.


That's why I referred back to "the original", but you misunderstood what I meant there.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: