The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Aimee Farr]

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