Questions About Money Pens

[Beady]

Quite a few countries are looking at plastic money. I think most of them are watching Australia to see how well it works before commiting to it. Good luck, guinea pigs.

I've got a few Aussie bills. I keep them in a fire safe, along with some European currency and some Saddam-period Iraqui currency. In the event of a fire the paper stuff will probably survive, but the Aussie money may well melt beyond recognition.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, it isn't. It may merely mean, among other things, that the pens haven't received formal evaluation. Not receiving a mention is not the same as being not recommended. All that not being mentioned means is that they are not mentioned.

So not recomending something is not the same thing as that thing being not recomended?

And your example of reflexology is wrong, since it is well-known (at least here) that reflexology has failed every test.

But I was talking about drawing conclusions from the AMA's advice on treating something. Their not recomending reflexology you are prefectly willing to concider that they concider reflexology as not recomended?

My own analogy is a drug that is approved for use by other nations' health system but has yet to be evaluated in this country. It will not be mentioned as a current remedy, but that does not mean that it is ineffective.

And if it was readily available and easily to say if it had been helpful in having them catch counterfiters. This isn't something that requires expensive double blind testing, you can just look at your convictions and see what resulted from the use of the pen. They know if it works or not, do not recomend it, so I take their lack of recomendation to mean it is not recomended.

Wow I think that is the most I have used recomend at one time.

 

[Beady]

This isn't something that requires expensive double blind testing, you can just look at your convictions and see what resulted from the use of the pen.

Where may I find a tabulation of the convictions?

So not recomending something is not the same thing as that thing being not recomended?

As in an actual statement saying, "Use of these pens is not recommended." Correct.

 

[drkitten]

As in an actual statement saying, "Use of these pens is not recommended." Correct.

I doubt that the USSS will would any such policy statement; if they did, the pen manufacturer would get its panties in a twist and write nasty letters to their local Congressmen. Furthermore, it's not like the pens are actually harmful in any substantive way, and it's not really their concern if you want to waste your own money. The organization responsible for dealing with frauds of this sort is the FTC -- and at least the "money pen" raises awareness of the issue.

I guess I'm not really understanding what you're aiming at here. If you aren't sure whether or not the money pen works.... well, you can either take my word for it that it doesn't, or you can look at the total mass of non-evidence for a working money pen and compare it to the mass of non-evidence for Bigfoot and make your own call there. If you're not sure whether or not the USSS believes in them -- well, again, you can take my word for it, or you can call the local USSS office yourself (they're usually in the book). But the USSS aren't like James Randi -- they have work to do other than woo-busting.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Where may I find a tabulation of the convictions?

They are probably not readily available to the public, and you would have to do such investigations your self.

As in an actual statement saying, "Use of these pens is not recommended." Correct.

So you would want something like that for any possible thing that might be sold to detect counterfit bills? I need to make some downsing rods to detect counterfits so that I can say that their use is recomended just as strongly as the use of the pens by the secret service.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I doubt that the USSS will would any such policy statement; if they did, the pen manufacturer would get its panties in a twist and write nasty letters to their local Congressmen. Furthermore, it's not like the pens are actually harmful in any substantive way, and it's not really their concern if you want to waste your own money. The organization responsible for dealing with frauds of this sort is the FTC -- and at least the "money pen" raises awareness of the issue.

I guess I'm not really understanding what you're aiming at here. If you aren't sure whether or not the money pen works.... well, you can either take my word for it that it doesn't, or you can look at the total mass of non-evidence for a working money pen and compare it to the mass of non-evidence for Bigfoot and make your own call there. If you're not sure whether or not the USSS believes in them -- well, again, you can take my word for it, or you can call the local USSS office yourself (they're usually in the book). But the USSS aren't like James Randi -- they have work to do other than woo-busting.

Hey the secret sevice have not official put out that they don't recomend beleiveing in bigfoot so it must be OK.

 

[Beady]

I guess I'm not really understanding what you're aiming at here.

The primary aim is verification of whether the SS, or any other competent authority, has taken any official notice of these pens, whether pro, con, provisional or neutral. You did, after all, imply with some claim to authority that the Secret Service has an opinion: " I can confirm that as of August, 2006, the US Secret Service -- which, btw, is the organization in the United States responsible for dealing with counterfeiting -- has not revised its opinion upwards." I am trying to verify whether such an opinion actually exists.

...or you can look at the total mass of non-evidence for a working money pen...

Is absence of evidence evidence of absence? There are claims that they work; all I'm asking for is evidence whether these claims have been evaluated. So far, the only verifiable statements I've seen are that they have been known to fail, and that they can be made to fail. Where are the authoratative statements saying that they don't work?

 

[Meffy]

Scrooge McDuck has a money pen. Well, a money swimming pool, actually -- is that near enough?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

In this case yes. The Secret Service has as one of its goals making it so that everyone can tell the difference between a genuine and a counterfeit note. They also are a repository for all counterfeit notes discovered as well as the primary law enforcement body dealing with counterfeiting.

So combining these things, when they do not recomend its use, it is rather like they do not recomend useing dowsing to detect counterfeits.

I find it unlikely that the pens would ever detect any note not readily able to be differentiated by anyone by feel(the way most counterfeits are detected).

So as these are used enough and any hit they would know about, not listing it in their suggestions on how to differentiate true notes from counterfeits is significant.

The point is this, if the pens worked particularly well the secret service would recomend them as a partial technique for detecting counterfeits. As they recomend other techniques for detecting counterfeits it is clear that they do not recomend its use.

They don't have to say it, and actualy saying it would cause problems. So it is only people like you who feel people need to be told an explicit list of what not to do, in addition to being told what to do that have problems understanding this.

 

[drkitten]

Is absence of evidence evidence of absence?

Sometimes, when there's reasonable ground for assuming that the evidence would be there if it existed. Technically speaking, I have only an absence of evidence that there are bears in my refrigerator. But I also know that there's no possible way an animal the size of a bear could be in my fridge without leaving physical traces.

Therefore, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, in this specific case.

Now look at the USSS, its organization and goals, and tell me what reasonable assumptions you can make about it....

 

[Beady]

The Secret Service has as one of its goals making it so that everyone can tell the difference between a genuine and a counterfeit note.

I wasn't aware that this was within the realm of its legal mandate. Nevertheless, since the public is manifestly under the impression that these pens do work, by your own statement the SS would be negligent to not issue some sort of statement disabusing them of the notion.

I find it unlikely...

How much weight does that carry?

So as these are used enough and any hit they would know about, not listing it in their suggestions on how to differentiate true notes from counterfeits is significant.

Just as significant as doing nothing to correct the prevailing public impression.

As they recomend other techniques for detecting counterfeits it is clear that they do not recomend its use.

Is that the same as recommending that they not be used?

They don't have to say it, and actualy saying it would cause problems.

So, it causes trouble if the Secret Service makes the statement, but not when the Federal Reserve makes it (SwissSkeptic, 6:20 AM, today, above)?

 

[Beady]

Therefore, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, in this specific case.

You're wrong:

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) establishes a presumption that records in the possession of agencies and departments of the Executive Branch of the U. S. Government are accessible to the people. <snip> Above all, FOIA requires federal agencies to provide the fullest possible disclosure of information to the public.

My emphasis. They must publicly post what they know about those pens. They haven't posted anything, so absence of evidence, by law, means nothing in this specific case.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, I believe I can safely assume that they must, by law, post whatever information they have about those pens:



My emphasis.

Um they don't have to post it, they might have to send you anything that you submitted the forms for. The information is available if someone wanted to spend enough days tracking it down.

 

[Beady]

Um they don't have to post it, they might have to send you anything that you submitted the forms for. The information is available if someone wanted to spend enough days tracking it down.

FOIA requires federal agencies to provide the fullest possible disclosure

ETA: In fairness, I was editing my reply while you were responding. I don't believe it changed the context.

ETA: Your response makes no sense, in light of your contention that one of the SS's goals is to educate the public.

 

[drkitten]

You're wrong:

My emphasis. They must publicly post what they know about those pens. They haven't posted anything, so absence of evidence, by law, means nothing in this specific case.

My god, that's total gibberish.

Er, no. I don't think there's a single sentence in there that is correct. I don't think you could have gotten more wrong if you had been labouring for weeks in a high production Wrong mine with a power drill and a mission statement. The Canadian Federal Government couldn't generate that much Wrong in a month, even by tapping in to the National Wrong Reserves and borrowing heavily from the Australian Minstry of Wrongness. If Oxford University ever wants to establish a Regius Professor of Wrong, I think you're the man.....

Did I mention that your understanding of the FOIA procedures may not be entirely correct?

If there's information that you want from the (US) government, FOIA provides a method for you to ask, and the goverment is required to dig it up and send it to you (barring a few specialized circumstances). They are under no obligation to proactively dig up whatever information someone might ask for that they have and to broadcast it to the four winds in the pious hope that it will eventually reach the right person.

Just as an example : how many Federal Judges were born in July? Were more born in July than in August? How does this vary from Circuit to Circuit? Which Circuit has the highest percentage of Judges whose phone numbers are prime?

The answers to all of those questions are (I believe) a matter of public record, but I can't imagine any sensible person asking them. If I were to ask, some poor bastard would be detailed to comb the records and send them to me -- but I can't imagine any sensible person asking. And for this reason among many others, FOIA limits the government's responsibility to responding to queries.

As your citation itself says : "This means that an agency is only required to look for an existing record or documents in response to a FOIA request."

If no one wants a record or document, they don't need to publish it.

An agency is neither required to collect information it does not have, nor must an agency do research or analyze data for a requester.

If the information you want is requires collection/analysis -- for example, "how many cases of X," they don't have to waste time themselves running the numbesr.

Requesters must ask for existing records.

If they don't have the information, they need not make a special effort to dig it up from outside.

The other limitation is that the law requires that each request must reasonably describe the record being sought. The request must be specific enough to permit a professional employee of the agency who is familiar with the subject matter to locate the record in a reasonable period of time.

It has to be a specific enough question that they can answer it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

FOIA requires federal agencies to provide the fullest possible disclosure

ETA: In fairness, I was editing my reply while you were responding. I don't believe it changed the context.

ETA: Your response makes no sense, in light of your contention that one of the SS's goals is to educate the public.

The one has nothing to do with the other. They want people to know how to properly identify money. This pen can be fooled by hairspray or by haveing your money in your pocket when you wash your pants.

It is highly inaccurate and not something that they need to tell people about.

Their goal in education is to inform people how to determine true bills from fake ones. THey do not have an obligation to put every paper they have online. It is like trial records you can go look them up but they are not online and there are good reasons for that.

So while having a stance on this might be a good thing, it would be problematic becuase it would have to be clear enough to make everyone understand it. As it is they simply don't mention them, and assume that people think then that this is not an endorsement of said product.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Just as an example : how many Federal Judges were born in July? Were more born in July than in August? How does this vary from Circuit to Circuit? Which Circuit has the highest percentage of Judges whose phone numbers are prime?

The phone number one is probably not public record for security reasons.

 

[drkitten]

The phone number one is probably not public record for security reasons.

I believe that all Federal Judges have a (public) phone number. Even the White House does : 202-456-1414. Of course, it just goes to a GS-0 flunky who asks where s/he can direct your call, I'm sure.

 

[Beady]

They want people to know how to properly identify money. This pen can be fooled by hairspray or by haveing your money in your pocket when you wash your pants.quote]

And that's not a good thing to tell the public. I see.

 

[Meffy]

I believe that all Federal Judges have a (public) phone number. Even the White House does : 202-456-1414. Of course, it just goes to a GS-0 flunky who asks where s/he can direct your call, I'm sure.

Close, very close. In fact the line is picked up by a GS-0 flunky who assigns a Presidential Nickname from a list provided by Bush... then asks where to direct the call.