From: lward@husc11.harvard.edu (Lester Ward)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.misc
Subject: Re: A Shadowrun Question (both 1st and 2nd ed.)
Date: 10 Jan 93 08:03:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc.lward.726653020

by670@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Marc-Eivind Cruz Evensen) writes:
>On SINs and SINless...
>    The rules are truly unclear on this point, being SINless seems to be 
>important somehow, but it also appears that having a SIN is essential to
>functioning within the normal bound of society at any level. Who knows?

SINs would be almost entirely irrelevant if it weren't for one important
fact: money in Seattle is all electronic.  No cash (and even certified 
sticks have to come from somewhere).  This means that you need a bank
account to buy anything.  And guess what?  You can't get one without a
SIN.  This creates a problem for those who wish to break laws and upset
corps: you can be ttaced.  A list of credit transfers is better than a
trail of breadcrumbs.

You can usually trust that any fixer of some rep will launder his transfers
so this can sometimes save you, but remember that a fixer is laundering his
funds to save his ass, not yours.  If, for example, your records are altered
so that those funds you gave a fixer for the grenades look like they were
given to a newsstand in Belgrade, it may look a bit odd if you, for example,
haven't been to Belgrade recently (i.e. don't have a record of buying one).
This is  secondary way to catch tax evasion.  (I know, I know, "ooo, real
scary", but if they taxman can't find you, he may just cut off your funds,
and that could be a problem.)

Another problem is that without a SIN, you'll probably find things like
medical care, housing, education, and even stuff like cable impossible to
get legally.  Not to mention a job.

>On helicopter flights...
>    Even now, helicopter (I'm told) are not required to file flight plans.
>As mentioned in another post, the police would be idiots to try and ground
>all the high-tech hardware in the air on a given night, better to let them 
>shoot each other down. Of course, if someone open fire in general, they
>might be obliged to take some sort of action.

I basically agree with this.  The number of helicopters that are in the air
to do violence is probably pretty small compared to how much air traffic there
is.  What I'd do is say that there is no real monitoring of air traffic
over cities, but certain guidelines exist:

o  Absolutely no traffic for a certain number of kilometers around an airport
   without filing a plan with the airport.  The rationale here is that airports
   need to keep approaches to the runways free at all times, and may need to
   clear airspace for holding patterns.

o  All other times (save takeoff and landing) there are mandated altitudes for
   various types of vehicles and/or various headings.  For example, from 500
   to 600 feet is reserved for zepplins.  700-800 is reserved for helicopters
   on a heading of 0 degrees (plus or minus 20).  And so on.  The basically
   creates lanes vertically in the air.  Police would have there own lane.

o  All aircraft must have a device dedicates to detecting when someone is
   taking off or landing near then (i.e. changing lanes).  This would likely
   be a system which would broadcast a short-range radio signal saying "I
   am landing" and a dedicated radio scanner that would pick up such a signal.

In practice, most of these laws would only be enforced after the fact, for
example, fining a pilot after a mid-air collision.  Basically, if everyone
follows the rules (oh, hey, Kant) then no one dies in the air.
   
Wordman

"My dear heretic,
 You're never lacking in sentiment"
  -- Mary's Danish