Crypto-anonymity greases HUMINT intelligence flows

[Meyer Wolfsheim]

[This is becoming a rat-hole, and I'm not interested getting too far into
it. I think most of you understand my point.]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Jim Choate wrote:

> > Different societies have different definitions of evil; some evils are
> > hard to justify by any means, however.
>
> They people engaging in them certainly felt justified. Whether you agree
> or not is really a different question. It also demonstrates the
> relativity of 'good' and 'evil'.

Of course.

> If we were for a moment to accept the concept of 'universal evil' then we
> are faced with a simple litmus test. If it is really universal than a
> rock, rabbit, or person will find it equally offensive.
>
> Or are you perhaps suggesting that people are somehow 'universal' (ie
> anthropocentric)...

I am not stating that there is any act of "evil" necessarily offensive to
all societies, past, present, and future. However, I am stating that there
*are* acts of "evil" that are not tolerated by any society currently in
existence. Such boundaries on what actions are permissible is necessary
for the existence of society.

This is not to imply a fixed condition.


-MW-