Crypto-anonymity greases HUMINT intelligence flows

[Meyer Wolfsheim]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Sandy Sandfort wrote:

> Meyer Wolfsheim wrote:

> > What's the cost/benefit here?
> >
> > How much potential profit would be
> > necessary for a crime like this to
> > occur with profit as the only motive?
>
> I have NO IDEA what this strange post has to do with the original question.

It's only tangentally related.

> I'm a libertarian.  As such, I see no problem in doing well by doing good.
> Just because I would jump at $5 million (plus Witness Relocation) to finger
> Bin Laden does not mean I would do something evil for that amount or more.

My apologies; I never meant that as the implication. I highly doubt that
you, or most people, would ever be capable of evil on 1/10th the scale of
this attack.

However, if you assume lack of conscience and moral indifference, this
does become a cost/benefit situation. What if one owned a large amount of
stock in Visage Technology[1]? What if one had embezzed a large sum from
Morgan Stanley, and needed a diversion? Or one simply wanted to manipulate
the stock market?

One of the problems with capital punishment is that it isn't much of a
deterrant, except to the Christians who believe in Hell.

If one could increase his wealth exponentially, and did not care about
other human life, would the potential benefit be worth the risk? You can
only be executed once.

Americans will do everything they can not to believe that this could have
been a domestic action. We want to blame the "sand-niggers" and the
"rag-heads." The fact that this could have been a sociopath with the
ultimate get-rich quick scheme is unthinkable.[2]


-MW-

[1] http://www.techreview.com/screaming/article.asp?SMContentIndex=3

[2] I'm posing this question as an academic exercise. I think that the
attack was most likely exactly what it appeared: an act of terrorism by a
foreign party.