The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot

[Aimee Farr]

Bear wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Aimee Farr wrote:
>
> >It wasn't serious, Mike!
>
> Yes. It is serious.  It is, in fact, dead serious.  Starting with the
> "Sweet spot" discussion, and well into the pissing contest that you
> and Tim seem to have started over it, we've been seeing nothing but
> absolutely dead serious opportunities to get roped in on some thought-
> crime charge or other, a couple of months or a couple of years or a
> decade from now.

Yep.

> I've composed a dozen responses, considered the subpeona and the trial
> that could result from posting each, and wiped them.  There's your
> "chilling effect on political discussion" if you're interested. This
> one, I'm going to post, so I'm being very careful what I say.
>
> For most of the list participants, a simple, direct word:
>
> The focus of the US intel community is shifting, at the current time,
> to "domestic terrorism".  That makes political speech of the kind
> which has in past years been entirely normal on this list orders
> of magnitude more dangerous to the participants than it was at that
> time.  Taking part in this discussion in a style "traditional" for
> this list could be very dangerous.  Remember, one out of every
> fifty Americans is in jail, and if you think you're in the most
> radical two percent of the population, there are implications,
> aren't there?
>
> For Tim:
> Why are you attempting to provoke public discussion about things
> that could get people jailed or worse for discussing them?  It's
> interesting to see you post your "sweet spot" message and then call
> someone *else* an agent provocateur.
>
> For Aimee, a message couched in her own style of bafflegab:

:)

> I both read, and Read, your more oblique communications.  Nice work,
> and fun, but not useful on this list.  You are playing a game where
> the white chips count for houses, and the red chips count for lifetimes.
> Don't ask directly about the blue chips, because you run the risk that
> someone will answer you just as directly.  And *especially* don't ask
> about the markers; you don't have time.  The only way to win this game
> is to be the dealer.  Oh, you may go a ways as the dealer's moll, but
> I'm talking about winning, not just amusing yourself.  Look out for
> confusing mirrors; some of the players may have looked into your hand
> and seen their own.  Be careful not to make the same mistake.

You have good eyes, Bear.

I'll be a good girl from now on. I just watched Hannibal: the brain scene.

"Quid pro quo, Clarice...quid pro quo....." *shiver* ....reminds me of
somebody in here.

> Now, I shan't be participating in the rest of this thread, I don't
> think.  Instead, I shall spend my time writing code.  Code which I
> do not intend to release in a form traceable back to me.  I encourage
> those who can, to do the same.
>
> 				Bear

I support strong crypto. Again, I find Steele's arguments persuasive and
legitimate.

~Aimee