Reese wrote:
This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :)
Owning a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime. Driving a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime. Exceeding the speed limit is a crime and is a ticketable offense, at the least.
Mechanisms to maintain privacy and anonymity are no different, use of
Damn it, Reese, I didn't say that. Can anybody here read between the lines? Helloooo? *echo-echo-echo*
those same mechanisms to commit crime is not a death knell for those mechanisms just as manufacturers do not stop producing and selling vehicles that are capable of exceeding the speed limit, even though some people do speed and are ticketed or given warnings, at least.
You are entirely too smug and happy, at the thought of these various mechanisms useful for preserving privacy and anonymity going the way of the dodo.
That is not my attitude at all, Reese. I obviously like Tim's Blacknet. However, I don't like it being characterized as a subversive tool, and damn sure not in terms that might indicate a criminal conspiracy for shopping out secrets to Libya.
Tim may be correct, in his assessment on your deserving what you receive.
Oh, Noooooo!!!!!
think of people selling their expertise when some guild says they are forbidden to.
I talked about this before, as an OSINT channel for the U.S. Government.
o BlackNet has legitimate intelligence applications.
It also has legitimate applicability for Joe Sixpack and Suzy Winecooler, who don't want a zillion ads and cookies clogging their bandwidth and cache, who don't want targetted ads or their surfing habits tracked and monitored, who certainly don't want their health insurance premiums to go up after they do research on some rare, incurable disease they are mildly curious about or after researching a more common ailment when a friend happens to be diagnosed - to lean on those old standbys.
No shit.
o Anonymity can be a problem. You need authentication. You would like blinded biometrics.
The maintenance of privacy can be a problem, from a marketers POV, other things can be viewed as problems too, when the end consumer has proper control of self-identifying information. If the money is good, that level of authentication can be conducted in meatspace if it is truly needed - most times, it is not.
Again, I was speaking within the confines of a very limited application where authentication can be rather critical.
o I would think the ROI would be where you can shoehorn into existing intelligence channels and groundwork. That's either a sovereign, an intermediary wrapped in the skirts of a sovereign, a defense contractor, or an untouchable intermediary. If not bona-fide intelligence, you're left with the criminal element, IRA and so forth.
You leave many possible things out, you present a false summation of all the possible uses of Blacknet and maintenance of anonymity.
As I stated, I was examining it in the context of an _intelligence application_. I wonder if that's a good contract, but obviously not....why do I even bother? *sigh*
Most move product and still have distribution channels. Yeah, the IRA would like digital cash, they are buying arms with offshore debit cards.
This event by people acting criminally in another country (according to the rules imposed by past-rulers of that other country, heh) should be used to shape and mold US domestic policy and legislation for the care and feeding of US citizen-units how, exactly?
I was merely pointing out that people that crypto does not "beam" product. Solve the ship-submarine ditching problem if you want to help that scum.
o It seems like _damn bad timing_ for a discussion in this context.
Bad timing? Who is disadvantaged by the timing of this discussion? Your handler said to slow the conversation down while they run some numbers and gets some surveillance in place, or something?
They've caught on to our "slow-the-conversation" tactic!! Oh, whatever shall we do now? *slap to side of face* "Run some numbers?" What? I flag posts in here that might qualify for Title I interceptions. This month is looking to be a record-breaker. Excuse me, my "handlers" are calling.....Sorry, I'm not allowed to talk about this.
This should be couched in terms of a beneficial application, rather than something subversive.
Principle is like that. You don't like what others have to say? You should remove your own right to freedom of speech, before you attempt to censor others. (Good luck, once you've effectively removed your own right to free speech, on censoring anyone else).
Damnit, I'm not censoring anybody. I believe in the First Amendment. It's such a good source of intelligence and so often leads to probable cause. *kidding*
As a lawyer, you know or should know that most (if not all) of the most significant constitutional rights cases to be heard by the courts have involved criminals and other undesirables and unlikelies who pushed the edge of the envelope in their own defense. Just because I have a dislike for Charles Manson, does not mean I support movements to suspend all the rights affirmed under the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and other of the various Amendments we collectively refer to as the Bill of Rights, for example.
*applause*
It's like the fall of Knights Templar in here. What happened to the pilgrims' safe passage?
When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it probably isn't a pilgrim.
Real ducks neither quack nor waddle, Reese. I'm going to go outside now, and talk to snails. ~Aimee
At 01:02 8/28/2001 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
Reese wrote:
This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :)
Owning a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime. Driving a vehicle that will exceed the speed limit is not a crime. Exceeding the speed limit is a crime and is a ticketable offense, at the least.
Mechanisms to maintain privacy and anonymity are no different, use of
Damn it, Reese, I didn't say that.
Yes, you did. Or are you now saying that what you said and what you meant are not one and the same?
Can anybody here read between the lines? Helloooo? *echo-echo-echo*
Too many things have gone away under the banner of "saving the children" and there are many more things on the chopping block, either with that, or with some similar FUD as the overarching mantra keeping them there. Do you deny that you presented criminal use of technology as a vehicle leading to and excuse for the dismantling of that technology? I'm saying that the technology should be maintained even though the potential for abuse exists, instead of being all touchy-feely about it dismantling it because the potential for abuse exists. I don't want a nerfy world with big brother or big sister making everything warm, friendly and safe.
You are entirely too smug and happy, at the thought of these various mechanisms useful for preserving privacy and anonymity going the way of the dodo.
That is not my attitude at all, Reese. I obviously like Tim's Blacknet. However, I don't like it being characterized as a subversive tool, and damn sure not in terms that might indicate a criminal conspiracy for shopping out secrets to Libya.
What does this paragraph mean then? >Your idea does seem to offer promise as a vehicle for treason, >espionage, trade secrets, malicious mischief, piracy, bribery >of public officials, concealment of assets, transmission of >wagering information, murder for hire, threatening or retaliating >against Federal officials, a transactional environment for nuclear >and biologic weapons, narcotic and arms trafficking....sweet spots. >*shakes head* > >This is not legal advice. It's an obituary. :) And what is that smiley on the end all about?
It's like the fall of Knights Templar in here. What happened to the pilgrims' safe passage?
When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it probably isn't a pilgrim.
Real ducks neither quack nor waddle, Reese.
Which says nothing about ducks not passing for pilgrims.
I'm going to go outside now, and talk to snails.
~Aimee
At 01:02 AM 8/28/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
That is not my attitude at all, Reese. I obviously like Tim's Blacknet. However, I don't like it being characterized as a subversive tool, and damn sure not in terms that might indicate a criminal conspiracy for shopping out secrets to Libya.
The point is, if its not *good enough* for taboo activity, its not good enough for everyday uses. And of course, tools are neutral; the knife OJ dressed his ex with was not an 'evil' piece of metal. Neither are guns. As metalsmiths, we might regret how we make it easier to slice members of our species, much as as technologists we might regret that nets+crypto makes some copyright unenforcable, or how networked boxes have an unintended side-effect of lessening privacy. As the first metalsmiths might have observed, no matter the pros and cons of this development, its out there, its possible, folks will be competing to refine it, so get used to it. You can always write a tome afterwards like Albert Hoffman's "My Problem Child" if you need to explain later. That being said, if you object to dark 'marketing' on a personal level, well, sure, but that's merely your personal taste.
At 01:02 AM 8/28/01 -0500, Aimee Farr wrote:
That is not my attitude at all, Reese. I obviously like Tim's Blacknet. However, I don't like it being characterized as a subversive tool, and damn sure not in terms that might indicate a criminal conspiracy for shopping out secrets to Libya.
The point is, if its not *good enough* for taboo activity, its not good enough for everyday uses.
And of course, tools are neutral; the knife OJ dressed his ex with was not an 'evil' piece of metal. Neither are guns.
As metalsmiths, we might regret how we make it easier to slice members of our species, much as as technologists we might regret that nets+crypto makes some copyright unenforcable, or how networked boxes have an unintended side-effect of lessening privacy.
As the first metalsmiths might have observed, no matter the pros and cons of this development, its out there, its possible, folks will be competing to refine it, so get used to it.
You can always write a tome afterwards like Albert Hoffman's "My Problem Child" if you need to explain later.
That being said, if you object to dark 'marketing' on a personal level, well, sure, but that's merely your personal taste.
Tim makes me think that "BlackNet" is already fielded. If not, why not? After all, it's been around since 1992-3. (Now, if Tim had buyer-interest, that would make me think differently about BlackNet.) ~Aimee
-- Reese
You [Aimee Farr]are entirely too smug and happy, at the thought of these various mechanisms useful for preserving privacy and anonymity going the way of the dodo.
Aimee Farr
That is not my attitude at all, Reese.
It is your attitude. You keep telling us privacy is illegal. Most highly profitable uses of privacy are illegal somewhere, but they are never illegal everywhere. If you had your way we would all be obeying all US law, including those seldom or never enforced, or only enforced against black people and political subversives, all french laws, all Iranian laws, etc. Concerning your example of the IRA -- I recollect that for a long time the US government allowed IRA fundraising, and use of the US banking system for transfers to the IRA. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG LnyQwbLjSabEa0Lh4Qp314B6OXVNHjgvV/V5Hg5j 4ZtCxKVTkBd+heS8NdJoqew13kDVoqFasM3tTo/Qb
At 10:03 AM 08/30/2001 -0700, jamesd@echeque.com wrote:
Concerning your example of the IRA -- I recollect that for a long time the US government allowed IRA fundraising, and use of the US banking system for transfers to the IRA.
It wasn't that the US government _allowed_ IRA fundraising, except in that the First Amendment protects such things. For a long time, the US Government hadn't banned it, though a couple of years ago Congress passed a law allowing the President to declare specific organizations to be Offical Terrorists and ban fundraising activities by or for them. I don't remember if the IRA is on the enemies list, but Hizbollah.org is.
participants (5)
-
Aimee Farr -
Bill Stewart -
David Honig -
jamesd＠echeque.com -
Reese