The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Reese]

Responding to Gil Hamilton, Aimee Farr wrote:

 >So, now, it's...
 >
 >"BlackNet; Case History of a Practically Untraceable System for Buying and
 >Selling Corporate and National Secrets.... to foreign adversaries, and to
 >spur the collapse of governments."
 >
 >Just out of curiosity, how many of you would sign on to a project like that?
 >Would you please post a statement of interest, and detail how you would
 >contribute to such a project?

"Corvette: Only seats two, capable of exceeding the once national speed
limit of 55 mph by a factor of three or more, has no trunk space on par
with other vehicles in the same price range."

"Motorcycle: Offers negligible protection from inclement weather, injuries
sustained by the rider are routinely many orders of magnitude worse than
injuries sustained (if any) for another motor vehicle operator in a more
traditional, four-wheeled vehicle."

But, how many people are interested in these vehicles despite their
obvious limitations?  Should the limitations be emphasized, or are there
other things can and should be said about these vehicles?
Again, technology is no different.

Why do you persist in these worst case scenarios for your descriptions of
Blacknet?  Whatever your reason is, it doesn't wash.  Blacknet could
bring about WWIII and the annihilation of the human race - but so could
too many other things.  Among all the possible reasons to condemn new or
existing tech, because a potential for abuse exists counts as one of the
worst.

Reese