The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Reese]

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