Asset Protection BLOG - Mark Nestmann

Is Anything a Secret in the UK?

No, I don't have anything against the United Kingdom.  And I realize that only last week I wrote about how local authorities are using anti-terrorism laws to prosecute dog owners for not cleaning up dog poop.  But a new initiative from the U.K. Office for National Statistics (ONS) takes the proverbial cake.

The intrepid bureaucrats at the ONS have devised a new sex survey.  They're fanning out across the United Kingdom to make random visits to over 200,000 homes.  The survey has 2,000 questions about your sex life.  (No, that's not a misprint.)

Among other minutiae, the government wants to know who you have sex with, what toys you use while you have sex, if you insert any devices into your body cavities during sex, and details of your past sexual relationships.  The cost of this survey comes to a little under US$7 million annually.

And the benefits?  Well, the ONS will be able to release revealing snapshots of British sexual practices, such as this one from the ONS press release that revealed that one in eight women between the ages of 16 and 50 and one in six men under 70 had not had sex in the past year.

Once you answer the 2,000-question survey, there won't be much if anything private in your life if you live in the United Kingdom.  The government knows you name, your address, where you work, your phone numbers, your national insurance number, and your bank account numbers.  It also has the details of your mortgage, credit rating, car registration, and any arrests and convictions you have on file.  Through a nationwide network of closed circuit cameras, officials can follow you pretty much anywhere you go.

And now, thanks to this survey, that includes your bedroom. 

Can the Brits top this?  I don't see how—but I'll be watching, too.  Not your bedroom, but for evidence of the next taxpayer-financed boondoggle.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

A Moment of Panic

I pride myself on being prepared for just about anything when it comes to my laptop PC.  I've successfully my data after dropping it on a concrete floor, shorting out the keyboard, and corrupting the hard drive.

But this morning, I came close to panic.  OK, it was panic, although only for a moment.

Yesterday evening, I installed the newest version of PGP Desktop, the flagship personal encryption product from PGP (http://www.pgp.com).  (The PGP line of encryption products originated in the work of legendary programmer Phil Zimmerman, who almost went to jail in the mid-1990s for creating an encryption product the U.S. government couldn't break.)

Everything went smoothly.  After installing the program, I began what PGP calls "Whole Disk Encryption."  That means that the laptop will start up only after you enter the correct PGP "passphrase" into a dialog box. 

No problem there.  I created a passphrase that was easy for me to remember, and hopefully, hard for anyone else to guess.  Then I did something you're not supposed to do—I wrote down the passphrase on a piece of paper in case I forgot it.  My intention was to shred that piece of paper this morning, after making certain that I had memorized the passphrase.

This morning, after a mug of the overly-strong coffee I'm so fond of, I sat down at the laptop and turned it on.  As I expected, the PGP dialog box appeared and asked me for the passphrase.  I entered it, but the program told me I had entered in an incorrect passphrase.

That's when the moment of panic set in.  I typed every conceivable variation of the passphrase I could think of, at least 30 in all.  None of them unlocked my laptop. 

I knew from reading the PGP user guide that if I couldn’t recall the exact passphrase, the only choice I would have would be to reformat my entire hard drive.  S**t!!!!

And remember that piece of paper?  Apparently, the passphrase I wrote on it wasn't the one I actually used to encrypt the hard disk.  Double s**t! 

What to do?  The only alternative was to keep trying different passphrases until one opened up the disk.  Then I remembered that I had considered—and I thought rejected—a slightly shorter passphrase than the one I actually used to encrypt the hard drive.  Could I have mistakenly used that one?

I entered that combination of letters, numbers, and symbols on the keyboard and briefly held my breath.  The hard drive opened up normally, and I was back in business.

The moral of this story, of course, is do as I say, not as I do, to wit: DON'T FORGET YOUR PASSPHRASE!! 
And of course, don't panic, unless there's a very good reason. 

Copyright © by Mark Nestmann

Bermuda's Squeaky-Clean Image Smeared in Scandals

Bermuda, perhaps more than any other offshore center, has for decades sought to create for itself a reputation as a "respectable" offshore financial center. 

Unlike many competing jurisdictions, Bermuda never enacted a bank secrecy law.  It eschewed the idea of "asset protection trusts," basing its trust legislation on the time-tested provisions of English law, rather than the debtor-friendly legislation of offshore centers like the Cook Islands.  Professional and government fees for offshore services and structures were and continue to be significantly higher than most other jurisdictions. 

Bermuda also remained a British overseas territory, rather than opting for independence.   This provided assurance that British regulators, at least in theory, were overseeing Bermuda's offshore financial industry.

If it were only true.  Events in the last year have exposed corruption and money laundering on an immense scale.  Last month, the head of Britain's Committee of Public Accounts, Edward Leigh, called Bermuda's record "appalling." 

It's not hard to see why:

• In April 2007, authorities in the British Virgin Islands brought criminal charges against IPOC International Growth Fund, Ltd., a Bermuda-registered mutual fund.  The BVI accused IPOC of laundering money for a powerful Russian politician through the Bermuda Commercial Bank, one of Bermuda's largest and most respected banks. 
• In December 2007, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission brought securities fraud charges against Lines Overseas Management, headquartered in Bermuda.  LOM stands accused of receiving at least US$5.8 million from two stock manipulation schemes. 
• In August 2007, a local Bermuda newspaper reported that the prime minister, while serving in another ministry, obtained US$150,000 of publicly funded renovation on his home.  In connection with an alleged press leak, police arrested and detained the island's Auditor-General, whose responsibility is to oversee the government's financial affairs.

As a U.K overseas territory, Bermuda is subject to the dictates of the U.K. Parliament and the U.K. Foreign Office.  However, the U.K. authorities have generally not interfered in its offshore sector, as they have historically considered Bermuda to be a well-regulated jurisdiction.  For instance, while most other U.K. overseas territories are subject to the EU Savings Tax Directive, it wasn't extended to Bermuda.

That may now be changing, thanks to the ongoing series of scandals now rocking Bermuda.  I predict a much heavier regulatory hand being extended from the United Kingdom to Bermuda. 

However, there's little doubt that Bermuda's ueber-successful captive insurance, investment fund, and trust management sectors will continue to thrive.  Bermuda's financial infrastructure is also well developed, including numerous international law and accounting firms.

So, don't count Bermuda out of the offshore arena.  But the bloom is definitely off the rose.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

Feds to U.S. Border-Crossers: We Own Your Laptop

It's bad enough that when you cross a U.S. border, you must consent to an intrusive search of your luggage.  But now, courtesy of a decision from a federal appeals court, the government also has the right to copy everything on your laptop—and use it for whatever purpose it seems fit.

I wrote about an earlier decision along these lines over a year ago.  (Click here to read the posting).   As I wrote then, the ways that this new authority can be misused are too numerous to count—whatever information you carry with you on your laptop—banking records, client data, “adult” videos, you name it—now, in effect, must be shared with the U.S. government.

But now it's even worse: the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that customs officials don't even need "reasonable suspicion" (much less "probable cause") to "search a laptop or other personal electronic storage devices at the border."  That means in addition to your laptop, customs officials can search and copy data from your cell phone, Blackberry or any other electronic device without any evidence you've done anything wrong.

A search of a laptop is far more intrusive than a search of your luggage.  In some ways, it's even more intrusive than a body cavity search, which customs officials do require "reasonable suspicion" to conduct. 

Your body cavities may (or more likely may not) reveal any contraband.  But examining the data on your laptop may well reveal a detailed picture of your friends, your family, your professional associates, your interests, your financial status, and possibly much more.  As one attorney noted, "It really is like looking into someone's mind, rather than looking into a box or a folder or a purse."

One way to protect yourself from this type of intrusion is to encrypt all the data on your laptop, or even the hard disk itself, using a program like PGP Desktop (http://www.pgp.com). 

Unfortunately, that may not be an ideal solution, because customs officials may demand that you decrypt any encrypted files before they return your laptop.  If you refuse, they can confiscate the laptop and/or detain you until you agree to provide access to the unencrypted files.

A better solution may be to copy all the data on your laptop to a USB stick and send it via a courier service to your international destination.  Encrypt the data, of course, before you send it.  Then securely "wipe" any confidential information off your hard drive, along with the "free space," again using a program like PGP Desktop. 

If you carry your laptop through Customs, be sure to "sanitize" it.  First, encrypt and copy your data to a USB stick, then send it via courier to your destination.  Then, use a utility like Killdisk (http://www.killdisk.com) to securely wipe everything on your hard drive.  Then reinstall the operating system according to the instructions in Killdisk or whatever utility you use for this purpose.  (There are other possible “sanitation” solutions but none as good as this one.) 

If Customs asks you to inspect your laptop, let them.  The inspector won’t find anything but the operating system and standard system files.

(For more suggestions on protecting your privacy and wealth, click here.)

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

For sale in Thailand: Girls, Guns,…and Fake Passports

If you've got the money, and know where to look, just about anything you want—legal or illegal—is available in Bangkok.

In recent years, Thai police have cracked down against trade in drugs, prostitution, and weapons.  But one of the most profitable industries—the manufacture of fake passports—remained relatively unmolested, until now.

On April 26, authorities in Thailand arrested Mohammed Karim, a Bangladeshi man living in Bangkok, along with more than 1,000 finished and unfinished Malaysian, Singapore, Japanese, and U.S. passports—all of them fake.  This amounts to the largest confiscation of fake passports in at least five years. 

Karim allegedly sold the passports to middlemen who in turn sold them to gangs engaged in prostitution, terrorism, and smuggling.  The price was as low as US$95 per passport.

Thailand has a long history of passport fraud.  In 2005, authorities shut down much smaller fake passport ring and confiscated over 100 counterfeit documents.  And now this.  It makes you wonder why the U.S. Government printing Office chose Thailand, of all places, as its chosen location to assemble its supposedly state-of-the-art, ultra-secure electronic passports.  (I wrote about this decision here.) 

Fortunately, none of the faked U.S. passports were of the new electronic variety.  But given the fact that the company that developed key aspects of the new passports has accused the Chinese government of stealing its patented technology, it may just be a matter of time.

In the meantime, if you look in the right place, you may be offered the opportunity to purchase a fake passport.  Should you receive such an offer, don't take it.  If you're caught with a fraudulent passport, you could face not only loss of that document, but fines and imprisonment.

Fortunately, you have several options to obtain a legitimate second passport.  If you don't qualify on the basis of extended residence, ancestry, or marriage for a second passport, you can purchase a legitimate passport in exchange for an investment.  The Commonwealth of Dominica and the Federation of St. Kitts & Nevis are the only two countries that provide a legal mechanism for you to apply for economic citizenship, and, upon qualifying, make an investment in return for a passport.  (Click here to read more about these programs).

I'll be discussing economic citizenship programs at The Sovereign Society’s upcoming Total Wealth Symposium in Panama.  Mark your calendar for May 14-17, 2008.  For more information on this event, click here.

Hope to see you there!

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

Anti-Terrorism Law Used to Investigate Dog Poop

As wacky as some of the anti-terrorist initiatives that I've written about in the good ol' USA, they don't hold a candle to those advanced in the United Kingdom.

Case in point: the U.K.'s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).  When the U.K. Parliament enacted this law in 2000, proponents claimed it was urgently required to deal with "new technologies" allegedly used by terrorists, pedophiles, and the like.   

Among other provisions, this law:

• Allows the U.K. government to issue a secret demand for your e-mail and browsing records from your Internet Service Providers
• Facilitates mass surveillance of cellular phone calls
• Forces telecom companies to install equipment to facilitate mass surveillance
• Requires targeted individuals to hand over their encryption keys and passphrases

However, one of the lesser-known effects of theRIPA to enable local "Councils"—the U.K. equivalent of city governments in the United States—to conduct their own investigations using these same provisions.  The only limitation is that councils may not wiretap phones—this power is reserved for police and intelligence services.  Indeed, according to figures recently released by the U.K. Office of the Surveillance Commissioner, local councils initiate approximately 1,000 covert surveillance investigations each month.

Naturally, this authority is being used only to investigate extremely serious crimes.  Some of the "terrorist-related" offenses currently under investigation include:

• Pet owners failing to pick up dog poop allegedly left by their dogs
• The use of tobacco products by children under the age of 18
• Council residents failing to properly segregate their trash for recycling
• Parents lying on a child's application form for admission to an elite school
• Illegal dumping

This result should surprise no one.  "Surveillance creep" is a phenomenon I've long observed in laws originally enacted to fight serious crime.  Since such laws generally reduce the burden to obtain evidence, obtain a criminal conviction, or seize property, authorities naturally use the new law instead of older, more burdensome legislation. 

Nor is surveillance creep limited to the United Kingdom.  The USA PATRIOT Act, supposedly enacted to fight terrorism, is now routinely used in other types of criminal investigation.  U.S. civil forfeiture laws, enacted in the 1970s to crack down on drug kingpins, are now used to routinely to confiscate cash from unwitting motorists and others.  No criminal conviction is necessary.   

The only way to stop surveillance creep is to stop enacting laws that give governments carte blanche to take shortcuts in order to solve increasingly petty crimes.  In the meantime, if you live in the United Kingdom (or anywhere else), beware of sending e-mail.  A local council investigator may just be reading it, looking for evidence that you failed to clean up after your dog.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

Now Take That: Feds Put Billionaire Expat on No-Fly List

Each year, a few hundred Americans give up their U.S. nationality and passport.  It's a radical step, not to be taken lightly.  Most of those that do so have foreign-sounding names, as indicated by the list of expatriates published quarterly in the Federal Register.  Many in this group are presumably individuals who by circumstances of birth or parentage unintentionally became U.S. citizens.

It's not surprising that someone with no significant ties to the United States might wish to give up their U.S. nationality.  Among other responsibilities, U.S. citizenship brings about a legal obligation to comply with U.S. tax laws, filing an annual U.S. tax return, and paying U.S. tax on all income, anywhere in the world. 

But not expatriating Americans are accidental U.S. citizens.  Indeed, some very prominent Americans have given up their citizenship, including Sir John Templeton, chairman of The Templeton Group; Michael Dingman, chairman of Abex and a Ford Motor Co. director; Campbell Soup heir John Dorrance III; former Star-Kist Foods Chairman Joseph Bogdanovich; and Kenneth Dart, an heir to Dart Container and the US$1 billion Dart family fortune.

Why would a wealthy American give up U.S. citizenship?  For such Americans, the price of citizenship may require not only millions of dollars annually in tax payments, but also lost business and investment opportunities from the increasing number of individuals and institutions globally who refuse to do business with U.S. citizens or residents.  Laws like the USA PATRIOT Act, the Treasury Department's "qualified intermediary" rules" and the long arm of the Securities and Exchange Commission all contribute to this result.

However, expatriation is politically unpopular.  The image of former U.S. citizens living tax-free in some tropical paradise is an irresistible populist target.  As a result, anti-expatriation rules penalizing U.S. citizens and long-term residents who give up their citizenship or residence for tax avoidance reasons have been in effect for decades.  First imposed in the 1960s, the rules were tightened in 1996 and again in 2004.

These rules impose an alternative tax regime on expatriates' income and estate for 10 years after they give up U.S. citizenship if their income and/or past income tax liability at the time of expatriation meet certain thresholds.  Currently, the rules come into effect for expatriates with an estate larger than US$2 million or who paid more than an average of US$136,000 in income tax for the five-year period preceding expatriation.  They apply to the net combined amount of U.S. source income and income "effectively connected" with a U.S. trade or business, along with several other sources of income.

Various proposals before Congress would tighten these rules, most notably by imposing an "exit tax" on the unrealized gains of an expatriate's worldwide estate, including assets in retirement and pension plans.  (Click here to learn more about this Draconian proposal.)

While careful planning is essential, it's relatively easy to avoid U.S. taxes for the 10 years after giving up U.S. citizenship, should you be subject to the alternative tax regime.  The most important precaution is to avoid U.S. source income—although U.S. source income under the anti-expatriation regime has a wider scope than elsewhere in the Tax Code.  It's also possible to avoid tax on gains from certain types of U.S. assets by postponing their sale until after the 10-year period has elapsed. 

Without careful planning, however, the results can be a catastrophe.  Such was the case of a gentleman I know, a successful entrepreneur with a billion-dollar business, who has lived outside the United States for over a decade.  He recently gave up his U.S. citizenship, and not only wound up paying millions of dollars in unnecessary taxes, but also found himself on the Transportation Safety Authority's (TSA) "no-fly list." 

This individual—a long-time and vocal critic of U.S. economic, political, and military policy—has been a thorn in the side of the US government for decades.  And many such critics have found themselves mysteriously on the no-fly list.  I have no way of proving it, but I suspect that the circumstances surrounding my billionaire acquaintance's expatriation may have upset enough high-level government officials to result in his current classification as a suspected terrorist.

It's a sad commentary on the United States when it stoops to such petty means to punish someone whose only "crime" was to take perfectly legal steps to end his permanent obligation to pay U.S. tax.  And it will be sadder still when the exit tax, which enjoys overwhelming support in both the House and Senate, effectively slams the door shut for those considering following his example.

(Click here for more information on expatriation, and how you might be able to benefit from it.)

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

Think Inflation is Bad Now? Just Wait Until this Radical Proposal Takes Effect

Quietly and with scarcely a whisper in the press, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency (CBP) has issued a proposed regulation that could lead to huge tax increases on just about everything imported into the United States.

Naturally, importers don’t really pay this tax…they merely pass the increased costs onto consumers, in the form of higher prices.

The proposed regulation would eliminate the so-called “first-sale rule.”  Under the rule, the value of imported goods for customs' purpose is based on the value of the first sale of multiple sales involving multiple parties.   And example might be a sale from a foreign manufacturer to a foreign distributor who then resells the goods to a U.S. buyer.

The CDP wants to change this value to the sale price between the distributor and the U.S. buyer—the last sale.  Naturally, this price is significantly closer to the retail value of whatever goods are eventually sold.  And that translates into much higher import duties.

Blame the World Trade Organization (WTO).  Its “Technical Committee on Customs Valuation” chose last sale over first sale, most likely to appease governments reluctant to join the WTO for fear of decreased customs’ duties.  And the CDP says it’s only doing what it’s obligated to do under U.S. treaty obligations.

Apparently, it’s not enough that Americans are already paying much higher prices for imported oil, and for all goods or services affected by skyrocketing oil prices.  It’s not enough that the collapse of the U.S. dollar has resulted in much higher prices for all imported goods.  If these rules become effective, count on much higher process for imported clothing, shoes, and baggage, among other goods. 

Fortunately, these rules won’t take effect without a fight.  More than 90 business and trade groups have petitioned the CBP to scrap or modify the proposal.  If they’re unable to bring the CDP around to their thinking, a court challenge is likely.

One thing’s for sure: we don’t need more inflation in the U.S. economy.  The CDP proposal is the wrong suggestion at the wrong time.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

Fingering Big Government's (and Big Businesses') Obsession with Fingerprinting

Could you be forced to submit your fingerprints for the offense of "driving while Latino?"  To apply for a job?  Or even as a condition to enter a Disney theme park? 

If you live in the United States, the answer is "yes."  And that's got me pointing my finger at some serious problems with these developments. 

Last night I had dinner with some friends here in Phoenix.  One of my friends—I'll call her Mary—has a friend named Roberto. 

Roberto is a native-born American, but comes from a Hispanic family.  And he received the shock of his life a few days ago when sheriff's deputies in Maricopa County, Arizona pulled him over while he was driving.

Roberto wasn't intoxicated or driving erratically.  In fact, it appears the reason he was pulled over—and detained for nearly an hour—was because he has a Hispanic appearance.

During the encounter, the deputies grilled Roberto about his immigration status.  They didn't believe his claims that he was a native-born U.S. citizen.  To add insult to injury, the deputies fingerprinted him.  Not subjecting to fingerprinting, they told him, would subject him to arrest. 

Maricopa County is hardly alone in this regard.  Police in Hawaii, Kansas, New York, Wisconsin, and perhaps other state as well, now routinely scan fingerprints when they stop motorists for traffic infractions.  At the same time, the FBI is investing US$1 billion in a national database that will combine fingerprint data with retinal scans, and even tattoos.

What's more, if you want to apply for a job, you may have to submit your fingerprints along with your job application.  Both state and federal laws now require fingerprinting for many types of jobs, particularly those involving contact with children, security, or with large sums of money.

But what really makes my finger wag is a policy instituted in 2006 at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida.  To enter the "Magic Kingdom," you must now submit to a fingerprint scan.  This is to prevent you from sharing or re-selling your admission tickets. 

However, as with many other surveillance technologies, fingerprinting is in many cases essentially "security theater."  The FBI claims a "zero error rate" in its fingerprint identification.  But that's simply not true. 

One problem is false matches.  A false match on a fingerprint left on a bag linked to a 2004 bombing in Spain that left 191 dead led to the arrest and detention of Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield.  After Mayfield spend two weeks in jail, prosecutors finally released him after realizing that "zero error rate" doesn't necessarily mean, well, "zero error rate."

Fingerprint readers can also be spoofed.  In 2005, Japanese cryptographer Tsutomu Matsumoto designed a system to trick biometric fingerprint readers.  Matsumoto's system involves duplicating an actual fingerprint through digital photo editing software and other advanced technology.  His design apparently fools fingerprint readers about 80% of the time. 

In other words, in the not-distant future, someone could hack the FBI biometric database, steal your fingerprints, duplicate them using Matsumoto's techniques or even more advanced methods, and then leave them at the scene of various crimes.  Guess who would be arrested? 

What routine fingerprinting is effective for is conditioning all of us to accept surveillance and routine searches and identity checks as a routine part of life.  And that has me pointing my finger…skyward.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann

Government Stings: Don't Get Stung

Could you be arrested for stomping your foot in a restroom?  Prosecuted for accepting "hot money?"  Or imprisoned for clicking your mouse on a hyperlink that pops up in your Internet browser?

If you live in the United States, the answer is yes.  Welcome to the world of government stings. 

Former Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) is only one of the most familiar victims of a government sting.  Last year, Craig visited a men's room at the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.  There, according to the report of an undercover male police officer, he stomped his foot, rubbed his fingers together, and made other gestures that supposedly indicated he wanted to have sex with the officer. 

That was sufficient evidence for the officer to arrest Craig for disorderly conduct and "peeping."  Not long afterward, Craig resigned from the Senate.

How else might you become lured into an undercover sting operation?  Lots of ways.  Take money laundering, for instance. 

Let's say you work in a bank.  One day, an undercover officer approaches you and says he needs to take care of some "hot money."  The implication is that the funds were generated illegally.  If you accept the money--or even permit the officer to put it in a safety deposit box--you could be convicted of money laundering.

You don't need to know where the money came from.  All you need to know is that it came from, or was represented by an undercover investigator to come from, some form of illegal activity.   That makes undercover laundering sting operations a lucrative source of criminal convictions. 

What's more, all property "involved in" a laundering offense is subject to civil or criminal forfeiture.  Since the bulk of forfeited monies generally remain with whatever agency seized them, the incentives for abusive stings are immense.

A textbook example was the 1999 conviction of Esperanza de Saad, a South Florida banker who was the target of a money-laundering sting.  In setting aside his conviction, a judge ruled that an undercover informant who testified against de Saad never represented that the funds he was seeking to "launder" were the proceeds of illegal activity.

Increasingly, government stings occur in cyberspace.  Click on the wrong hyperlink, and you could go to jail.

Undercover FBI agents now routinely post links in online discussion forums, social networking Websites, and elsewhere purporting to depict minors having sex.  If you click on the link, and the FBI can trace your Internet connection, you can expect arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment for attempted possession of child pornography.

That's what happened to Roderick Vosburgh, a doctoral student at Temple University.  Vosburgh allegedly clicked on a FBI hyperlink that pointed to child porn videos.  Vosburgh, who has no prior criminal record, now faces a 10-year prison sentence.  Upon his release, he must register as a sex offender.

Some may defend government stings aimed against persons who might be predisposed to download child pornography as necessary to protect children from sexual predators.  But here's the scary part: using the same logic and legal reasoning, the FBI could send billions of unsolicited spam emails advertising illegal drugs, weapons of mass destruction, or anything else that's illegal.  Respond to the e-mail message in any way, and you just might be in for an extended visit at Club Fed.

How can you protect yourself?  Don't stomp your foot in a men's public restroom.  Don't accept or otherwise deal with money that has a dubious origin.  And be very, very careful of where you surf on the Internet. 

For hundreds more suggestions on how to protect your privacy and property, click here.

Copyright © 2008 by Mark Nestmann