131–140 of 218 posts
We live in a surveillance state.. I don't understand why the CIA can't find the leaders of these organizations and slip arsenic in their morning coffees.
The US properly has jurisdiction in Mexico only when necessary to protect Americans, and we seem to not have crossed that threshhold.
Should we invest serious funds (billions) into creating a 1) legal drug which is 2) not addictive, and 3) far more superior than weed, cocaine, heroine, and all the other drugs.
If it was that good it would be addicting regardless of any physical effects.
Why are the majority of the comments here blaming the victim? This is the death if a person who tried to stand against an overwhelming force. To try and stand against the cartels where the police didn't dare and instead of honouring her work or get death you mock her for not using tor. If you seriously think that lack of cybersecurity is the problem then at least use this to highlight the lack of good easy to use sec…
>Why are the majority of the comments here blaming the victim? I am tired of this sentiment. It is not necessarily incorrect to ascribe partial blame to someone just because they got the short end of the stick in some situation. Being a victim does not automatically preclude one from being at fault. For example, if I jump off a cliff without a parachute, it is clearly reasonable to blame me despite the fact that I am…
We live in a surveillance state.. I don't understand why the CIA can't find the leaders of these organizations and slip arsenic in their morning coffees.
The US should not play world police. The US properly has jurisdiction in Mexico only when necessary to protect Americans, and we seem to not have crossed that threshhold.
Wait, what? Does Mexico have jurisdiction in the US when necessary to protect Mexicans?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, drug consumers can stop purchasing drugs that you know that involve the cartels. But most people that talk about the "War on Drugs" would rather blame the US drug policies instead, rather than the own up to the fact that they are contributing to the problem. I would also like to point out that legalizing drugs would not solve the problem. The problem is corruption, not the drugs themselves. Look at Miami in the…
> If drugs are legalized tomorrow, what do you think would happen? If I were the cartels, I would continue selling my product, this time legal (similar to how companies are outsourcing to China..drug companies will outsource to Mexico). My power would continue or increase, because I could just buy off any cop and/or government official and the violence would continue (ruling by fear). So, why don't farmers do this? T…
It may be a step along a longer path. Even if it is the only step we end up taking along that path, it will still have been worthwhile step to take.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Fix the corruption..and you fix the cartel issue. You have the cause and effect inverted. Everyone has a price. The reason there is so much corruption in Mexico is that we've made corruption so profitable. > If I were the cartels, I would continue selling my product, this time legal (similar to how companies are outsourcing to China..drug companies will outsource to Mexico). My power would continue or increase, bec…
> Tax evasion is a felony. The cost of continually having your employees arrested and assets seized can easily exceed the cost of just paying the taxes (which is kind of the idea). You do realize that the Drug Cartels are committing crimes far far worse than tax evasion, right? And there have been no repercussions for them. By suddenly charging them with tax evasion, do you think they'll be stopped?
Let's try to explain this with math. Suppose X amount of drugs has a market price of $100 and of that, $20 is the actual production cost and $80 is the amortized cost of law enforcement occasionally arresting you and seizing your drugs (and the various measures to attempt to prevent that).
Tomorrow we legalize drugs and impose a $60 tax. Joe Farmer in Iowa plants a field full of marijuana and starts selling it for $85 after taxes, keeping a $5 profit after the $20 cost and $60 tax. The drug cartel now has to hit an $85 price point to compete but they need to charge $100 to justify the costs of breaking the law, so they're out of business.
We've created a monster with the War on Drugs. It will only get worse unless we reverse course. Unless we do, the violence/terrorism on the border could increase dramatically. We have a historical model in alcohol prohibition and know what it does and what happens after. We blame Mexico, Central and South America for much of this but policies and our actions there are creating these black markets where only criminals…
Well, drug consumers can stop purchasing drugs that you know that involve the cartels. But most people that talk about the "War on Drugs" would rather blame the US drug policies instead, rather than the own up to the fact that they are contributing to the problem. I would also like to point out that legalizing drugs would not solve the problem. The problem is corruption, not the drugs themselves. Look at Miami in the…
That is not a reasonable strategy to reduce the power of cartels. Not that I disagree with you. But it's not a reasonable strategy.
> I would also like to point out that legalizing drugs would not solve the problem. The problem is corruption, not the drugs themselves. Look at Miami in the 1970s. It was a war zone, just like Mexico is today. The reason is because you could buy off any cop or government official in the city (check out the documentary "Cocaine Cowboys" for some real news footage from the time).
> If drugs are legalized tomorrow, what do you think would happen? If I were the cartels, I would continue selling my product, this time legal (similar to how companies are outsourcing to China..drug companies will outsource to Mexico). My power would continue or increase, because I could just buy off any cop and/or government official and the violence would continue (ruling by fear).
Can you explain why no cartels have stopped producing illegal drugs, and started producing, say, quinoa, corn, and wheat instead? If legalization would have no effect on their profits, why do they choose to specialize in illegal markets like drugs and gun-running?
Look, after legalization, cartels would suddenly face a huge amount of competition from companies that don't burn large amounts of cash fighting wars, which are generally quite expensive. Ordinary agricultural production is not generally associated with beheadings, torture, and assassinations. This is not because producers of quinoa are inherently virtuous, but because the incentives faced by black market "companies" are extremely atypical.
> Please..just stop the fucking dishonesty and I might support your cause.
I agree that the legalization of MMJ was to some extent a dishonest attempt to get de facto legalization (successfully, I might add). But it is entirely irrational to base your support for a policy on the actions of some proponents of that policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the epilogue one of his books (maybe "the drowned and the saved"?), Auschwitz survivor Primo Levi describes giving a talk to a group of schoolchildren. One boy asked him to describe the layout of the camp, and then described how he would have escaped if he had been in Auschwitz. Nothing Primo Levi could say would convince the boy that escape was impossible. Now I'm not saying that it was impossible for this citize…
Snowden made this point at HOPE X - crypto is not going to obviate having some stones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thank you for not reading my post: https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/hotsec08/tech/full_paper...
It's still quite naive to think that if this were common practice that the torturers would not torture you until they were convinced that you gave them the _real_ password. Or they might give you the option of giving the real password the first time and make whatever final decision the "quick" or "painless" version rather than the long, drawn-out, most painful version.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And much of the blame lies with you and I for not shouldering some of the risk and uniting with her to be a stronger large force against the murderers. Someone who can prevent their own misfortune by taking known steps yet doesn't take them is exhibiting behavior deserving of criticism. Finding someone else to blame doesn't change that, so what point are you trying to make by finding even more people to blame?
>Someone who can prevent their own misfortune by taking known steps yet doesn't take them is exhibiting behavior deserving of criticism. It is infuriating to me that you would suggest that it is this woman's fault for being murdered. So she's supposed to have a working knowledge of crypto despite being a working woman (in a non-computer related field) in a 2nd world country OR just shut up about rampant murder and ki…
Every time something like this happens, someone posts a comment to the effect of "should have used Tor" and then someone else posts a comment criticizing that comment as victim blaming.
Now suppose we listen to the latter group and everyone stops making the first comment. The idea that victims can protect themselves, and the mentioning of specific methods by which they can do so, disappears from the discourse. Anyone reading this article because they're in a similar situation to the subject never discovers that information. In what kind of world is that a good thing?